[Winstonm]

http://news.national..._open,_resizeMe

Unites States Military disbursement around the globe. No wonder we can't afford universal healthcare and social security.

[blackshoe]

Several of those "overseas" places are US soil. Two of them are states. Seems to be a bit of padding there.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-01, 13:04, said:

Several of those "overseas" places are US soil. Two of them are states. Seems to be a bit of padding there.

Extra padding and U.S.A. go hand in hand, don't they? However, I still don't see any arrows pointing toward states, but then I didn't enlarge for detail - I just liked the big presentation as it seemed to give a feel for how big the footprint really is.

[nigel_k]

It looks big because they drew the arrows really fat and included places where no money is actually being spent. Somebody could probably work out how many hours or minutes per year of social security spending could be funded by stopping that spending but it wouldn't be much.

[Winstonm]

nigel_k, on 2012-January-01, 15:26, said:

It looks big because they drew the arrows really fat and included places where no money is actually being spent. Somebody could probably work out how many hours or minutes per year of social security spending could be funded by stopping that spending but it wouldn't be much.

Depending on what is listed as defense spending, the amount of money annually the US spends is $600 billion to over a trillion dollars.

Edit from SS.gov:

Quote

Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened economy and to downward income adjustments that correct for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink to about $20 billion for years 2012-2014 as the economy strengthens. After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Through 2022, the annual cash deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury. Because these redemptions will be less than interest earnings, trust fund balances will continue to grow. After 2022, trust fund assets will be redeemed in amounts that exceed interest earnings until trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036, one year earlier than was projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2085.

[awm]

Hmm people seem to be reading something different from me.

I don't see anywhere Blackshoe's claim that they indicated Alaska or Hawaii are "overseas." Sure, Alaska and Hawaii appear on the map, but so does the continental US...

I don't see any mention of "how much money is being spent" despite what Nigel_k seems to see. Perhaps it's implied but there are no figures at all about that?

It's just a picture of how global our military (and military reach) might be. Perhaps that's even a good thing; I didn't see anything saying it was bad!

[Winstonm]

awm, on 2012-January-01, 15:36, said:

Hmm people seem to be reading something different from me.

I don't see anywhere Blackshoe's claim that they indicated Alaska or Hawaii are "overseas." Sure, Alaska and Hawaii appear on the map, but so does the continental US...

I don't see any mention of "how much money is being spent" despite what Nigel_k seems to see. Perhaps it's implied but there are no figures at all about that?

It's just a picture of how global our military (and military reach) might be. Perhaps that's even a good thing; I didn't see anything saying it was bad!

The questions are: can we afford it and is it necessary?

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on 2012-January-01, 13:37, said:

Extra padding and U.S.A. go hand in hand, don't they? However, I still don't see any arrows pointing toward states, but then I didn't enlarge for detail - I just liked the big presentation as it seemed to give a feel for how big the footprint really is.

So you agree with me that the people who built this chart padded it with misinformation. Good.

Top left of the chart, look at the listing. The first two entries are Alaska and Hawai'i. Those are in fact states.

I would like to see the US pull back from a lot of its foreign military presence, but I don't think pulling out of Alaska and Hawai'i or Puerto Rico, or Guam is a good idea. I would also like to see a more realistic approach to the current and near future threats than the Pentagon and Congress seem willing to undertake.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-01, 18:07, said:

So you agree with me that the people who built this chart padded it with misinformation. Good.

Top left of the chart, look at the listing. The first two entries are Alaska and Hawai'i. Those are in fact states.

I would like to see the US pull back from a lot of its foreign military presence, but I don't think pulling out of Alaska and Hawai'i or Puerto Rico, or Guam is a good idea. I would also like to see a more realistic approach to the current and near future threats than the Pentagon and Congress seem willing to undertake.

Must be a new year - we are in agreement.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-01, 18:07, said:

So you agree with me that the people who built this chart padded it with misinformation. Good.

How is including bases in the US misinformation? Where does it say that it was only supposed to be showing foreign bases? It says "around the world", and the last time I checked the US was part of the world.

There are graphs at the bottom labeled "overseas". I assume from the titles they don't include the troops stationed in the US, even though those bases are shown on the map.

