Skip to main content

Budgets flat for decades to come

The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11 June 28, 2007

Please note how many years they project the war in the middle east may go one. This being the case I'll bet that budgets at LLNL and LANL will be reduced every year for the next ten years. If the budgets stay flat I'd be amazed having seen this information.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that additional war costs for the next 10 years could total about $472 billion if troop levels fall to 30,000 by 2010, or $919 billion if troop levels fall to 70,000 by about 2013. If these estimates are added to already appropriated amounts, total funding for Iraq and the GWOT could reach from about $980 billion to $1.4 trillion by 2017. This report will be updated as warranted

Comments

Anonymous said…
"The Congressional Budget Office estimates that additional war costs for the next 10 years could total about $472 billion if troop levels fall to 30,000 by 2010, or $919 billion if troop levels fall to 70,000 by about 2013. If these estimates are added to already appropriated amounts, total funding for Iraq and the GWOT could reach from about $980 billion to $1.4 trillion by 2017. This report will be updated as warranted."

So when this is all over ten years from now and lets assume best case scenario that the region is stabilized and we now have Exxon and chevron in their pumping oil, will we see reduced prices or just spend the next 50 years paying off the debt? What's you take on this BS cause? Will LLNL budget get increased over the next 10 years or be continually reduced by 10% a year whereby every year from now on we can bank of a RIF? I'm betting on the later. In the nutshell this spell and end to an era and a considerable reduced work force at all National Labs. In all reality the middle east has already won the war by virtue of America's economic implosion.
Eric said…
Remember that a flat budget sounds OK until you factor in inflation. With inflation included, a flat budget is an approximate 7% per year decrease in buying power.
Anonymous said…
Total budget is irrelevant. So is whether there is a war going on. The US has wars all the time.

What does matter is whether the US government wants to invest in the future or not. Truthfully, they have not for quite a while. Not just the labs, the whole military is wearing out. Not to mention roads, dams, bridges, power grid, etc.

Given the trend, Iraq may look more advanced they we are in a couple of years.
Anonymous said…
"What does matter is whether the US government wants to invest in the future or not. "

The answer to that is NO. Not unless the rich can find a way to make it so the investment fills their pockets. So the roads, dams, bridges, power grid, etc are irrelevant simply because once they are gone or damaged the people will do without. Then they will be repairs at a much higher cost whereby the company makes big bucks and your rates go up. Now, there's where the profit is. They have no pans on fixing anything in the United States. Why should they. Their labor force is overseas at a much cheaper rate and no benefits or liability the same as everyone in the US will be very soon. It's all about cheap labor that'll make profit for the big boys. The only way this will be revrse is when the day come that those on the Chinese assembly lines are making $40 and hour.

When that happen these big companies will quit going there and exploiting their people.

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...

Trump is to gut the labs.

The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

LLNL un-diversity

Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!