How does everyone feel about the deep defense department cuts by the Obama regime?

[MontereyVol]

So far the cuts being brought to the table don't actually cut any money. They stop the growth of the military. The cuts are coming because some branches have pet projects they want and since no NEW money is coming in they will have to cut somewhere else to bring those projects online.

Its a spin for the politicians to get the general public all spun up.

And the rule is we maintain the forces and firepower to fight two major conflicts and one minor conflict.

 

[kidbourbon]

Because you can't go any deeper than all the way to the balls. I mean, that's deeep.

 

[gsvol]

No I am not deployed I am in Washington.

To be antithetical, the US military expenditures in terms of worldwide spending is roughly 43% of the entire world's expenditures on military(to the tune of 688 billion in 2010) . On military expenditures to GDP we outspend China and N. Korea. In comparison Japan, China's traditional foe, spends less than 1% of GDP on military while china spends almost exactly twice that.

You are right that N. Korea has the 4th largest standing Army in the world, but as you stated...they are starving, so what can they really accomplish in terms of capabilities (I understand that they have significant resources in ballistic missile tech among other things)?

*Not trying at all to be argumentative but rather have a candid conversation on things that this country can really afford to continue with. I am not for completely drawing down troops or tech, but I think (personal opine) that a lot of money is lost, wasted, improperly used, improperly allocated. This is where we should make the cuts.

Honestly it has been a struggle for me with this issue because I do believe in strong military but I dont believe in how the DOD budget is allocated.

In Washington? Well then you are in a foreign country!


I appreciate your candidness as well as your politeness,
we have a flock of posters here who could learn from
your example.

I might question your facts on the Chinese expenditures,
honestly we don't really know that.

Japan, like Germany, is restricted concerning defense
spending due to treaties ending WWII.

As long as N Korea exists, (with the kind of radical
government thay have,) they pose a threat.
(and it's the civilian population that is starving, not
their army which is well fed.)

I can certainly wholeheartedly agree that there is waste
in the DOD budget but then we have other agencies in
the federal government that are a complete waste, as
useless as nursing stations on a boar hog.

I'm all for trimming government spending, drastically
even, but starting with the DOD is the wrong place to
start imo.

Depends how deep. Are we talking balls deep here?

How deep did you get cut?

So far the cuts being brought to the table don't actually cut any money. They stop the growth of the military. The cuts are coming because some branches have pet projects they want and since no NEW money is coming in they will have to cut somewhere else to bring those projects online.

Its a spin for the politicians to get the general public all spun up.

And the rule is we maintain the forces and firepower to fight two major conflicts and one minor conflict.

I'm pretty sure Panetta said that will be revised to one
major conflict. (and the way things are going maybe a
couple of dozen minor conflicts.) :unsure:

ABC reports 80,000 less in Army, 20,000 less Marines.

Others have reported that as much as three carrier
groups could be cut from the Navy.

 

[Burhead]

History teaches us that nations have declined and desolved not becuase of too much spending on defense but not enough.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but it has always been my personal opinion that the fall of the Soviet Union, and of the Eastern bloc, was the result of them focusing on matching us dollar for dollar in defense spending. Not to mention an unending war in Afghanistan that they had been entangled in since 1979.

 

[KiffinKiller]

yes. Rome's problem wasn't over expansion....lol

 

[vol4eva]

The defense budget is actually expected to grow over the next ten years. The cuts are just scaling back the 18 percent boost the budget was expected to receive over that time period.

 

[cd12]

I fall into the I would rather have it and not need it crowd vs the not have it and need it fools.

 

[vol4eva]

In Washington? Well then you are in a foreign country!


I appreciate your candidness as well as your politeness,
we have a flock of posters here who could learn from
your example.

I might question your facts on the Chinese expenditures,
honestly we don't really know that.

Japan, like Germany, is restricted concerning defense
spending due to treaties ending WWII.

As long as N Korea exists, (with the kind of radical
government thay have,) they pose a threat.
(and it's the civilian population that is starving, not
their army which is well fed.)

I can certainly wholeheartedly agree that there is waste
in the DOD budget but then we have other agencies in
the federal government that are a complete waste, as
useless as nursing stations on a boar hog.

I'm all for trimming government spending, drastically
even, but starting with the DOD is the wrong place to
start imo.







How deep did you get cut?





I'm pretty sure Panetta said that will be revised to one
major conflict. (and the way things are going maybe a
couple of dozen minor conflicts.) :unsure:

ABC reports 80,000 less in Army, 20,000 less Marines.

Others have reported that as much as three carrier
groups could be cut from the Navy.

Yes, they are cutting about 100,000 troops, but the Army and Marines will still be larger than they were in 2001. Secretary Panetta announced they will stick to an 11 carrier fleet over the long term, minus the 2-3 year gap between the Enterprise decomming, and the Ford coming online. I agree that the DOD is the wrong place to start concerning cuts, but it's not as bad as some may think. What we have to watch out for is the additional 500 billion cut if Congress doesn't get its act together by this time next year. That is when we would feel the hurt.

 

[MontereyVol]

I'm pretty sure Panetta said that will be revised to one
major conflict. (and the way things are going maybe a
couple of dozen minor conflicts.) :unsure:

ABC reports 80,000 less in Army, 20,000 less Marines.

