cumplidor 0 #1 June 12, 2008 http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/11/fema.giveaway/index.html QuoteFEMA was spending more than $1 million a year to store the material and that another agency wanted the warehouses torn down, so "we needed to vacate them." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #2 June 12, 2008 Quotehttp://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/11/fema.giveaway/index.html QuoteFEMA was spending more than $1 million a year to store the material and that another agency wanted the warehouses torn down, so "we needed to vacate them." Wow. Government waste just went up .002%. When you're spending three million million a year, $85M isn't even a rounding error. If you want to get upset you have to look at things like 600,000 million being spent on the military when the next biggest spender gets by on a bit over 1/10th that and some countries our size manage on 1/30th that budget (Canada. They even have oil that we covet) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #3 June 12, 2008 QuoteWow. Government waste just went up .002%. When you're spending three million million a year, $85M isn't even a rounding error. If you want to get upset you have to look at things like 600,000 million being spent on the military when the next biggest spender gets by on a bit over 1/10th that and some countries our size manage on 1/30th that budget (Canada. They even have oil that we covetAre you suggesting that we eliminate the military, or are just suggesting that service men are just not worth what they are being paid? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cumplidor 0 #4 June 12, 2008 QuoteWow. Government waste just went up .002%. That's not really what I wanted to point out. Wasteful spending would have to start with the war in Iraq and the billions 'misplaced' or unaccounted for. The billions 'lost' by the contractors, and the spiking of the story in the states. And 'ol W hollerin' for mo' all the time- No, I thought it was interesting how they uncovered this by wanting to tear down the warehouse it was stored in to build something else. Which I kinda wish I knew what they wanted to destroy a seemingly sound warehouse for. I realize they say they offered the supplies to LA and other agencies and was refused, but that seems rather odd too? Like a cover statement? Maybe not. Too much corruption in govt to catch it all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #5 June 12, 2008 Quote Quote Wow. Government waste just went up .002%. When you're spending three million million a year, $85M isn't even a rounding error. If you want to get upset you have to look at things like 600,000 million being spent on the military when the next biggest spender gets by on a bit over 1/10th that and some countries our size manage on 1/30th that budget (Canada. They even have oil that we covet Are you suggesting that we eliminate the military, or are just suggesting that service men are just not worth what they are being paid? Someone else who hits "post" without reading what was written.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,133 #6 June 12, 2008 >Are you suggesting that we eliminate the military, or are just >suggesting that service men are just not worth what they are being paid? We'll put Royd in the category of "favors more government spending," then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #7 June 12, 2008 QuoteWow. Government waste just went up .002%. When you're spending three million million a year, $85M isn't even a rounding error. If you want to get upset you have to look at things like 600,000 million being spent on the military... So you're saying that we shouldn't concern ourselves with any waste that is less than $600 billion per year? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #8 June 12, 2008 QuoteAre you suggesting that we eliminate the military, or are just suggesting that service men are just not worth what they are being paid? I'm suggesting we trim back the military's size to what we need to defend a country of this size while keeping wages in line with what other first-world countries pay their soldiers. Canada has similar labor costs and square mileage, but seems to do fine on $20 billion a year (spending went way up in the years following 9/11). That's probably a lower limit. Maybe we need to spend twice that because we have populated countries on two borders instead of one. Heck, even spending only half the world's total military budget would save us 100,000 million a year. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #9 June 12, 2008 QuoteQuoteWow. Government waste just went up .002%. When you're spending three million million a year, $85M isn't even a rounding error. If you want to get upset you have to look at things like 600,000 million being spent on the military... So you're saying that we shouldn't concern ourselves with any waste that is less than $600 billion per year? No, but priorities would be good. Most people and media outlets get excited about little problems ($300M on a bridge to no where) while completely ignoring major problems. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #10 June 12, 2008 Quote I'm suggesting we trim back the military's size to what we need to defend a country of this size while keeping wages in line with what other first-world countries pay their soldiers. Heck, even spending only half the world's total military budget would save us 100,000 million a year. Do you mean military size in terms of uniformed and non-uniformed personnal or in terms of major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs)? Or both? Or something else? This week's Defense News has (what I think is) a great quote from F Whitten Peters, who was acting Secretary of the USAF at the end of Pres. Clinton's administration, in its cover story on the (forced) resignation of the USAF Secretary and USAF Chief of Staff, "Beheaded USAF Braces for Change" [requires subscription ... I have hard copy on my desk]: "The reality is that we have too many major defense programs and not enough money to fund them. There has been a lack of political leadership on the defense side in this administration." MDAP spending. Over half of the Defense Department budget goes right back out to the private sector. (No commentary on that being good, bad, or indifferent just information). As a green-uniformed, former colleague once commented, 'the State Dept doesn't have a lobbying base.' The next administration -- whether Republican or Democratic -- is going to be faced with tough choices: Army and Marine field equipment that needs replacing, underfunded intelligence capabilities (DIA, NSA, NRO, NGIA, all 4 service intelligence offices - all DoD agencies), and nuclear stewardship. Will they be responsible and make tough decisions, that will make some folks unhappy (read: major defense contractors & "Beltway bandits")? It may not be a choice. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #11 June 12, 2008 Quote Heck, even spending only half the world's total military budget would save us 100,000 million a year. Do you mean military size in terms of uniformed and non-uniformed personnal or in terms of major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs)? Or both? All of the above. We don't need the man power to defend this country. We don't need MDAPs for new vehicles that are of minimal utility against the guerillas we're most likely to be fighting. Redirecting spending into intelligence might limit the damage they cause (when we can't keep out 500,000 people a year out who mostly want to work menial jobs or millions of pounds of drugs, we're not going to stop people who want to die for their cause with their thousands of pounds of materiel) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
