PDA

View Full Version : Other: [Discretionary Spending] 15% off?




xkit
01-07-2012, 12:42 AM
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

Shows a shoddy JPEG -- not even text that can be copy'n'pasted.

And that JPEG shows 15% off the DOD. But off what, specifically? Where's the breakdown? And where is the breakdown of existing DOD spending?

How much of that spending is DHS? Black ops? Private firms like Halliburton-KBR/blackwater?

ISTM ending all wars would reduce spending by much more than 15%. Please explain why that isn't so.

hillertexas
01-07-2012, 08:05 AM
Q: You would eliminate the Department of Homeland Security?

A: DHS is a monstrous type of bureaucracy. It was supposed to be streamlining our security and itís unmanageable. I mean, just think of the efficiency of FEMA in its efforts to take care of the floods and the hurricanes.

Q: You would eliminate DHS in the midst of a war?

Paul: We should not go to more bureaucracy. It didnít work. We were spending $40 billion on security prior to 9/11, and they had all the information they needed there to deal with the threat, and it was inefficient.
Source: 2007 Republican Debate in South Carolina , May 15, 2007

Maybe you can find a breakdown of existing DOD spending somewhere on the internet.

And welcome to the forum!

Feeding the Abscess
01-07-2012, 08:17 AM
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

Shows a shoddy JPEG -- not even text that can be copy'n'pasted.

And that JPEG shows 15% off the DOD. But off what, specifically? Where's the breakdown? And where is the breakdown of existing DOD spending?

How much of that spending is DHS? Black ops? Private firms like Halliburton-KBR/blackwater?

ISTM ending all wars would reduce spending by much more than 15%. Please explain why that isn't so.

http://original.antiwar.com/engelhardt/2011/03/01/the-real-us-national-security-budget/

Ron cuts from both on and off the books.

xkit
01-07-2012, 10:12 AM
Neither of those replies constitute an acceptable answer. So far, the answer to the question is that there is no answer to what 15% comes from, nor what existing spending is.

The JPEG and the lack of explanation betrays arrogance. Are the public to take politicians at their word? Need they not explain the "complicated" details of their sophisticated plan? Or is that only true of Ron Paul.

EDIT: According to the article "The Real US National Security Budget", states:
"$118 billion to fund military operations in Iraq" Still no breakdown. :-(

Feeding the Abscess
01-07-2012, 04:51 PM
Neither of those replies constitute an acceptable answer. So far, the answer to the question is that there is no answer to what 15% comes from, nor what existing spending is.

The JPEG and the lack of explanation betrays arrogance. Are the public to take politicians at their word? Need they not explain the "complicated" details of their sophisticated plan? Or is that only true of Ron Paul.

EDIT: According to the article "The Real US National Security Budget", states: Still no breakdown. :-(

Those would need to be negotiated and hammered out in Congress, the DoD, etc. It's also not a proper budget; it's a plan that shows a general idea of what he'd like to do in his first year in office. No other candidate offers anything close, so I'm not sure what your beef is here.

The article clearly shows that DoD spending is about half of what our military/security budget actually is. Things like:


The White House has also requested $71.6 billion for a post-2001 category called “homeland security”—of which $18.1 billion is funded through the Department of Defense. The remaining $53.5 billion goes through various other federal accounts, including the Department of Homeland Security ($37 billion), the Department of Health and Human Services ($4.6 billion), and the Department of Justice ($4.6 billion). All of it is, however, national security funding which brings our total to:

The U.S. intelligence budget was technically classified prior to 2007, although at roughly $40 billion annually, it was considered one of the worst-kept secrets in Washington. Since then, as a result of recommendations by the 9/11 Commission, Congress has required that the government reveal the total amount spent on intelligence work related to the National Intelligence Program (NIP).

This work done by federal agencies like the CIA and the National Security Agency consists of keeping an eye on and trying to understand what other nations are doing and thinking, as well as a broad range of “covert operations” such as those being conducted in Pakistan. In this area, we won’t have figures until FY 2012 ends. The latest NIP funding figure we do have is $53.1 billion for FY 2010. There’s little question that the FY 2012 figure will be higher, but let’s be safe and stick with what we know. (Keep in mind that the government spends plenty more on “intelligence.” Additional funds for the Military Intelligence Program [MIP], however, are already included in the Pentagon’s 2012 base budget and war-fighting supplemental, though we don’t know what they are. The FY 2010 funding for MIP, again the latest figure available, was $27 billion.) In any case, add that $53.1 billion and we’re at:

If you include the part of the foreign affairs budget not directly related to U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as other counterterrorism operations, you have an additional $18 billion in direct security spending. Of this, $6.6 billion is for military aid to foreign countries, while almost $2 billion goes for “international peacekeeping” operations. A further $709 million has been designated for countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, combating terrorism, and clearing landmines planted in regional conflicts around the globe. This leaves us at:

Would be completely or mostly eliminated, with further cuts to DHS, DoJ, etc.

xkit
01-08-2012, 12:02 AM
Those would need to be negotiated and hammered out in Congress, the DoD, etc. It's also not a proper budget; it's a plan that shows a general idea of what he'd like to do in his first year in office. No other candidate offers anything close. Ron Paul can only win by a landslide. Voter fraud will help the establishment candidates (Romney, Obama), but only to a certain degree, if it is to be accepted and believed by the voting public.


The article clearly shows that DoD spending is about half of what our military/security budget actually is. Things like:

Forum broken here; nested quote missing. :-(


Would be completely or mostly eliminated, with further cuts to DHS, DoJ, etc.
Nobody should be expected to take anything at face value at this point. A breakdown of the expenditures is warranted. The document should be properly written and published, as any whitepaper, and with the name of the author stated prominently on it. Did Ron Paul make that JPEG himself?

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

Shows various charts and graphs, badly pixelated and not machine-searchable. Unfortunately, those charts and those numbers don't match the numbers in the article you linked. The article you linked claims a figure well over 1.2 trillion dollars/ year and includes things outside of DOD such as the CIA. Why is CIA included in the category of "defense spending"?

In contrast, Ron Paul's JPEG I'm not sure if it even includes CIA. Normally I'd just use the "find" feature to find the text "CIA" but since we have some shoddy JPEG, that ain't possible.