125 Billion wasted at the Pentagon

[Anonymous]

Heard this story on WMAL this morning. Can anyone please post a link? Thank you.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

The Republicans will never cut the defense budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Republicans will never cut the defense budget.

No one will. The military-industrial complex employs half of greater Washington.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Republicans will never cut the defense budget.

No one will. The military-industrial complex employs half of greater Washington.

Dems capped it under sequester. But they pay the price at the polls for that. All these wasted employees are voting Trump to keep their jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Republicans will never cut the defense budget.

They will give this a complete pass while attacking all of the small civilian agencies that deal with keeping the country safe from other kinds of threats, whose entire agency budgets would be a rounding error to the DoD.

Totally misguided policy.

[Anonymous]

You could double the transportation or hesitation funding with this amount and still have money left over

Link to article- https://www.washingtonpost.com/regional/?cache=false

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I have not read the report or the articles about it, but just want to comment on this graphic and what it tells us. The fact that there is a "back-office" bureaucracy at the Pentagon and that there are 1 million people employed there is not, ipso facto, evidence of "bloat." It sounds bad and doesn't play well on TV, but is it bad? Better information for this discussion would be how this level of bureaucracy compares with, say, other government agencies or the military in previous years so we could consider the question of what is the optimal level of bureaucracy in the military.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have not read the report or the articles about it, but just want to comment on this graphic and what it tells us. The fact that there is a "back-office" bureaucracy at the Pentagon and that there are 1 million people employed there is not, ipso facto, evidence of "bloat." It sounds bad and doesn't play well on TV, but is it bad? Better information for this discussion would be how this level of bureaucracy compares with, say, other government agencies or the military in previous years so we could consider the question of what is the optimal level of bureaucracy in the military.

The issue is not that there is a back office. It's that the number is 23%. Can you think of a large company with a G&A number that high??

[Anonymous]

Can you think of smother large company that has similar recruiting, retention, development, maintenance and logistical challenges?

[Anonymous]

if the mic didn't spend so much, you would have a massive jobs crisis in this country.

i went to big10 school ebfore transferring to an ivy. big 10 engineers are snapped up by defense contractors. ivy engineers however view those jobs are 'back-up' to silicon valley jobs.

if all sorts of defense spendign was slowed down you would have white middle classes revolting.

there isn't enough jobs in the west coast tech scene to take all of those big 10 engineers

[Anonymous]

So who in the Trump family shorted Boeing stock before Donald tweeted that the coming AF-1 was too expensive and should be cut, causing the Boeing stock to fall?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can you think of smother large company that has similar recruiting, retention, development, maintenance and logistical challenges?

Right, this is what I mean. I don't think running the military can be compared with running a large company. And don't forget--in addition front-line operations, recruiting, retention, development, maintenance, and logistics, DoD runs a very large health care system.

I don't want to know how the military's G&A compares with Walmart or Exxon or Toyota. Those aren't valid comparisons IMO. How does it compare with G&A in our military's past? What were we spending on G&A (percentage-wise) in the 1940s? In the 1960s? How does it compare with G&A in other large military systems? (I realize there is no military anywhere that compares with ours, but it's a better comparison than Walmart.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can you think of smother large company that has similar recruiting, retention, development, maintenance and logistical challenges?

Right, this is what I mean. I don't think running the military can be compared with running a large company. And don't forget--in addition front-line operations, recruiting, retention, development, maintenance, and logistics, DoD runs a very large health care system.

I don't want to know how the military's G&A compares with Walmart or Exxon or Toyota. Those aren't valid comparisons IMO. How does it compare with G&A in our military's past? What were we spending on G&A (percentage-wise) in the 1940s? In the 1960s? How does it compare with G&A in other large military systems? (I realize there is no military anywhere that compares with ours, but it's a better comparison than Walmart.)

Russian military compares to ours.

[Anonymous]

The military's hands are tied due to congressional allocations of resources to their home budgets. Do not blame the military. Most of this is "pork" that they are forced to implement.