Why does the Obama administration have $500 billion defense budgets?

[PlanetaryOrbit]

Is it for the sake of appearing strong on national defense, to thwart a perception that Democrats are weaker on national security than Republicans?


Is it because the administration genuinely believes that such military expenditures are necessary? (In other words, it's not because of right-wing pressure?)


Is it because the administration can't make significant cuts to the military budget, because Congress wouldn't agree to it?





I'm asking for serious, non-snarky answers. I'm genuinely puzzled.

[grasswire]

1. I heard some old conservative men talking about that today.

They wondered why many new troops are being sent to Afghanistan if we are supposedly drawing down there.

[Tx4obama]

2. Three links below with lots of info...

Military budget of the United States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

United States Department of Defense

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense

Expenditures

Department of Defense spending in 2010 was 4.8% of GDP and accounted for approximately 45% of budgeted global military spending – more than the next 17 largest militaries combined.[30][31]

The Department of Defense accounts for the majority of federal discretionary spending. In FY 2010 the DOD budgeted spending accounted for 21% of the U.S. Federal Budget, and 53% of federal discretionary spending, which represents funds not accounted for by pre-existing obligations.[32] However, this does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance, cleanup, and production, which is in the Department of Energy budget, Veterans Affairs, the Treasury Department's payments in pensions to military retirees and widows and their families, interest on debt incurred in past wars, or State Department financing of foreign arms sales and militarily-related development assistance. Neither does it include defense spending that is not military in nature, such as the Department of Homeland Security, counter-terrorism spending by the FBI, and intelligence-gathering spending by NASA.

In the 2010 United States federal budget, the DoD was allocated a base budget of $533.7 billion, with a further $75.5 billion adjustment in respect of 2009, and $130 billion for overseas contingencies.[33] The subsequent 2010 DoD Financial Report shows DoD total budgetary resources for fiscal year 2010 were $1.2 trillion.[34] Of these resources, $1.1 trillion were obligated and $994 billion were disbursed, with the remaining resources relating to multi-year modernization projects requiring additional time to procure.[34] After over a decade of non-compliance, Congress has established a deadline of FY 2017 for the DoD to achieve audit readiness.[35]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense#Expenditures

[Recursion]

3. Because we haven't had a budget in years

Congress has just been passing CRs, meaning funding is more or less fixed without a lot of pushing stuff around.

Is it because the administration genuinely believes that such military expenditures are necessary? (In other words, it's not because of right-wing pressure?)

The administration probably does genuinely believe in a level of military spending that a lot of this board thinks is way too high. But it also has to deal with the actual Congress as it exists.

As you can see here, the Iraq and Afghanistan drawdowns plus the sequester have realized some real savings in defense spending



And here's a chart in absolute dollars rather than percent of GDP, broken down into components



As you can see, the big tickets are personnel and operations (the line between them is fuzzier than you might at first assume). It's always good to save money on procurement, but that's less of where the money is than people think.

[bhikkhu]

4. Because he inherited a $700+ billion dollar defense budget

and its a pretty massive part of the government to turn around? The defense budget is on the decline, and the plans are for long-term decline.



That's good enough for me at the moment, and probably better than we would have expected from any president/congress combination beginning in 2008.

[BlueStreak]

28. The actual budget is a lot closer to $1Tn

when you look at the money they have stashed in other accounts, many of which are off budget.

[bhikkhu]

34. Yes, especially if you include the Dept of Energy

that covers most of the expenses related to the nuclear weapons and so forth...but these are comparative figures, rather than absolute. The graph I posted is good because it doesn't just look at the DOD budget itself, but includes the off-budget war expenses during the bush years.

[BlueStreak]

35. I agree about comparitive figures

These games have been going on a long time. I think it accelerates a little each year, but not so much as to be a magnitude difference between Bush and Obama.

The games that go on here are pervasive and intentional. The Army Finance Center is in my town, and I know a bunch of people who work there. Not all of them talk, but you hear some stories that would anger anybody who believes in having as much transparency as is practical.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Empire, it has it's logic

and it matters little who is in the WH.

[melody]

6. Why are you asking this question with only 25 posts? eom

[truebluegreen]

13. Because it's a good question? eom

[seveneyes]

17. Which questions require how many posts? 0x0D1A

[PlanetaryOrbit]

23. Why are you asking this question with 12,000 posts?

Does it make a difference?

[melody]

25. Because the odd Obamacare stories were coming in fast and furious

Just wondering ... I withdraw the question, your honor.

