• Pentagon Announces First-Ever Audit Of The Department Of Defense
    50 replies, posted
[QUOTE=SKEEA;52965107]I can already tell that they're not gonna like what they find. The amount of waste that goes on in the military defies belief.[/QUOTE] We would save so much if they'd just drop the "you have to use a certain amount of X, or you get less next fiscal year" policy. So much fuel burned just running vehicles up and down the highway for "driver's training", so much ammo blasted into the backstop to burn off 70% of what was issued by the ASP, and so on. It's wasteful as fuck and it serves no purpose that I can discern. Whoever came up with it deserves to be spartan-kicked out of a flying Chinook.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;52965351]We would save so much if they'd just drop the "you have to use a certain amount of X, or you get less next fiscal year" policy.[/QUOTE] Even my school did this, they bought flatscreen TV's for the school cafeteria in the late 2000's. When I asked a staff member why they did that instead of one of the many upgrades the school needed. I was told that they didn't have enough money for the upgrades they needed, but if they had anything left in the budget at the end of the year they would recieve a budget cut. So they blew it on mostly frivelous things just to get rid of it so they didn't lose their budget. If government budgetting didn't work that way, we'd save billions every year.
[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;52962145]This is good news. Wishful thinking, but maybe it'll raise enough hell to convince this Congress or the one in 2018 to reduce the military budget.[/QUOTE] If streamlining government was the goal you wouldn't start with the military. You would start with bloated entitlement programs that cost 2x as much as the military budget. [url]https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/[/url]
[QUOTE=toaster468;52965536]If streamlining government was the goal you wouldn't start with the military. You would start with bloated entitlement programs that cost 2x as much as the military budget. [url]https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/[/url][/QUOTE] Except those programs have economic returns that give them value Some restructuring does need to be done but the entitlement programs can't be cut or reduced whole cloth without serious domestic effects
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52965543]Except those programs have economic returns that give them value Some restructuring does need to be done but the entitlement programs can't be cut or reduced whole cloth without serious domestic effects[/QUOTE] [Citation needed] But seriously, people who depend on social security and welfare have no capital to invest in the economy. I'm not exactly sure how you get value from giving them free money. You could argue that its doing the reverse because that money is mainly coming from rich people. As for the military spending, the founding fathers agreed that we should have a strong government to protect commerce. Shipping in the old days used to be very expensive because of pirates or other bad people. Today thats still a big part of why our navy is so useful, they can prevent blockades in straits in war torn areas and stop piracy.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;52965107]I can already tell that they're not gonna like what they find. The amount of waste that goes on in the military defies belief.[/QUOTE] It's a truly staggering amount. I have family in Korea, and from what I've heard, even just the cost of living allowance is a huge money sink. They get x amount of money from the DoD to cover stuff like rent and utilities, and it usually just gets paid directly to the landlord or real-estate agent who acts as the middleman for Americans and local landlords who don't speak English (Korea also has a weird thing where the entire year's rent is paid up-front in one sum). There's a substantial amount of leeway in the budget though, and AFAIK it tends to be a no-questions-asked sort of thing up to the extent of your COLA allowance, which the landlords and estate agents abuse by charging vastly more for the places they're renting, so you end up with people renting apartments for which a 2,000 dollar monthly rent seems reasonable for the price of like 12k a month or something ridiculous. Someone did some calculations and figured out that the real estate agent - who everyone goes to for housing stuff, and is a trusted figure - has to be making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year off this setup, and that's [I]just one guy at one base.[/I] The "use it or lose it" budgeting system isn't the only problem with the DoD's finances by a long shot.
[QUOTE=toaster468;52965569][Citation needed] But seriously, people who depend on social security and welfare have no capital to invest in the economy. I'm not exactly sure how you get value from giving them free money. You could argue that its doing the reverse because that money is mainly coming from rich people. [/QUOTE] Welfare keeps people alive, thus allowing them to buy things and pay taxes.
