Posted on 01/25/2008 12:49:03 PM PST by bs9021
Arms & The Manpower
by: Amanda Busse, January 25, 2008
Analysts predict that equipment shortages in the military may become a source for debate in the upcoming 2008 Presidential election.
As America enters its fifth year in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a growing need to replace “worn out” equipment, according to Brad Curran, Senior Industry Analyst for Frost and Sullivan. Both the need for new equipment and calls to expand the number of military personnel have led to increased projected spending in the Department of Defense budget for 2008. Analysts at Frost and Sullivan assert that spending is expected to be the highest it has been since World War II.
“The question is going to be—Where is the money going to come from?” Curran said.
Frontrunners on both sides of the Presidential campaign have expressed plans to increase military strength and numbers, despite differing views on where that strength will be used.
On the Democratic side, Barack Obama plans to give troops “new equipment armor, training and skills” and Hillary Clinton has stated she will replenish American power by “rebuilding our military and developing a much broader arsenal of tools.” John Edwards’ website has a plan for a review of waste and abuse in weapons spending, but at the same time states that he will “double the budget for recruiting” and “implement new training for future military leadership.” Increased numbers, equipment and training means increased spending.
Republican candidates are also in favor of building up the military and its budget. John McCain may be a strong advocate of fiscal discipline, but his plan to bolster troop numbers and ensure the military is “properly postured” will likely lead to larger costs. Likewise, Mike Huckabee has clearly stated...
(Excerpt) Read more at campusreportonline.net ...
Sounds good for companies like mine. I work for the evil military industrial complex.
Does anyone here REALLY believe that Hillary Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama will spend an extra dime on defense when they’ve promised every interest group billions of dollars? If so, FReepMail me, there’s a bridge I want to tell you about.
I’m just waiting for the “Magic Wand”ers to show up.
I can’t figure who I despise more. Those who believe complex issues as war time logistics in a theater thousands of miles away can be resolved with a simple signature or speech, or those who create the problems by playing politics with our ability to sustain a war effort by screwing around with the financing.
Seems to me, if we didn’t have the first kind of idiot, the second kind would be less common.
“rebuilding our military and developing a much broader arsenal of tools.”
cool, so she’s gonna strike the NFA and GCA so its easier for civilians to come up with new weapon designs?
I believe them....and about that bridge?
I love the way people promise manpower for the military....you just can’t make a soldier/sailor/marine airman out of any old scrap. some new recruits appear that way but are soon transformed through discipline, common interest, and desire to sacrifice their rights to preserve the American Culture.
Someone on her staff would have to explain it to her, first.
Only if one does not take inflation into account.
The peak of post 1962 (don't have data for earlier) defense spending, adjusted for inflation was $526B in 1986, while FY 2006 it was only $421 billion (in FY 2008 dollars. Meanwhile entitlements, which had been $242B in 1962 when defense was $367B, grew from $887.5B in '86 to $1,618B in FY 06.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.