Does this make anyone else wonder?

[Fantine]

Our military budget for FY 2022 is $715 billion. Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia The military budget was increased even though we left Afghanistan, and, as we know, China's second-place budget, at $237 billion, is only 1/3 as much.

Nevertheless, we just passed $13.6 billion for Ukraine, about half for humanitarian aid, and half of military aid. And while I can easily understand why the humanitarian aid would not classify as "military," I have no idea why the remaining 7 billion or so can't come out of our existing military budget, which, to my mind, is already excessive. Is there any logical explanation for this?

For example, the federal gas excise tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. Right now, while the war in Ukraine has made gasoline prices soar, and many people with very moderate incomes are suffering, a temporary suspension of that gas tax for let's say three months could stabilize prices, reduce inflation, and put families on a stronger economic footing.

I'm saying this not to complain about gas prices personally. I am retired and only use about 10 gallons of gas a week but I know many others are concerned. There are many more positive uses for the $7 billion that should come out of the existing military budget.

 

[Servant78]

There's a very big under table commission for paying the war budget to suppliers.

Thats why the US enormous giagantic debt of 20 trillion is the greatest debt on earth. Inherited to its citizens and impossible to settle.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Our military budget for FY 2022 is $715 billion. Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia The military budget was increased even though we left Afghanistan, and, as we know, while China's second-place budget, at $237 billion, is only 1/3 as much.

Nevertheless, we just passed $13.6 billion for Ukraine, about half for humanitarian aid, and half of military aid. And while I can easily understand why the humanitarian aid would not classify as "military," I have no idea why the remaining 7 billion or so can't come out of our existing military budget, which, to my mind, is already excessive. Is there any logical explanation for this?

Sure. The US has to budget for two possible major conflicts simultaneously. What if China and Russia gang up on the US at the same time.

China's cost of production is much lower than any Western nation. They have a large population to draw on. Those who think that military spending is a waste are forgetting WW2. It was Hitler's rearmament that enabled him to defeat almost all of of Europe, with a handful of nations remaining neutral. Italy joined Hitler, but it's hard to avoid the impression that it was more of a hindrance than a help. France should have at least held out for much longer. But budget cuts, lack of training and equipment left them floundering.

It's still cheaper to dissuade a nation from attacking you than to defend against an attack. Ukraine has discovered this. Israel is an example of how to avoid being attacked. They learned the hard way.

 

[Fantine]

But isn't the purpose of a "military budget" to pay military expenses? (The deployment of soldiers to NATO's eastern borders are in this extra $7 billion.) What is the point of a military budget when it can't cover a 1% expenditure to deploy troops?

 

[RDKirk]

But isn't the purpose of a "military budget" to pay military expenses? (The deployment of soldiers to NATO's eastern borders are in this extra $7 billion.) What is the point of a military budget when it can't cover a 1% expenditure to deploy troops?

I would agree that an action that is part of current operational plans--which a NATO deployment certainly is--should be covered by the annual budget appropriation. If it's not used for a deployment in that fiscal year, then it should go back to the Treasury at midnight on September 30.

 

[RDKirk]

Sure. The US has to budget for two possible major conflicts simultaneously. What if China and Russia gang up on the US at the same time.

Apparently, however, the budget does not include actually fighting those wars.

 

[mama2one]

wondering why such a HUGE amt was passed for Ukraine which isn't in NATO


turns out there's other things attached:

The House Just Passed a Massive Spending Bill. Here’s What's In It

 

[mama2one]

^ con't from post #7

"Republicans won a few concessions in the bill—notably increased military spending—but they also secured more than $23 billion for two key federal agencies that oversee immigration: Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Protection (CBP)."


"latest spending measure invests an additional $4 billion for rural development programs.

Of that amount, $550 million will go towards the expansion of broadband service and $450 million for the ReConnect program, which provides loans and grants to cover the cost of broadband construction and improvement."

 

[pdudgeon]

Think of the larger picture. In these times, we are talking not just about global war, but inter space war too. It adds a demention not previously covered before. And as such, we have to protect and defend more than just what's on the ground.

 

[pdudgeon]

^ con't from post #7

"Republicans won a few concessions in the bill—notably increased military spending—but they also secured more than $23 billion for two key federal agencies that oversee immigration: Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Protection (CBP)."


"latest spending measure invests an additional $4 billion for rural development programs.

Of that amount, $550 million will go towards the expansion of broadband service and $450 million for the ReConnect program, which provides loans and grants to cover the cost of broadband construction and improvement."

Makes perfect sense to me.
We have to defend not only the length and breadth of our country, but also it's air space and the depth of it's seas as well.

 

[pdudgeon]

I would agree that an action that is part of current operational plans--which a NATO deployment certainly is--should be covered by the annual budget appropriation. If it's not used for a deployment in that fiscal year, then it should go back to the Treasury at midnight on September 30.

Nope. Any budget has to be approved by Congress. So giving back to Congress any extra money would be as detrimental as a child giving back their extra allowance that they hadn't spent that week.
If that practice were put into effect for any child, they would not be able to learn the discipline of "saving for a rainy day, and they could not cover any emergency expense either.
And so too, the Military could not always have the necessary funds to be prepared to cover emergencies.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Apparently, however, the budget does not include actually fighting those wars.

Yeah that's one budget that needs a forensic audit...