[QUOTE=toaster468;52965569][Citation needed] But seriously, people who depend on social security and welfare have no capital to invest in the economy. I'm not exactly sure how you get value from giving them free money. You could argue that its doing the reverse because that money is mainly coming from rich people. As for the military spending, the founding fathers agreed that we should have a strong government to protect commerce. Shipping in the old days used to be very expensive because of pirates or other bad people. Today thats still a big part of why our navy is so useful, they can prevent blockades in straits in war torn areas and stop piracy.[/QUOTE] The rich people get the money back through the people spending at their companies. The economy needs to circulate or else the poor people cant afford to buy shit and it wont grow.
[QUOTE=toaster468;52965569] But seriously, people who depend on social security and welfare have no capital to invest in the economy. I'm not exactly sure how you get value from giving them free money. You could argue that its doing the reverse because that money is mainly coming from rich people.[/quote] A lot of the people on SS are people who paid into it all their working lives, so no. [quote]As for the military spending, the founding fathers agreed that we should have a strong government to protect commerce. Shipping in the old days used to be very expensive because of pirates or other bad people. Today thats still a big part of why our navy is so useful, they can prevent blockades in straits in war torn areas and stop piracy.[/QUOTE] The founding fathers also didn't intend for us to have a standing army because: 1) A standing army can be used by government to oppress the people, and 2) They're fuckin' expensive, yo. And we didn't, right up until after WWII.
[QUOTE=zakedodead;52965626]The rich people get the money back through the people spending at their companies. The economy needs to circulate or else the poor people cant afford to buy shit and it wont grow.[/QUOTE] Running your money through a huge bureaucracy is not an efficient way to get people to spend money at your company (remember we are in a thread talking about the waste of the government). And besides, most of that money doesn't come from welfare given to people by the government. The money in the economy circulates just fine without the "help" of socialist/interventionist policies. [editline]10th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Zero-Point;52965648]A lot of the people on SS are people who paid into it all their working lives, so no. [/QUOTE] I'm not sure how them paying for it changes the fact that if they depend on it they probably have no (or an irrelevant amount of) capital to invest. [quote] The founding fathers also didn't intend for us to have a standing army because: 1) A standing army can be used by government to oppress the people, and 2) They're fuckin' expensive, yo. And we didn't, right up until after WWII.[/quote] Yes but the Navy has been around permanently for almost 300 years. And now its a part of the DoD
[QUOTE=toaster468;52965569]As for the military spending, the founding fathers agreed that we should have a strong government to protect commerce. Shipping in the old days used to be very expensive because of pirates or other bad people. Today thats still a big part of why our navy is so useful, they can prevent blockades in straits in war torn areas and stop piracy.[/QUOTE] What does that have to do with anything? People aren't exactly calling for an abolishment of all military spending or do you honestly think the military will suddenly dissolve into nothing if it's budget isn't massively bloated? [editline]10th December 2017[/editline] But yea sure, lets cut social programs to meet your interpretation of the budgetary ideal of guys who've been dead for ~200 years.
[QUOTE=toaster468;52965651]The money in the economy circulates just fine without the "help" of socialist/interventionist policies.[/QUOTE] Does it? I thought the gap between the wealthy and the poor was sky high. Your arguments are reminding me of Gary Cohn [video=youtube;9vCWiheMmzw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vCWiheMmzw[/video]
[QUOTE=Anderan;52965687]What does that have to do with anything? People aren't exactly calling for an abolishment of all military spending or do you honestly think the military will suddenly dissolve into nothing if it's budget isn't massively bloated?[/QUOTE] Read the reply chain, I was making the argument that theres more economic value to keeping the military budget than there is if we kept the current system of entitlement programs.
[QUOTE=toaster468;52965651]Yes but the Navy has been around permanently for almost 300 years. And now its a part of the DoD[/QUOTE] The navy literally had no ships from 1785 until about 1794. The founding fathers sure as shit didn't "agree on a strong central government to protect commerce". It wasn't until the Barbary pirates started raiding the shit out of shipping that they bothered to commission more ships. [editline]10th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=toaster468;52965701]Read the reply chain, I was making the argument that theres more economic value to keeping the military budget than there is if we kept the current system of entitlement programs.[/QUOTE] I read the reply chain, your comment about the founding fathers still has no value and you have yet to provide any evidence to support the notion that a bloated military budget provides more economic value than social programs. One can argue that social programs at least circulate money, albeit inefficiently, but people have already gone over how the military has money that's seemingly disappearing into thin air and thus providing no visible benefit.
