- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
White House Proposes 45% reduction in defense budget - Update walks it back
Posted on 2/19/25 at 4:47 pm
Posted on 2/19/25 at 4:47 pm
quote:
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered senior military officials to develop a five-year budget plan that would slash defense spending by 8% annually, a dramatic cut which could reshape military end-strength and readiness for decades.
For those not doing math 8% annually ~ 45% reduction by 2030, this is assuming no inflation adjusted numbers. No idea so taking it at face value, which is closer to the 50% they touted earlier
Closer to 34% if we use inflation adjusted.. not sure
quote:
An 8% annual cut for the next five years would mean almost $300 billion less in military spending through fiscal 2030 compared to a stable budget figure. But most years, lawmakers approve increases in military spending at least equal to inflation, and often even higher than that.
quote:
Under Hegseth’s reduction proposals, that mark would be closer to $560 billion, the lowest defense budget since fiscal 2006.
Military Times Source
quote:
71 percent were obligated through contracts for products and services
So we are talking about massive cuts to the big boys..
Raytheon (RTX)
Lockheed Martin (LMT)
Boeing (BA)
Northrop Grumman (NOC)
General Dynamics (GD)
L3 Harris (LHX)
The real question is do you think the administration is serious? All signs point to maybe?
Update, its not a cut just reallocation of funds. Obviously spending is going up with the upcoming budgets in Congress
Defense.gov press release showing that they are not cutting
This post was edited on 2/21/25 at 9:54 am
7
Posted on 2/19/25 at 4:59 pm to UltimaParadox
"Hegseth listed 17 areas that “may not be included by the services and components in their 8% decrease.” In addition to border enforcement, the exempt list includes the Virginia-class submarine, what it terms “executable surface ship programs,” homeland missile defense, the Air Force’s new Collaborative Combat Aircraft, one-way attack drones, “priority critical cybersecurity, munitions and Indo-Pacom construction projects” and private sector medical care." Bloomberg
Also further in your link
"Last month, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., told Breaking Defense he hoped to boost defense spending by as much as $200 billion in coming years to deal with growing threats from China, Iran and other adversaries."
Also further in your link
"Last month, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., told Breaking Defense he hoped to boost defense spending by as much as $200 billion in coming years to deal with growing threats from China, Iran and other adversaries."
This post was edited on 2/19/25 at 5:00 pm
Posted on 2/19/25 at 5:05 pm to SoLaSMB
quote:
"Last month, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., told Breaking Defense he hoped to boost defense spending by as much as $200 billion in coming years to deal with growing threats from China, Iran and other adversaries."
Yeah the whole thing is a mixed message, hard to take any guesses where we end up. Usually if we bet against the big Military industrial complex they always win in the end.
quote:
On Wednesday, Trump posted on social media that the House resolution "implements my FULL America First Agenda, EVERYTHING, not just parts of it!"
The house plan includes a 100B increase to defense spending
NPR source
Posted on 2/19/25 at 5:41 pm to UltimaParadox
quote:
So we are talking about massive cuts to the big boys..
Raytheon (RTX)
Lockheed Martin (LMT)
Boeing (BA)
Northrop Grumman (NOC)
General Dynamics (GD)
L3 Harris (LHX)
For every "big boy" there will be a 1,000 "little boys" that go broke.
This is just item number 1 on the broligarchs list, they think they have been unfairly shut out of defense contracting.
Posted on 2/19/25 at 5:47 pm to Lakeboy7
quote:
For every "big boy" there will be a 1,000 "little boys" that go broke.
No question, I was mainly looking at the big boys from a market perspective. But the small companies will be completely put under. Got to imagine defense spending on small businesses in this country is huge and one of the primary drivers
Posted on 2/19/25 at 6:10 pm to UltimaParadox
Finally, something that makes sense.
Those guys are chuds but they’re spot on about only needing nukes and drones. Everything else is pretty much a meme now.
We might actually reduce the deficit if we start tackling the military budget.
Those guys are chuds but they’re spot on about only needing nukes and drones. Everything else is pretty much a meme now.
We might actually reduce the deficit if we start tackling the military budget.
Posted on 2/19/25 at 6:19 pm to UltimaParadox
quote:
market perspective
A lot of big companies gave Trump a lot of money because they feel they cant be competitive with the companies you mentioned. Big contracts always seem to default to them. I suspect they are right, very cozy at the top.
Posted on 2/19/25 at 6:30 pm to Lakeboy7
Obviously majority of congressman though take big bucks from the big companies and have thousands on thousands of employees relying on the defense money with a large majority of these in red districts.
I'm not saying it can't be cut, but there will be a huge fight in Congress
I'm not saying it can't be cut, but there will be a huge fight in Congress
Posted on 2/19/25 at 6:35 pm to Hateradedrink
quote:
Those guys are chuds but they’re spot on about only needing nukes and drones. Everything else is pretty much a meme now.
Radars and missile defense not on you list?
Posted on 2/19/25 at 7:28 pm to UltimaParadox
I’m speaking generally, ie. drones vs. f22.
That said, missile defense is either permanently or temporarily obsolete against coordinated drone swarms.
That said, missile defense is either permanently or temporarily obsolete against coordinated drone swarms.
Posted on 2/19/25 at 7:55 pm to Hateradedrink
quote:
That said, missile defense is either permanently or temporarily obsolete against coordinated drone swarms.
I dont believe that is true, but directed energy will become a big deterrent to drones.
Drones cant work without radios for remote control or GPS at this point. They are not the end all be all solution that is being proposed.
Posted on 2/19/25 at 8:01 pm to UltimaParadox
Sure, they need supporting systems. They don’t need billion dollar platforms and pilots with 5000 hours of flight time.
This post was edited on 2/19/25 at 8:01 pm
Posted on 2/19/25 at 8:11 pm to UltimaParadox
How many drones would one worthless F35 buy? The military wastes a colossal amount of money while renaming military bases for DEI.
Posted on 2/19/25 at 8:17 pm to Hateradedrink
quote:
Sure, they need supporting systems
If you have no air superiority you have nothing. Drones are not reliable means of air superiority and will be challenged even more so in the near future as directed energy systems and more sophisticated defense systems knock them from the sky.
You are already seeing massive failures of drones in Ukraine, that is giving the defense community very valuable data moving forward
Posted on 2/19/25 at 8:30 pm to UltimaParadox
LMT not really reacting at all to this. Haven’t checked the others.
Posted on 2/19/25 at 8:32 pm to slackster
quote:
LMT not really reacting at all to this. Haven’t checked the others.
With the numbers congress going around, I am assuming the reaction is that it is business as usual.
Trump would need to win in court to stop the flow of money or force congress to change the budget
Posted on 2/19/25 at 10:21 pm to UltimaParadox
Gotta stop buying $1,000 hammers if you want to eliminate federal income tax on citizens
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. Posted on 2/20/25 at 12:46 am to Kjnstkmn
Need to cut down on generals and admirals.WW2,fighting a 2 front war there was 1 flag officer per 6,000,soldiers/ sailors.Now the ratio is 1/1400.
That would save a chunk of change.
That would save a chunk of change.
Posted on 2/20/25 at 6:55 am to UltimaParadox
If Pelosi has stock then it's going nowhere. Our military should be decentralized. It should only cost 100 billion tops.
Posted on 2/20/25 at 10:51 am to UltimaParadox
quote:
The house plan includes a 100B increase to defense spending
Just because they authorize it doesn’t mean it has to be spent. DOD and Military are under the executive branch and Trump can order certain things to be cut or eliminated
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News