3 ms·

Umm, no we didn’t. We spent less as a percentage of GDP. But total spending barely shrank by the late 90’s. We hadn’t even started to shift spending away from p

Umm, no we didn’t. We spent less as a percentage of GDP. But total spending barely shrank by the late 90’s. We hadn’t even started to shift spending away from piloted jets by then either. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/mili...

pi-e-sigma 3y ago
Nowadays the reduction of the increase of military spending is called 'budget cuts'. Not the actual budget reduction, just increasing the budget slower than in previous budget somehow is a 'cut'. That's the reality we live in now.
- callalex 3y ago
  But at least we have thorough audits that tell us where each of our dollars is spent…
philwelch 3y ago
If you change the endpoints on that graph to 1985 and 2000, the drop in spending in the 1990’s is a lot clearer. 325 billion to 287 billion is a sizable decrease—about 11%—, especially in non-inflation-adjusted dollars. It only looks small compared to the post-9/11 increase in spending, and a larger share of that spending was operations rather than procurement.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  Also real, versus nominal, dollars.
- mattmaroon 3y ago
  Right, but he said “massively drew down”. 11% would not qualify. It was relatively brief during a period of normally low inflation, so even in real dollars, it was not a steep decline.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    At this point you’re just making a semantic argument about the word “massive”. The impact of that 11% cut in spending was massive; between 1990 and 1998, manpower dropped from 2.18 million to 1.59 million and the total number of active ships in the Navy dropped from 570 to 344. The total budget didn’t drop by a similar proportion because there are a lot of expenses that are much less flexible; it’s not simply a matter of employing fewer personnel and buying less equipment.

pi-e-sigma 3y ago

Nowadays the reduction of the increase of military spending is called 'budget cuts'. Not the actual budget reduction, just increasing the budget slower than in previous budget somehow is a 'cut'. That's the reality we live in now.

callalex 3y ago
But at least we have thorough audits that tell us where each of our dollars is spent…

philwelch 3y ago

If you change the endpoints on that graph to 1985 and 2000, the drop in spending in the 1990’s is a lot clearer. 325 billion to 287 billion is a sizable decrease—about 11%—, especially in non-inflation-adjusted dollars. It only looks small compared to the post-9/11 increase in spending, and a larger share of that spending was operations rather than procurement.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
Also real, versus nominal, dollars.
mattmaroon 3y ago
Right, but he said “massively drew down”. 11% would not qualify. It was relatively brief during a period of normally low inflation, so even in real dollars, it was not a steep decline.
- philwelch 3y ago
  At this point you’re just making a semantic argument about the word “massive”. The impact of that 11% cut in spending was massive; between 1990 and 1998, manpower dropped from 2.18 million to 1.59 million and the total number of active ships in the Navy dropped from 570 to 344. The total budget didn’t drop by a similar proportion because there are a lot of expenses that are much less flexible; it’s not simply a matter of employing fewer personnel and buying less equipment.