[QUOTE=Anderan;52965705]The navy literally had no ships from 1785 until about 1794. The founding fathers sure as shit didn't "agree on a strong central government to protect commerce". It wasn't until the Barbary pirates started raiding the shit out of shipping that they bothered to commission more ships. [/QUOTE] I never said they said that. But Federalist No. 11 made the argument that was the role of the united states government. [quote] I read the reply chain, your comment about the founding fathers still has no value and you have yet to provide any evidence to support the notion that a bloated military budget provides more economic value than social programs. One can argue that social programs at least circulate money, albeit inefficiently, but people have already gone over how the military has money that's seemingly disappearing into thin air and thus providing no visible benefit.[/quote] I didnt really make the claim I was just saying that there IS value to having a military (some amount greater than $0). I can't give a concrete number, but according to the founding fathers, my speculation, and this paper ([URL]https://www.usna.edu/Users/econ/rahman/Papers/Seapower and Trade.pdf[/URL]) I think my case is pretty good. Which this comment said wasn't true: [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52965543]Except those programs have economic returns that give them value Some restructuring does need to be done but the entitlement programs can't be cut or reduced whole cloth without serious domestic effects[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=toaster468;52965749]I never said they said that. But Federalist No. 11 made the argument that was the role of the united states government. I didnt really make the claim I was just saying that there IS value to having a military (some amount greater than $0). I can't give a concrete number, but according to the founding fathers, my speculation, and this paper ([URL]https://www.usna.edu/Users/econ/rahman/Papers/Seapower and Trade.pdf[/URL]) I think my case is pretty good. Which this comment said wasn't true:[/QUOTE] Except HumanAbyss' comment wasn't in any way shape or form saying there's no value in having any military spending. He was saying social programs do have economic returns that give them value. Why in the hell are you arguing "the military does have value" when nobody said it didn't. Also the Federalist Papers were written by 3 individuals so you can stop saying "the founding fathers" as if they were a homogeneous group who all agreed with each other. [editline]10th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=toaster468;52965749]I never said they said that.[/QUOTE] Literally on the last page [QUOTE=toaster468;52965569]As for the military spending, the founding fathers agreed that we should have a strong government to protect commerce..[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Anderan;52965794]Except HumanAbyss' comment wasn't in any way shape or form saying there's no value in having any military spending. He was saying social programs do have economic returns that give them value. [/QUOTE] "Except those programs have economic returns that give them value" a logical interpretation of that sentence is that social welfare programs have value and military spending does not. Now whether or not thats what he truly believes is a different issue, maybe it was misworded.
[QUOTE=toaster468;52965802]"Except those programs have economic returns that give them value" a logical interpretation of that sentence is that social welfare programs have value and military spending does not. Now whether or not thats what he truly believes is a different issue, maybe it was misworded.[/QUOTE] That's not a logical reading of it that's an assumptive "GOTCHA" based mentality [editline]10th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=toaster468;52965749]I never said they said that. But Federalist No. 11 made the argument that was the role of the united states government. I didnt really make the claim I was just saying that there IS value to having a military (some amount greater than $0). I can't give a concrete number, but according to the founding fathers, my speculation, and this paper ([URL]https://www.usna.edu/Users/econ/rahman/Papers/Seapower and Trade.pdf[/URL]) I think my case is pretty good. Which this comment said wasn't true:[/QUOTE] Basing your whole argument off of an implication you read into that was in no way shape or form expressed isn't you arguing logically guy. The military has economic value. I literally didn't state otherwise. You however did state and have stated the entitlement programs have objectively less value and there's no capital to invest there which is not what anyone is talking about when they talk about entitlement programs It really seems like you just hate welfare and don't understand it. Statistically there aren't enough welfare abusers for you to shake a stick at, but that's all you give a shit about
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.