[mike777]

My guess is the number of bases will go up and the number of people in them will increase in the next 12-24 months.

I would not be surprised to see the number of overall miltary members and the budget go up, not down. See Aust, just for starters.

It will be interesting if Israel strikes out toward Iran and Iran's response.




I dont see either candidate calling for a smaller military in 2012/2013.

I dont see Korea or Japan or Europe demanding the USA pull out and close their bases.
I dont see Congress ever demanding bases be closed in their district.

[blackshoe]

That graphic is clearly all about US service people stationed outside the continental United States. Reading the comments about bases in various foreign countries it seems clear the graphic is about that. The fact that the contiguous 48 states are in the picture, with a bunch of dots I guess we are supposed to think are military bases (maybe they are, but there's no text to corroborate that assumption), is not relevant.

Okay, Hawai'i, Guam, and Puerto Rico are not part of the continental US. They're not "foreign" either. Alaska is a bit ambiguous — it is common to refer to Alaska not being part of the continental US, but technically it is on the same continent. It is not, of course, part of the contiguous 48.

The OP made the point that the amount of money we spend on disbursing our military around the globe (which I take to mean "outside US territory", since stationing troops inside US territory is a different issue) severely impacts our ability to pay for other things. In that context, including bases and other deployments in US territory outside the contiguous 48 states is misinformation if the object is to point out places we can save money by reducing or eliminating our military presence.

[Bbradley62]

mike777, on 2012-January-01, 19:39, said:

I dont see Congress ever demanding bases be closed in their district.

There is another Base Realignment and Closure round scheduled for 2015.

[mike777]

Bbradley62, on 2012-January-01, 21:10, said:

There is another Base Realignment and Closure round scheduled for 2015.

right and not by congress, they created this to avoid the issue.

in any event I am guessing more than 700 bases by this time not less.

[Winstonm]

Quote

“Every gun that is made,” Eisenhower told his listeners, “every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” Any nation that pours its treasure into the purchase of armaments is spending more than mere money. “It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.”

http://www.theatlant...ingle_page=true

[Gerben42]

mike777, on 2012-January-01, 19:39, said:

My guess is the number of bases will go up and the number of people in them will increase in the next 12-24 months.

I would not be surprised to see the number of overall military members and the budget go up, not down. See Aust, just for starters.

It will be interesting if Israel strikes out toward Iran and Iran's response.

I dont see how innocent people dying is interesting

Quote

I dont see either candidate calling for a smaller military in 2012/2013.

I dont see Korea or Japan or Europe demanding the USA pull out and close their bases.

Before the debt crisis the best strategy was to make the Euro much more expensive than the Dollar, meaning that Dollar-paid US military don't want to live here. But we don't want them to leave, they are people with a job who spend their money here.

Quote

I dont see Congress ever demanding bases be closed in their district.

I guess for the same reason, these people are employed. Okay, paid by tax money but if they leave, it hurts the local economy.

Quote

The questions are: can we afford it and is it necessary?

Nope, it's too expensive and it's not necessary. I am sure the USA wouldn't be hurt by cutting half the military budget. But no one wants to. Germany is in the process of reducing the military, but everyone says: Please take another base to close, not this one.

[Winstonm]

Gerben42, on 2012-January-05, 10:37, said:

Nope, it's too expensive and it's not necessary. I am sure the USA wouldn't be hurt by cutting half the military budget. But no one wants to. Germany is in the process of reducing the military, but everyone says: Please take another base to close, not this one.

Considering the U.S. has no single enemy anywhere close to the threat of the old U.S.S.R., this chart appears ludicrous:

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on 2012-January-07, 07:54, said:

Considering the U.S. has no single enemy anywhere close to the threat of the old U.S.S.R., this chart appears ludicrous:

But perhaps the numbers are skewed a bit because of the large percentage of US military expenditures that are a complete waste of money.

[Winstonm]

It could be argued that the U.S. must spend this much to keep the world safe. The question then becomes, then who keeps the world safe from us?

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on 2012-January-07, 10:07, said:

But perhaps the numbers are skewed a bit because of the large percentage of US military expenditures that are a complete waste of money.

Exaggerating the profits of corporations who sponsor the military can never be called a waste of money; after all, corporations are people, too. Love, Mitt