646 billion dollars, that blows my mind.


The House passed a $646 billion defense bill Thursday that supports the Pentagon's ambitious weapons acquisition program but would place new restrictions on foreign-made technology the military could buy.

The legislation, approved 397-27, has drawn a veto threat from the White House because of its "Buy American" provisions. The measure covers defense spending for the budget year that begins Oct. 1.

In recent years, the Defense Department and Congress have locked horns over this issue. Lawmakers want to protect suppliers in their districts; the Bush administration typically has sided with industry in opposing tough new restrictions.

In a statement, the White House said the House bill would "jeopardize our military readiness when our objective should be to enhance our ability to get the best capability for the warfighter at the best value for the taxpayer."

The White House also threatened a veto over proposed changes to the Pentagon's personnel policies. The legislation would restore collective bargaining rights and access to an appeals process for certain employees.

Rep. Ike Skelton, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said the veto threat was a disappointment, but noted the large majority backing the legislation.

"This is a strong bill that addresses our military's critical readiness needs, supports our troops in the field and at home and protects the American people," said Skelton, D-Mo.

The Senate Armed Services Committee is expected to complete its version of the legislation next week.

Overall, the House bill authorizes more than $100 billion in military procurement. That includes money to buy new protective vehicles and body armor for troops, and an additional $142 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Despite the administration's opposition to certain parts of the bill, the legislation was an unusual display of bipartisanship in a Congress sharply divided on the Iraq war. The bill does not call for troop withdrawals, as many Democrats want, and was supported overwhelmingly by Republicans.

Skelton worked to keep the Iraq debate out of the bill to ensure the legislation's survival.

Bush this month vetoed the 2007 war spending bill because it included a deadline for troop withdrawals from Iraq.

Despite their general support for the bill, Republicans fiercely opposed a $764 million reduction in the Pentagon's $8.9 billion request for ballistic missile defense. A proposal by Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., to restore the money failed.

Republicans were successful in adding money for missile defense programs when they tied the money to Israel. The House voted to increase the president's request by $205 million for U.S.-Israeli anti-missile programs.

The House also agreed to an amendment by Rep. James Moran, D-Va., aimed at pressuring the administration on its handling of military detainees at Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba. The measure, approved by a 220-208 vote, calls for a plan to free prisoners slated for release by the end of the year.

The White House said it would veto any bill that prevents the detention of enemy combatants, but has not stated a position on Moran's amendment.

On Wednesday, the House adopted amendments intended to ease the stress of combat on troops and their families.

One measure would require that the Pentagon fly home the remains of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan to the airport that is closest to their families. A second would prevent deployed troops from permanently losing custody of their children.

Democrats were unsuccessful in adding amendments to prevent a military strike in Iran and to require the videotaping of military interrogations. The Iran measure failed after several members said they feared it would leave Israel vulnerable.

Eh, seems about right.

Military equipment is expensive.





Then they just go and blow it all up.

honestly I don't know how people can be so accepting of this. theres something wrong here. This is a couple years old but it gets the point across.




calculating for population differences doesnt even begin to make things more level. [/i]

This IS complete insanity: http://youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU

It's expensive to be the most powerful country in the world.

And the most hated.

Thats a bit misleading.

I'd suggest everyone read:
http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32209.pdf


How much government spending is dedicated to defense, comparatively, is more accurately shown here.

The real insanity is the amount of money given to contractors (Lockheed, Boeing, Northrup etc.) that don't ever end up producing anything. Contracts are awarded to these companies for various things, and then later the programs are discontinued. These contractors get to keep the cash, even though they never actually produced anything.

Probably something in between would be most accurate. While it is true that the US may spend a smaller percentage of GDP on defense than many other nations, as an absolute figure the amount is still execessive. This is because defense is presumably for DEFENSE against other nations and threats. We could probably spend half the absolute dollars that we spend on defense and still be just as safe from external threats, being that it would still be miles more than anyone else is spending. And hell, we could probably use the other half to do some good that might make others less apt to attack us in the first place, or even want to.

Agreed, but we must also accept that the budget provides not only for our defense, but assists in the security of friendly nations as well. The significance of this cannot be understated, consider the economic value of the Japanese and European markets (Britain, France, and Germany in Particular), then imagine what these economies would look like had they been burdened with their own defense during the last half century.

Again, understand that I am not advocating a military industrial complex. I do not support our current military strategy or foreign policy (hell, I'm an aspiring diplomat), but I do feel the arguments laid against the size of our defense budget are, at best, misleading.

If there's anything I want my homeland to be #1 at, it's defense spending.

Would anyone rather us spend much less, inevitably making us just that much more at risk for attack? Or would you rather have such overwhelming safety that you can go your entire life without having to worry about foreign invasion?

In football, it's considered poor form to run up the score when you're up by 40 in the fourth quarter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Comeba ... n_football)

Fuck, I just realized we are the Steve Spurrier of the International Arena, immensely talented offensively and entirely unlikable. FOR SHAME AMERICA, FOR SHAME!

Overwhelming safety ?
Spending insane amounts of money on "defense" is different than making sure your country is as safe as possible.

Homer: Don't worry Lisa, I promise you'll go to the finest college there is....in South Carolina.
Lisa: URRRGHH! I will NOT be a Gamecock!
Homer: You will too! Go Gamecocks!

Is South Carolina going to win a conference championship anytime in the foreseeable future?

Explain how there's a difference and I'll explain how they're the same.

....hahhahaa