Is this a serious question, or a theoretical one?

For a serious answer, somehow he foresaw what happens now with the defense budget. The tail wags the dog, and no matter how many times the Pentagon or the services ask for cutting budgets or streamlining acquisitions, Congress says no.

quote:

---

She is also a Whistleblower and has been speaking out about being recruited to go to a Colony on Mars that represented a time-line that she refused to go along with. She has been able to uncover some necessary truths and agendas that humanity is being kept in the dark about and lectures and does workshops on these issues along with topics such as Global Alchemy, Christ-Sophia, Sacred Union, ET races, Esoteric Cosmology, the Positive Time-line and seeks to empower the individual so that harmony can be restored.

For more than 15 years, she has been providing clairvoyant readings and transformative healings for individuals with the assistance of many divination tools and astrology. Focusing on chakra systems, Laura has advised on topics such as soulpath, abduction, mind-control, core issues, relationships, past lives and physical ailments. She has been strategizing to solve the roots of major world problems including epidemics, war, environmental degradation and injustices that have been a result of the misuses of power of the shadow government. She also covers hidden agendas connected to ET races and the exile of the Divine Feminine energies.

---

You have got to be kidding me

Think about some of what Ike said there.
In 1961, there were 3.5M in the armed forces out of a population of 179M.
That's 2% (1.955) of the population.

Today, 55 years later, there are 323M with only 1.3M in the armed forces.
That's only 0.4% of the population.

This site says that in 1961, the total armed forces strength was 2.5M so that would only be about 1.4% (1.397).

In any case, it's remarkable how many fewer people are serving today.

CATO says 1961 defense spending was $153.5B in 1982 dollars.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa114.html

Looks like our 2015 defense budget was about $598B.
So that's like $243B in 1982 dollars.

So, yeah, the defense budget is up, the number of personnel is down, the balance is clearly greedy pig profits for defense contractors.

Thanks for digging up the Laura Eisenhower stuff. I don't have time to listen right now but it sounds like it should be an hour of pure comedy gold.

quote:

---

Members of Congress are forcing the Army to purchase tanks that it neither wants nor needs, Drew Griffin and Kathleen Johnston of CNN report.
Earlier this year Army chief of staff Gen. Raymond T. Odierno told Congress that it would save taxpayers $3 billion if the Pentagon holds off repairing, refurbishing or making new M-1 Abrams tanks for three years until new technologies are developed.

---

http://www.businessinsider.com/congress-forcing-the-army-to-make-tanks-2012-10

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-again-buys-abrams-tanks-the-army-doesnt-want.html

And this this is no longer a problem for just the military industrial complex. Trade groups have an absurd amount of influence in policy, and rarely for the better. But this isn't the politics board, so I don't want to get off on a rant.

This is not new - back in the 1980s, the first time the Navy tried to cancel F-14 production, the New York congressional delegation threw hissy fits because it was built on Long Island. It's all about money to congressional districts.

When I was a PM at the Pentagon in the 1980s, I was once summoned to the office of a brand new member of the House of Representatives. The conversation was to be about one of my programs that was produced in his district. He didn't give a rat's a$$ about the system, it's purpose, effectiveness, quality, on time status, or anything important. All he wanted to lecture me about was how important it was to jobs in his district.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Members of Congress are forcing the Army to purchase tanks that it neither wants nor needs, Drew Griffin and Kathleen Johnston of CNN report.
Earlier this year Army chief of staff Gen. Raymond T. Odierno told Congress that it would save taxpayers $3 billion if the Pentagon holds off repairing, refurbishing or making new M-1 Abrams tanks for three years until new technologies are developed.

---

http://www.businessinsider.com/congress-forcing-the-army-to-make-tanks-2012-10

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-again-buys-abrams-tanks-the-army-doesnt-want.html

And this this is no longer a problem for just the military industrial complex. Trade groups have an absurd amount of influence in policy, and rarely for the better. But this isn't the politics board, so I don't want to get off on a rant.

---

This is definitely an issue, especially as we move towards more austerity. The process is broke. I mean ook at the process to try and replace the M9, or even the Army uniform. They spent an absurd amount of money (in my mind) to redesign the BDU and ACU. Why not just take the MARPAT and be done? Oh because they patented it so the Army can't use it, wait - what? That is another story. Back to the original rant, how do you think the people in congress keep their jobs. "You may not need tanks General, but they are made in my district so you are getting tanks." And oh by the way, you then have the cost of keeping the tanks you don't need. Deal with it. Dang I hate politics....

