Military Significant Others and Spouse Support - MilitarySOS.com
Page 1 of 9 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 83

Thread: Wtf ($439 billion for 2007 defense budget)

  1. Account Closed
    Rach's Avatar
    Rach is offline
    Account Closed
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    23,957
    #1

    Wtf ($439 billion for 2007 defense budget)

    Advertisements
    Hey, never mind we have poverty, violence, illnesses, teen pregnancy, etc. to be concerned about!

    Oh and how much did Hurricane Katrina get? 60 billion or so right?

    It says in this article, $50 billion will go as a down payment and for 2006 the war total will be $120 billion.

    Read to see where this $439 billion is going


    http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/n...nsebudget.html

    WASHINGTON – President Bush next week will request a $439.3 billion Defense Department budget for 2007, a nearly 5 percent increase over this year, according to senior Pentagon officials and documents obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.

    The spending plan would include $84.2 billion for weapons programs, a nearly 8 percent increase, including billions of dollars for fighter jets, Navy ships, helicopters and unmanned aircraft. The total includes a substantial increase in weapons spending for the Army, which will get $16.8 billion in the 2007 budget, compared with $11 billion this year.

    Advertisement
    Senior defense officials provided the totals on condition of anonymity because the defense budget will not be publicly released until Monday. The figures did not include about $50 billion that Bush administration officials said Thursday they would request as a down payment for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007. The administration said war costs for 2006 would total $120 billion.

    Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld would not provide any details of the budget Thursday but called it appropriate, adding: “We have been able to fund the important things that are needed. It is a sizable amount of money.”

    The budget proposal represents the fifth year in a row that spending on weapons has increased, after years of cutbacks during the 1990s.

    It also provides funding for 42 Army Brigade Combat Teams as part of the ongoing effort to increase the number of combat units from 33. The expansion would allow soldiers to spend two years at their home station for every year they are deployed to a war front.

    Overall, the Army would receive $111.8 billion, including $42.6 billion for personnel. The Army National Guard would receive about $5.25 billion for personnel, and the Army Reserves would receive $3.4 billion.

    The documents say the budget plan will provide the funding needed to win the long war on terror, recruit and retain troops, and continue the transformation to a more agile fighting force for the 21st century.

    The Army's key weapons program, the Future Combat System, will be funded at $2.2 billion, and there will be $583 million to buy nearly 3,100 more heavily armored Humvees. The budget also includes nearly $800 million for 100 Stryker transport vehicles.

    During a speech Thursday, Rumsfeld said the Pentagon is learning to do more with less.

    “We are finding ways to operate that department in ways that are considerably more efficient and more respectful of taxpayers' dollars,” he said. “We are getting much more for the dollar today than we were five years ago.”

    In other budget programs, the Air Force will receive about $2.2 billion for the F-22 fighter – slashing the 2006 total nearly in half. The drop in funding, however, is actually a contract restructuring that would return that money – and more – over the long run by stretching out the program for an additional two years and buying four more planes. The new plan calls for buying 20 aircraft each year in 2008, 2009 and 2010, rather than 56 in the next two years.

    The Navy will receive about $2.5 billion for the next Virginia Class submarine, and there is $360 million in the budget for development of the new CH53K heavy lift helicopter for the Marine Corps.

    Other programs in the budget include:

    –$5.6 billion to support a wide variety of programs to address the multiple needs of military families, including child care, family counseling, tuition assistance and family centers.

    –About $1.8 billion for 81 Army Black Hawk and Navy Hawk helicopters.

    –$1.3 billion for five of the new Joint Strike Fighters.
    Last edited by Rach; 02-02-2006 at 10:29 PM.
  2. Breezy
    Guest
    Breezy's Avatar
    Guest
    #2
    I think they do need to spend more to make sure that as many of those guys are taken care of period. I mean even with the Navy guys they don't have the proper equipment either.
    Maybe I am missing something
  3. Account Closed
    Rach's Avatar
    Rach is offline
    Account Closed
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    23,957
    #3
    I can understand the programs for military families...but I guess I can't understand how they need more guns, helicopters, and what not. Whats wrong w/ what we got? Is it b/c of the war in Iraq?

    I just see it as a waste of all that damn money on shit like that for that war, if thats the case. Meaning, I'm not sure if I can see the war as being worth all this....We've got serious issues going on in our country and these issues are getting worse, not better.

    I don't know. Some days I ride the fence w/ this war and other days I don't. I wish I was apart of that government so I could see w/ my own eyes if there really is truly a point. Sure some of us can say there is a point or the guys that are over there can say that, but what if there's more to the story than what we're all seeing?

    That is just a lot of money with all the issues we have here.
  4. Account Closed
    Rach's Avatar
    Rach is offline
    Account Closed
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    23,957
    #4
    Oh and I understand that we need to replace equipment as it gets older or what not...but again, if this is for the war in Iraq...well, you know how I feel.
  5. MilitarySOS Jewel
    Sophie*'s Avatar
    Sophie* is offline
    MilitarySOS Jewel
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,220
    #5
    I'm not saying that I agree with the budgeting, but they're probably thinking farther in the future than Iraq. Bush has already indicated that he would be prepared to take on Iran and Korea because of their nuclear programs - I think he's just making sure the military are prepared.
  6. Account Closed
    Rach's Avatar
    Rach is offline
    Account Closed
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    23,957
    #6
    True...Didn't consider that.

    Man...I just don't know...That is just a lot of money, you know? I mean, of course I want to be safe! But is it really that necessary for THAT much? If you think about the issues we have here: gangs becoming more popular, people losing their jobs b/c of economy reasons and therfore their families becoming homeless, healthcare costs, etc is it worth that much?
  7. Breezy
    Guest
    Breezy's Avatar
    Guest
    #7
    But all of the Army guys and Marines and the others on the ground need more protection.
    That has been plastered all over the news lately. They are adding new plates to the bullet proof vests etc..
    Some of the weapons are OLD and can not compare to some of the things the "others" are using
    I think if you talk to some of the guys over there then you might understand it a little more.
  8. Account Closed
    Rach's Avatar
    Rach is offline
    Account Closed
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    23,957
    #8
    Sad...this world is one big cluster fuck.

    We keep doing all this shit to each other and yet our own countries suffer but since we're playing with each other, we have to use the money to protect ourselves.

    Sad. It's ironic that we all think we're protecting our countries, but yet our people are dying or suffering. Who are we really trying to protect here? It's selfish reasons, I believe.
  9. Breezy
    Guest
    Breezy's Avatar
    Guest
    #9
    Oh and if you look it up they did a study that proved some high percentage of the Army guys wouldn't have died had they had better Armor
  10. Account Closed
    Rach's Avatar
    Rach is offline
    Account Closed
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    23,957
    #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Breezy
    I think if you talk to some of the guys over there then you might understand it a little more.
    That's what I mean. I've read stories and heard some say it's worth it and others say it wasn't. I've read stories and listened to videos of the Iraqi people speaking and some say they like the troops there and others say they don't.

    That's why I think it would be very interesting to be a fly on the wall when our government meets to make these decisions. Who knows what is really being said w/ the select few. I don't trust what is shared w/ the public.
Page 1 of 9 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •