Military budget question..

[SoCaliSooner]

I keep hearing about how much these wars are costing and I have a question about how the numbers are calculated.

We already would be paying soldiers and for feeding and housing them if they were stateside regardless. Why is it different or supposedly exponentially more paying for them in our paid for tents, paid for vehicles in another country?

I look at it like the fire department. We get paid regardless of what we are doing. If we are on a fire we make the same as if we are in the station. The only time it changes is if we are working overtime. Often "costs" of fighting week/month long fires are revealed to the public, but they are skewed, intentionally I believe, because a large portion of that money would be paid out regardless, we're just earning it on a particular incident.

[AlboSooner]

Active duty pays more than non-active duty. Reserves would get minimal pay, and some wouldn't even be needed. Then you consider shipping of equipment, food, benefits, disability, loss of life, reimbursements and so on, ammunition...

Someone with more knowledge hopefully contributes to this thread.

[OhU1]

The soldier does not get a lot more in active duty then stateside. Maybe $1,500 a month more. I won't begrudge that extra compensation. Where does the extra trillions in cost come from? Would be interesting to see the accounting, but it's not primarily due to service member pay.

[SoCaliSooner]

The soldier does not get a lot more in active duty then stateside. Maybe $1,500 a month more. I won't begrudge that extra compensation. Where does the extra trillions in cost come from? Would be interesting to see the accounting, but it's not primarily due to service member pay.

I just see billion/trillion dollar figures thrown around yet I just wonder how much of that we'd still be paying even if guys were stateside.

[AlboSooner]

I think a huge chunk goes to various top secret projects. For example that stealthy helicopter which was used by the Seals to kill Bin Laden must have been quite pricey.

[Sooner5030]

transportation of equipment and personnel

medical expenses

leasing of real estate

food, water, fuel and ammo supply & transportation expenses

force protection expenses (t-walls, hescos) and personnel protection equipping

air bases for airlift of supplies

sea ports for sealift

on..and on...and on .....and on

[usmc-sooner]

plus you get combat pay, combat leave and they don't take taxes out of their checks.

[OhU1]

I just see billion/trillion dollar figures thrown around yet I just wonder how much of that we'd still be paying even if guys were stateside.

Yeah, that would be a good link, I'll bet the figures are out there somewhere (I'm not motivated enough to look).

I work in Lawton, home of Ft. Sill army base. At any given time maybe 10 - 20% of the active duty service members are deployed. So most of these guys are drawing the regular pay for their grade. The other 10-20% get some combat pay for their stint but it does not add up to a large amount. Especially when you consider these 10-20% would be getting most of that pay anyway even if they were not deployed.

Deployment involves very real costs to the service member and their families they have left behind, not to mention these guys are being shot at. So the deployment pay is a small part of the overall war expense and an expense that is well justified IMO.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

The big expense is getting supplies into Afghanistan.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...n-afghanistan-

[Theskipster]

And don't forget that the United States is also using the war money to fund the largest mercenary force in the world. And paying them extremely well.

[diverdog]

I keep hearing about how much these wars are costing and I have a question about how the numbers are calculated.

We already would be paying soldiers and for feeding and housing them if they were stateside regardless. Why is it different or supposedly exponentially more paying for them in our paid for tents, paid for vehicles in another country?

I look at it like the fire department. We get paid regardless of what we are doing. If we are on a fire we make the same as if we are in the station. The only time it changes is if we are working overtime. Often "costs" of fighting week/month long fires are revealed to the public, but they are skewed, intentionally I believe, because a large portion of that money would be paid out regardless, we're just earning it on a particular incident.

You are not getting stuff blown up.

[okie52]

And don't forget that the United States is also using the war money to fund the largest mercenary force in the world. And paying them extremely well.

So you would like this end along with our foreign entanglements. So would I.

Now the US is always going to protect it's energy sources as will Europe ( see Libya ).

How do you propose to reduce our dependence on foreign oil...the root of our involvement in the ME?

[oudavid1]

....the numbers come from the media, because its not a story if it sounds practical.

[Theskipster]

So you would like this end along with our foreign entanglements. So would I.

Now the US is always going to protect it's energy sources as will Europe ( see Libya ).

How do you propose to reduce our dependence on foreign oil...the root of our involvement in the ME?

I didn't say anything about protecting our energy sources. What I said was that we shouldn't be protecting the amazing profits of our energy companies at the expense of the American people in the name of fear.

How do we meet our energy dependence? I don't know. But it isn't through killing lots of brown people while spending 10% of our total outrageous national debt to keep gas from going to under a dollar a gallon for a few years.

[OU_Sooners75]

I don't know this for sure, but when I was watching the special about nthe Navy Seals Team Six, they said their training and equipment costs are more than the entire Marine Corps.

I have also heard from some in the know, that other special force training and being ready costs a lot more than normal military as well, which makes since.

With that said, a lot of the military budget goes toward the training and equipment of our soldiers. And IMHO, the military budget should be the very last to be cut. The price of freedom is great. And to arm them with the best weapons and tools to do the job costs a lot too.

[okie52]

I didn't say anything about protecting our energy sources. What I said was that we shouldn't be protecting the amazing profits of our energy companies at the expense of the American people in the name of fear.

How do we meet our energy dependence? I don't know. But it isn't through killing lots of brown people while spending 10% of our total outrageous national debt to keep gas from going to under a dollar a gallon for a few years.

I can see you've got quite a handle on this.

The US is spending money to keep gas from going under a dollar?

You think the US is the only player for oil and gas? You really think there is a chance that gas is going to see the low side of a dollar.

China and India are securing oil and gas positions worldwide. That's over a third of the worlds population that are new players fOr this commodity.

But you don't know what to do.

[soonercruiser]

transportation of equipment and personnel

medical expenses

leasing of real estate

food, water, fuel and ammo supply & transportation expenses

force protection expenses (t-walls, hescos) and personnel protection equipping

air bases for airlift of supplies

sea ports for sealift

on..and on...and on .....and on

This is probably a pretty good list with one thing that Albo mentioned - we are are using a lot of "Reserve Forces", who would only get active duty pay 2 weeks a year. And then all the attundant medical costs for the injured on active duty.

The combat pay is probably a drop in the bucket compared to the others listed.

[Fish&Game]

I think I have read there is anywhere from 100-110,000 Guard and Reserve troops deployed. Which pay and benefits of these guys/gals is an extra that wouldn't be being spent if we weren't involved in Iraq/Afghan/other places.

The amount it costs to equip each troop is a bit more substantial than past conflicts....

[Fish&Game]

This is probably a pretty good list with one thing that Albo mentioned - we are are using a lot of "Reserve Forces", who would only get active duty pay 2 weeks a year. And then all the attundant medical costs for the injured on active duty.

The combat pay is probably a drop in the bucket compared to the others listed.

That is right, also I think there are more Nat'l Guard than Reserves deployed, and Guard pay when not deployed comes from state money not federal monies.

[Sooner5030]

they go to title 10 status when activated for OIF/OEF and their pay is funded from those dollars. The disagreement between states and the US is the reconstitution of equipment after redeployment. We give them so many days post deployment to charge to an account before cutting them off for fixing equipment.