BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Mr. Luddite

On 11/5/2015 3:54 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 13:16:04 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/5/2015 11:42 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/5/15 11:03 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 10:19:53 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

...money to waste on the military, but kids need a food bank...

N.C. high school students start food pantry to keep classmates from
going hungry

People helping people and you **** on it. Way to go.

Right over your head, again. What the kids are doing is admirable...but
what a wealthy country blows its resources on instead of taking care of
those of its people in need...is not admirable.

The $609 billion military spending in the federal budget sounds like a
lot when you consider it by itself but have you ever viewed exactly
*how* it compares to the rest of the federal budget?

The Federal government spends far more on domestic social and welfare
programs than it spends on the military ... over 4 times as much, and
growing.

The main thing to consider is military spending is virtually all "buy
American" and the biggest single jobs program in the US. A lot of
these are white collar jobs employing engineers and managers in
politically important states like California, New York and Texas. It
may explain why their congress people are so hawkish.
Of course smaller states like Maryland and Virginia have their nose
deep on the DoD trough too.
As I said, appropriations bills pass because they make sure just about
every district gets a taste of the pie, no matter if that is the most
inefficient way to build anything.

That's true but the contractors share some of the blame as well.
I worked for a defense contractor for a couple of
years before I started the company I had. I researched and wrote
some of the technical sections of proposals in response to government
RFQ's and saw some of the cost justifications contained within the
bid. Most of these contracts are "cost plus" meaning the bid contained
enough to cover costs plus the maximum profit allowed by law. I think
it was 10% at the time. Anyway, it amazed me how, in the cost
justification, a $18k/year receptionist suddenly became a $60k/year
"administrative assistant".