I'm sure this is not news to most on this board, but the DOD does foster some of this by letting big contractors use suppliers in as many states as they possibly can manage. As a result, any threat to cancel or end production on a big ticket item (such as tanks, as mentioned above) effects jobs in many, many states.

I had an AF "career broadening" tour in acquisition (PEM/SYSTO for several very small programs) from 84-87 and the AF was letting this happen, even encouraging it, way back then. If anything, I think the practice has gotten much worse since then.

quote:

---

I'm sure this is not news to most on this board, but the DOD does foster some of this by letting big contractors use suppliers in as many states as they possibly can manage. As a result, any threat to cancel or end production on a big ticket item (such as tanks, as mentioned above) effects jobs in many, many states.

I had an AF "career broadening" tour in acquisition (PEM/SYSTO for several very small programs) from 84-87 and the AF was letting this happen, even encouraging it, way back then. If anything, I think the practice has gotten much worse since then.

---

I do believe much of that is a result of congressional direction. This is not to say that the services don't do some things that border on being shady.

Were you at the Pentagon? If so, which office? I was there '85 until I retired in '90.

I was at AF Systems Command Headquarters at Andrews but spent a lot time at the Pentagon coordinating with PEMS for programs related to mine and also giving advocacy briefings defending funding for my programs.

I was also the Executive Secretary for the AF Space Experiment Review Board (long story about that) and spent a LOT of time at the Pentagon coordinating with AF space technology folks and my counterparts in the Navy and Army. After the Challenger tragedy, all of us in the DOD space experiment business were pretty busy redoing all of our plans that had involved the Space Shuttle.

I should have guessed that from your use of the term SYSTO. Did you happen to know Bill Kapas? He was the SYSTO for my programs when I was there. Before Bill it was a guy whose last name escapes me - Jules something.

I was at AF/RDS and later SAF/AQS.

I don't remember the name, but my memory isn't what it used to be. It was a very interesting job, and much different than being a weather weenie, but I had some great bosses and learned a hell of a lot about staff work at a higher headquarters.

Ah yes, I had forgotten about the Congressional District angle.

When I was a young 2LT at the Armor School at Fort Knox, they taught us that the original Abrams Tank design was supposed to have a German manufactured 120mm Rheinmetall cannon however... the 105mm cannon was manufactured at the Watervliet Army Arsenal in Watervliet, NY and the local congressman wasn't going to have any German manufactured gun on his watch. Fortunately, for the M1A1, they had worked out a licensing agreement to allow the New Yorkers to keep their jobs and the soldiers to get the more lethal weapon.

Ike would not be surprised that in the ten years from 2006-2016 inclusive of the Great Recession the S&P 500 returned 103% to share holders in share appreciation and dividends and the stocks of the big five contractors (LMT, BA, RTN, NGC, GD) returned 362% over the same period. If that is not amazing enough they did it with an average beta of .82. If you throw out Boeing which was the laggard of the bunch and is the only one that has a significant private sector business then the beta was .75 and the total return is even higher. The defense stocks kill it every year while claiming to be on the brink of bankruptcy (in which case they get a bailout as critical defense industrial base). They have a very low cost of capital because the get their money from the taxpayers who always pay on time. Accounts receivable is not a problem when the government is your only customer. They push the risk to the subcontractors who by contrast are lucky to get paid 30 days after delivery.

This was the foretold way it was going to be when then Secretary of Defense William Perry called the meeting of the CEOs of the major defense companies after the Cold War that became known as the Last Supper and told them that they needed to consolidate into a few very large companies. Congress is also to blame because they have made it almost impossible for all but the biggest companies to bid on large contracts because of the administrative overhead and cost accounting data required. If I were able to invest in a defense sector ETF for a child's 529 college savings plan that would be the last investment decision I made as long as there are such animals as Democrats and Republicans running Washington.

The OP is a conspiracy nut. He's been posting crap on the Politics Board, too.

quote:

---

---

And my point is made.

2.3 trillion....

Wonder where it went?