[A HERETIC I AM]

7. Because the defense budget is little more than a giant jobs program.

Ask a Republican to sponsor a proper jobs bill and you hear crickets.

Ask him to put forward yet another dopey defense program, and they're all over it.

Why?

Because it means jobs in his state and all the rest of the states as well, it's just that he gets to wrap himself in the flag and say it is "for the troops".

The CEO of General Dynamics makes around $10 million a year. There is no way in hell she can afford a pay cut, now is there?

[alcibiades_mystery]

22. Correct

[Cali_Democrat]

8. Obama ran on expanding the war in Afghanistan

and increasing drone strikes in Pakistan.

He's not exactly a peacenik.

[AgingAmerican]

9. Cuz

The Republicans would jump up and down and say mean stuff and cause a ruckus.

[dtom67]

10. part of it is.....

That we have 700 + military bases world wide. They are quite costly, but such is the cost of maintaining the cold war status quo.

We still have room for a few more, though.


I hear Syria is nice this time of year ( and sooooo close to Sunny Iran....)

[icymist]

11. Because he is President of the United States.

Going for inflation the budget of $500,000,000,000 (I have readjusted my figure) for defense is not that exaggerated. I'm sure that George W. spent even more per ratio than this! Wow! That is a really big number! And wow! How much of these dollars mare against of our actual dollars?

[eridani]

12. Because of the jolly bipartisan support of American imperialism that has existed--

--since the end of WW II? I hope you didn't think we could change that by changing presidents.

[truebluegreen]

14. We have a winner!

[B Calm]

15. Because republicans in the house do the spending!

[PlanetaryOrbit]

24. But the defense budget was still large when the Democrats had the House and Presidency.

For 2009 and much of 2010, the Democrats held both the House and the Presidency.

[Paulie]

27. The Dems were also dealing with two unfunded wars as well during that time.

It took a bit to start to draw that down a bit. The rest can be explained by GOP obstruction.

[Spider Jerusalem]

16. Because Congress voted for it

because contracts for Boeing and GE and other contractors means jobs in some Congressman's district. It's all about the pork barrel, whether or not the stuff in the budget is actually needed. (See for instance planes being built for the USAF going directly to the "Boneyard" rather than being put into service: http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2013/10/10/brand-new-air-force-planes-dumped-at-tucson-boneyard)

[PeteSelman]

18. Sing it with me: "M - I - C……"

And…that's it.

The Military Industeial Complex always gets theirs. Always.

[Prophet 451]

19. All three

US military spending is now self-sustaining.

[Savannahmann]

20. Well we know the Administration fully approves

It was the Defense Department that squealed the loudest during the Sequester run up. The Defense Department is still squalling about it. http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=120825

If that message was not approved by the Administration, they probably wouldn't be saying it don't you think?

[alcibiades_mystery]

21. It's the only Keynesian policy that can get through Congress

massive defense spending is Keynesianism with an American accent. It is a way of pumping government money into the economy. There are better (Keynesian) ways to do so, to be sure, but this is the one that can currently pass Congress. No doubt all the reasons you listed are partially true. Also true is this: if you want Keynesian economic stimulus, and IF military spending is the only way to get Keynesian economic stimulus through a Congress, then you will see high military budgets.

[UTUSN]

26. Any question about ongoing issues labelled as "OBAMA Administration" makes me wonder. n/t

[indepat]

29. My non-snarky answer is that Democrats are so mortally afraid they'd soil their britches

if labeled weak on national defense by those snarky Repukes, they generously pad the MIC budget to dispel the chance of any legitimate criticism.

[Agnosticsherbet]

30. Because with the loss of good paying manufacturing jobs, another jobs program

is needed. Every base in America pours millions into the local economy and provide jobs for civilians. And as long as the US is a big player in the world, the bill will be big. With China making noises to "de-americanize the world" so they can become the big dog on the block, expect their military expenditures to ramp up very quickly.

And if the economy crashes and burns that bill will drop faster than markdowns at the dollar store as ships rust in the harbors and the war machines are parked forever, or sold to the highest bidder.

[99Forever]

31. Being the biggest, baddest empire on the block...

... costs long green. Enough questions from the prols. Now, pay up and get back to work.

[Shivering Jemmy]

32. Because that's an assload of jobs

And cutting that budget would disappear those jobs.

[Junkdrawer]

33. Because the country can't support $2 Trillion dollar defense budgets...yet....

But if we cut all those pesky Entitlements....

[dkf]

36. Well we did bomb Libya and were about to bomb Syria and might bomb Iran.