Comments on: The Pentagon’s Most Expensive Weapon http://www.progressivefix.com/the-pentagons-most-expensive-weapon Progressive Fix Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:31:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: John Rose http://www.progressivefix.com/the-pentagons-most-expensive-weapon/comment-page-1#comment-683 John Rose Wed, 09 Dec 2009 23:26:12 +0000 http://www.progressivefix.com/?p=1853#comment-683 First sentence. $680 Billion, not Million. It kind of undercuts the whole message of "they can't count correctly" when you make an error like that. First sentence. $680 Billion, not Million. It kind of undercuts the whole message of “they can’t count correctly” when you make an error like that.

]]> By: Jim Arkedis: Pentagon Spending: When $136 Billion is actually $301 Billion | Obama Biden White House http://www.progressivefix.com/the-pentagons-most-expensive-weapon/comment-page-1#comment-681 Jim Arkedis: Pentagon Spending: When $136 Billion is actually $301 Billion | Obama Biden White House Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:16:53 +0000 http://www.progressivefix.com/?p=1853#comment-681 [...] on the men and women serving in America’s military. In the excerpt below from a paper over at the Progressive Fix, I calculate that the Pentagon will actually spend $301 billion on America’s soldiers, [...] [...] on the men and women serving in America’s military. In the excerpt below from a paper over at the Progressive Fix, I calculate that the Pentagon will actually spend $301 billion on America’s soldiers, [...]

]]> By: Obama’s Financiers Okay Extra $60 Billion for Pentagon | America 20XY http://www.progressivefix.com/the-pentagons-most-expensive-weapon/comment-page-1#comment-607 Obama’s Financiers Okay Extra $60 Billion for Pentagon | America 20XY Sun, 06 Dec 2009 14:14:36 +0000 http://www.progressivefix.com/?p=1853#comment-607 [...] personnel costs will run about $136 billion. The Progressive Policy Institute’s Jim Arkedis says that’s way, way off. “The real price tag is much bigger: $301.1 billion each year, 121 percent higher than the [...] [...] personnel costs will run about $136 billion. The Progressive Policy Institute’s Jim Arkedis says that’s way, way off. “The real price tag is much bigger: $301.1 billion each year, 121 percent higher than the [...]

]]> By: P-Fix Highlights of the Week | Progressive Fix http://www.progressivefix.com/the-pentagons-most-expensive-weapon/comment-page-1#comment-593 P-Fix Highlights of the Week | Progressive Fix Fri, 04 Dec 2009 21:37:40 +0000 http://www.progressivefix.com/?p=1853#comment-593 [...] The “guns versus butter” debates between liberals and conservatives miss a key point. It’s not just weapons that drive defense spending through the roof — it’s the people, too. Read more… [...] [...] The “guns versus butter” debates between liberals and conservatives miss a key point. It’s not just weapons that drive defense spending through the roof — it’s the people, too. Read more… [...]

]]> By: The Newest Ideas from Progressive Fix | Progressive Fix http://www.progressivefix.com/the-pentagons-most-expensive-weapon/comment-page-1#comment-582 The Newest Ideas from Progressive Fix | Progressive Fix Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:17:41 +0000 http://www.progressivefix.com/?p=1853#comment-582 [...] Jim Arkedis on defense personnel costs. [...] [...] Jim Arkedis on defense personnel costs. [...]

]]> By: FM newswire for 1 December, hot articles for your morning reading « Fabius Maximus http://www.progressivefix.com/the-pentagons-most-expensive-weapon/comment-page-1#comment-533 FM newswire for 1 December, hot articles for your morning reading « Fabius Maximus Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:01:57 +0000 http://www.progressivefix.com/?p=1853#comment-533 [...] “The Pentagon’s Most Expensive Weapon“, Jim Arkedis (director of PPI’s National Security Project), 30 November 2009 — An interesting perspective on the Pentagon’s budget. [...] [...] “The Pentagon’s Most Expensive Weapon“, Jim Arkedis (director of PPI’s National Security Project), 30 November 2009 — An interesting perspective on the Pentagon’s budget. [...]

]]> By: tsg http://www.progressivefix.com/the-pentagons-most-expensive-weapon/comment-page-1#comment-526 tsg Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:59:54 +0000 http://www.progressivefix.com/?p=1853#comment-526 "Much of America’s robust internationalist foreign policy is due to clear national security interests, as in Afghanistan." What "clear national security interests" in Afghanistan are you talking about? I don't think it's at all clear that the near decade long occupation of that country is in the national security interest of the US. “Much of America’s robust internationalist foreign policy is due to clear national security interests, as in Afghanistan.”

What “clear national security interests” in Afghanistan are you talking about? I don’t think it’s at all clear that the near decade long occupation of that country is in the national security interest of the US.

]]> By: Matthew Yglesias » Defense Spending on Personnel is Over $300 Billion a Year http://www.progressivefix.com/the-pentagons-most-expensive-weapon/comment-page-1#comment-525 Matthew Yglesias » Defense Spending on Personnel is Over $300 Billion a Year Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:45:21 +0000 http://www.progressivefix.com/?p=1853#comment-525 [...] of its budget, it has a $136 billion line item for “personnel.” But as Jim Arkedis points out this is a pretty massive undercount by any reasonable standard. A better account gets you a figure [...] [...] of its budget, it has a $136 billion line item for “personnel.” But as Jim Arkedis points out this is a pretty massive undercount by any reasonable standard. A better account gets you a figure [...]

]]> By: All Our Might » Blog Archive » Personnel spending memo http://www.progressivefix.com/the-pentagons-most-expensive-weapon/comment-page-1#comment-523 All Our Might » Blog Archive » Personnel spending memo Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:27:23 +0000 http://www.progressivefix.com/?p=1853#comment-523 [...] just wrote this memo on personnel spending and the military.  Here’s the gist: It’s not surprising that weapons [...] [...] just wrote this memo on personnel spending and the military.  Here’s the gist: It’s not surprising that weapons [...]

]]>