5 replies to this topic

[Telmnstr]

So we have lots of military spending, driven by a pointless war started by a bunch of criminals in office.

Our deficit is pretty bad.

At some point, the spending is going to have to be cut back.

So what happens to Hampton Roads when this happens? The contractors will be the first to get hit, right?

These contractors are responsible for some of, perhaps most of the better paying jobs in the region.

Do you think the next president will cut it back? Or print even more money and keep the war machine going?

[erdogs]

Telmnstr, on Jan 8 2008, 07:58 PM, said:

"So we have lots of military spending, driven by a pointless war started by a bunch of criminals in office."

I don't know about the criminals part, but it should be ended as soon as possible.

"Our deficit is pretty bad."

Yes it is and its' been that way since I was born. We will probably always carry a large debt, but it can be managed if the right policies are put in place.

Quote

At some point, the spending is going to have to be cut back.

So what happens to Hampton Roads when this happens? The contractors will be the first to get hit, right?

These contractors are responsible for some of, perhaps most of the better paying jobs in the region.

An economy driven by the military is always going to have its' ups and downs. The same can be said about every other industry that drives an economy. Texas was an example of this during the 80's because the problems the oil industry suffered. The same goes for Michigan and the car industry or Ohio and Pennsylvania with the steel industry. However, military spending is usually pretty steady. We are always going to need a strong Military, so the money won't or shouldn't fall too much. We may take a hit, but I don't think it will be too severe. Construction on Military bases goes on 24/7 whether we are at war or not. Trust me; I've seen a lot of money wasted on frivolous projects.

Quote

Do you think the next president will cut it back? Or print even more money and keep the war machine going?

The next president will be a Democrat, so it will likely be cut pretty deep. I was working at Fort Eustis in the late 90's and I heard complaints from some of the soldiers that they ran out of practice rounds because of all the cutbacks. Many cities and towns were hurt by the base closings; I can see the next president returning to that philosophy.

I'm sure everyone is tired of the wars we've been fighting over the last 7 years. The loss of life and the lack of apparent benefits from the wars will likely lead to a more defensive mode to the military rather than the offensive one we've been in. Hopefully they spend our money on building up the infrastructure of the Military rather than just cutting back for political gains. My hope is that the next President understands this.

[vdogg]

That's not necessarily accurate. All the Dem candidates are on record stating that they will increase the size of the military, particularly the Army and Marines. The democrats don't want to downsize the military, they just want out of the war. I think as far as regionally the spending will remain relatively constant.

[scm]

Well, your predicate is flawed for starters (so what else is new?).  The facts don't support your allegation that there is "... lots of military spending, driven by a pointless war...".  In 1954, DoD spending was 10.6% of GDP, 1975 (post Vietnam) 5.4%, 1986 (height of the Reagan defense buildup) 6.0%, 1994 (post Desert Storm, post Cold War) 3.9%, and 2007, 3.3% (even with the war supplementals).  We are at historic lows for defense spending, right now -- 2007 -- as a percentage of GDP.  DoD spending is slated to rise from $463B in FY 2007 to $526B in FY 2011.

I won't even get into the issue of where paying for "contractors" comes from, and why it probably won't change a nickel here in HR......

[monsoon]

^Linking military spending to percentage of GDP is often used by people in support of the military budget, but it tells you nothing about the burden that it is placing on the American taxpayer.   The current war in Iraq and all of the costs and expenses of maintaining it, including future financial commitments (such as health care for injured soldiers) is being funded at unsustainable levels since essentially all of the money is being borrowed from China, Japan and even Europe.  

Future generations of Americans will be paying big time for all of this military spending in terms of much higher taxes just to cover the interest in the debt being run up.   I don't think anyone stuck with actually working to pay this bill will care much that it's OK because it's not that big compared to the GDP.    Oh man.    

The GDP is a nebulous number BTW.  It's an expression of purchasing power relative to other currencies in the world and the fact that the dollar is in free fall (due to all the military spending and tax cuts) means the number is very inflated over what it was in past decades.   Using it to justify the expense of war and military spending is an obfuscation of the real burden the military places on American society.

[NcSc74]

monsoon, on Jan 10 2008, 06:30 AM, said:

^Linking military spending to percentage of GDP is often used by people in support of the military budget, but it tells you nothing about the burden that it is placing on the American taxpayer.   The current war in Iraq and all of the costs and expenses of maintaining it, including future financial commitments (such as health care for injured soldiers) is being funded at unsustainable levels since essentially all of the money is being borrowed from China, Japan and even Europe.  

Future generations of Americans will be paying big time for all of this military spending in terms of much higher taxes just to cover the interest in the debt being run up.   I don't think anyone stuck with actually working to pay this bill will care much that it's OK because it's not that big compared to the GDP.    Oh man.    

The GDP is a nebulous number BTW.  It's an expression of purchasing power relative to other currencies in the world and the fact that the dollar is in free fall (due to all the military spending and tax cuts) means the number is very inflated over what it was in past decades.   Using it to justify the expense of war and military spending is an obfuscation of the real burden the military places on American society.

Well how about going to sleep at night knowing that you still have to pay taxes in the same war that may end your life...kinda perplexing isn't it.  Everyone in this country carries the weight of these war(s).  I will not get in to a politcal debate but to answer the original question-nothing. Hampton Roads will be in the same shape.  These shifts goes in cycles.  If a person was to look up how many times a region loses or gains personnel in a decade the net number will not be to far off of the original.  One thing is certain the US Navy is not going anywhere.  If there is one thing well two things the US will not tinker with it is the US Army and the Navy.  The other services have to deal with the scraps.

Edited by NcSc74, 19 January 2008 - 03:40 AM.