 

[Petros2015]

we are talking not just about global war, but inter space war too. It adds a demention

dementia

 

[Fantine]

This one sentence answers a lot of questions. "The spending bill increases funding for the military and nearly every non-defense agency, with federal domestic spending set to reach $715 billion and defense funding $782 billion for the remainder of this fiscal year."

Like:
Why do citizens in every other developed country in the world have universal healthcare while we don't?
Why are colleges and universities free in Europe and Canada while private colleges in the U.S. cost upwards of $75K a year?
Why do citizens of other countries have paid parental leave and many young mothers here go back to work within a few weeks?
The military budget is 67 billion higher than the domestic budget.
Does anyone realize that compassionate aid to third world countries would do more to reduce terrorism and violence and yes, immigration, than another dozen Boeing fighter jets?
That being said, I do approve the cost of living increase for military wages. Our soldiers deserve fair pay.

 

[RDKirk]

Nope. Any budget has to be approved by Congress. So giving back to Congress any extra money would be as detrimental as a child giving back their extra allowance that they hadn't spent that week.
If that practice were put into effect for any child, they would not be able to learn the discipline of "saving for a rainy day, and they could not cover any emergency expense either.
And so too, the Military could not always have the necessary funds to be prepared to cover emergencies.

A certain number of "war days" annually should not be considered an "emergency" by the military.

Does a fire department need additional money before responding to each fire call? Do the police need additional money before responding to each trouble call?

Money not used by the military in the fiscal year it was appropriated goes back to the Treasury (the exception being money specifically appropriated for multi-year projects).

That's why we always hastened to find legal uses for every dollar before the fiscal year ended...what we didn't use by the end of the year was likely to be shortened in the next appropriation. We never wanted to end the year with a surplus.

Back in 1988, when we were still under the Graham-Rudman balanced budget act (yes, there was once a law requiring Congress to maintain a balanced budget), the military played a smarmy trick on us to finish the fiscal year on budget. Our pay for the month of September (the last day of the fiscal year)--which we'd normally have received on the last day of the month--was pushed forward to the first day of October (the first day of the next fiscal year), and the military returned that money to the Treasury.

We were told not to worry about it...it was only a one-day delay, after all. But I was already keeping my bank account on a personal computer by then, and my personal computer told me I'd been shorted a pay check that year. The military's response was, "No, we paid you...it was just a one-day delay."

I was angry for the rest of my career about that, more than a decade. But in my final paycheck at retirement...they made it up (the Graham-Rudman act had been repealed by then). No interest, of course.

 

[RDKirk]

This one sentence answers a lot of questions. "The spending bill increases funding for the military and nearly every non-defense agency, with federal domestic spending set to reach $715 billion and defense funding $782 billion for the remainder of this fiscal year."

Like:
Why do citizens in every other developed country in the world have universal healthcare while we don't?
Why are colleges and universities free in Europe and Canada while private colleges in the U.S. cost upwards of $75K a year?
Why do citizens of other countries have paid parental leave and many young mothers here go back to work within a few weeks?
The military budget is 67 billion higher than the domestic budget.
Does anyone realize that compassionate aid to third world countries would do more to reduce terrorism and violence and yes, immigration, than another dozen Boeing fighter jets?
That being said, I do approve the cost of living increase for military wages. Our soldiers deserve fair pay.

To be fair, both universal health care and advanced education can be funded without touching the military budget and without increasing costs currently paid by the public...there is just that much money "going sideways" into the pockets of parasites in both industries.

And, to be fair, total military compensation for military members is pretty decent. Most figures that appear in the news media only show "base" pay, which appears pretty low. But base pay is generally less than half of the worth of the total military compensation, which includes additional pays and benefits...including "universal health care" and a free college education that can be passed to immediate family.

 

[wing2000]

Nevertheless, we just passed $13.6 billion for Ukraine, about half for humanitarian aid, and half of military aid. And while I can easily understand why the humanitarian aid would not classify as "military," I have no idea why the remaining 7 billion or so can't come out of our existing military budget, which, to my mind, is already excessive. Is there any logical explanation for this?

I suspect the short answer is the 7 billion was not budgeted for this fiscal year as the Russian invasion happened thereafter. Additionally, the Pentagon should be spending money according to the allocated budget according to plan or otherwise ask Congress for more money IMO.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Wondering why such a HUGE amount was passed for Ukraine, which isn't in NATO

Turns out there's other things attached:

The House Just Passed a Massive Spending Bill. Here’s What's In It

Many people seem to to think we are only allowed to help fellow NATO countries. If that was true, Canada should not be helping Ukraine either - or any other NATO country. But many of them are doing something to help; it just can't be a group effort through NATO because of Ukraine's unfortunate exclusion.

Now let's pretend Ukraine was already a NATO member before February 24. What would NATO do?

 

[RDKirk]

Many people seem to to think we are only allowed to help fellow NATO countries. If that was true, Canada should not be helping Ukraine either - or any other NATO country. But many of them are doing something to help; it just can't be a group effort through NATO because of Ukraine's unfortunate exclusion.

Canada still identifies as a member of NATO, but they don't have any military forces stationed in Europe.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Canada still identifies as a member of NATO, but they don't have any military forces stationed in Europe.

Only a non-NATO country has been attacked in Europe recently. If Ukraine was a NATO member, Canadian troops would have to be there.