The uncalculated, unreported, real defense budget

[gonzoliberal]

In the next several weeks, leading up to the second-time-around sequester and panic over defense cuts, we're going to be hearing a lot about the defense budget and a lot about how we're just going to have to look at slashing entitlements to pay the $525 billion price tag for national defense. That's the number that all the traditional media uses. But, did you know that the real amount we spend on national security isn't really the defense budget?

cont...

So how misleading is the $525 billion figure?
For starters, the $525.4 billion does not include $88.5 billion for unbudgeted costs of wars overseas, called Overseas Contingency Operations. Add other Pentagon spending details and the projected outlays (see fiscal 2013 budget at p. 84) come to $672.9 billion, which is 28 percent more than the basic Defense budget.
But wait!—There’s more.
Each year the Director of National Intelligence releases a total budget figure for national intelligence. For fiscal 2013 it was $52.6 billion, down from $53.9 billionin fiscal 2012. National security includes the NSA, CIA, and other intelligence services. Military intelligence spending, included in the base Defense budget, was $19.2 billion. (A good place to track these budget issues is the Federation of American Scientists Intelligence Resource Program.)
Next there’s $19.2 billion for the nuclear bomb-making arm of the Energy Department. Homeland Security includes $13.2 billion for customs and border patrol and $10.5 billion for the Coast Guard.

....

And there's more, and more, and more...

1.6 trillion is the projected figure.

...and that's annually.

The MilitaryIndustrialComplex is fat and happy.

You?

[overtaxed]

So, you want to disband the military? We seem to be under attack in several countries where we have an embassy. Then again, hillary said it doesn't matter if they get killed.

[pickles]

So, you want to disband the military? We seem to be under attack in several countries where we have an embassy. Then again, hillary said it doesn't matter if they get killed.

Did you pull a hammy with that stretch?

This is when we see just how serious those deficit hawks on the right really are.

And guess what?

It turns out they're not serious at all.

So forgive me if I think I should receive the benefits I've worked for and paid taxes into all my life because the spending problem this country has can be laid pretty much in one general area. And it ain't "entitlements."

[AttackPlanR]

If you think this is bad, just wait until the real costs of the Iraqi folly and spending about over a decade too long in Afghanistan start to pile in. The long-term health care of all of those vets is gonna cripple us. That is if the defense department sticks to their promise to take care of them.

The chicken hawks are always so ready to send others off to fight, and even more ready to turn their backs on them when they need something in return.

[SemiAuto]

Certainly defense must be cut. A good place to start would be the nuclear arsenal. It is a relic of the cold war and the reality is that it is not much of deterrent. I seriously doubt the US will attack anyone with a nuclear weapon, much less thousands of them. I'll wager that most people know this so other than a money sink they're not doing much.

Yet even at the padded $1.6 trillion the government spent around $3.6 trillion in 2012 and one should not pretend the other $2 trillion outside of defense is not a problem.

If you believe that the long term health care of vets is going to cripple us then what do you think the long term health care of baby boomers, who far outnumber vets, is going to do?

[AttackPlanR]

This thread is about defense spending, not meidcare of SS. Please stay on topic.

[RHB]

I will not dispute your cut and paste estimates, but you vehemently defended the extremely low estimates for Obamacare. Guess whats good for the goose is good for the gander.