Others have reported that as much as three carrier
groups could be cut from the Navy.

As stated by Vol4life we are already slated for an 11 carrier based Navy beyond Obama. So thats safe, I feel we could stand to knock one or two out of our budget. The Enterprise is going to be the test to see how we handle a 10 carrier fleet. The fleet reduction was discussed by previous Administrations.

The Army and Marines are flushed with combat trained reservist for the next generation. The brass now feel like it would be a good time to purge the undesirables out of the forces while they have so many trained stand byes. They aren't going about it in the best way due to their criteria but it is being done already.

Everything you hear about force reduction is political talk to score points for fan bases. The industry behind the war machine is out of control and needs to be revamped.

 

[gsvol]

Forgive me if I'm wrong but it has always been my personal opinion that the fall of the Soviet Union, and of the Eastern bloc, was the result of them focusing on matching us dollar for dollar in defense spending. Not to mention an unending war in Afghanistan that they had been entangled in since 1979.

Can we say our fortunes are now reversed?

What you say is part of it but passive rebellion from their own citizens was part of their downfall.

For instance, from a former kulak working on a collective;
"We plowed the fields for the first few rows deep, then as we circled inward we raised the plows a notch or so until when the got to the middle of the field we were running in high gear with the plow barely touching the ground, we knew the inspectors in their shiny shoes wouldn't want to get them muddy so they would get out of their car, stand by the road and delcare the field plowed properly."

"No matter how much we produced, we knew we would be on a starvation diet the next winter because the state would take so much."

(The year after the fall of the USSR they had so much grain that they had no place to store it, they piled it in great mounds and covered it with tarps to try to save it for the coming year.)

From a factory worker; "Typically we were slow to go to work in the morning, argueing with the commissar about haste, at the morning break we would argue with the commissar and take ten or fifteen minutes extra before going back to work, at lunch we would send out for vodka and argue with the commissar before going back to work, by two in the afternoon most everyone was so drunk they would fasten their shirt in a vise so they could stand up to the work bench."

Total state control is a bad thing and goes against human nature and will nerver work no matter how many times it is tried.

yes. Rome's problem wasn't over expansion....lol

Romes main problem was treason from within.

The defense budget is actually expected to grow over the next ten years. The cuts are just scaling back the 18 percent boost the budget was expected to receive over that time period.

True but it is expected to go down by $6b in 2013.

Considering the vast amount of new money being introduced into the economy and resultant inflation makes the cuts higher than most would think.

Since Obama has been in office, non defense government benefits have increased 32%.

I fall into the I would rather have it and not need it crowd vs the not have it and need it fools.

As Reagan said; "I have lived through three wars and none of them were caused by a strong American defense."

Yes, they are cutting about 100,000 troops, but the Army and Marines will still be larger than they were in 2001. Secretary Panetta announced they will stick to an 11 carrier fleet over the long term, minus the 2-3 year gap between the Enterprise decomming, and the Ford coming online. I agree that the DOD is the wrong place to start concerning cuts, but it's not as bad as some may think. What we have to watch out for is the additional 500 billion cut if Congress doesn't get its act together by this time next year. That is when we would feel the hurt.

Take into account that Clinton cut defense to the bone while he was president.

Also, we are delaying the building on the next nuclear attack sub.

 

[JokermanVol]

I hope our government cuts a lot of military spending.

 

[MG1968]

does the US really need 10 or 11 carrier battle groups?

does it really need foreign bases that have their origins in the Cold War?

does it need both Reserve Components and National Guard?

does the US really need to remain a member of NATO?

 

[rjd970]

does the US really need 10 or 11 carrier battle groups?

does it really need foreign bases that have their origins in the Cold War?

does it need both Reserve Components and National Guard?

does the US really need to remain a member of NATO?

No.

Depends on the base.

I would say yes, but can see both sides.

NO.

 

[JokermanVol]

We need to cut a lot of the private defense contracts before we shut down bases or shrink our military numbers. I suspect their influence in Washington has gotten us into a lot of the war messes we find or found our way into.

 

[RespectTradition]

Our defense budget is less than 5% of GNP.

Let's pretend that we grow the military budget to a point where you feel safe. Let's say, in order to do that we have to raise our military budget to 10% of GNP.

Now, let's suppose that our economy picks up and our GNP doubles. All of a sudden our military budget is back to 5% of GNP.

Are we suddenly less safe?

If then answer is no, then can you explain to me how a percentage of GNP is possibly a useful indicator of whether we are spending the appropriate amount?

 

[milohimself]

Defense spending as a percentage of GNP isn't useful at all for a measure of safety, or even to track trends of how we've been spending on defense. Its only real uses seem to be comparing military spending in relation to other government outlays at any specific point in time.

 

[RespectTradition]

Defense spending as a percentage of GNP isn't useful at all for a measure of safety, or even to track trends of how we've been spending on defense. Its only real uses seem to be comparing military spending in relation to other government outlays at any specific point in time.

I agree. I would like to hear the reasoning of someone who throws it out as an argument though. I have never heard a decent explanation for why some feel this way.

 

[milohimself]

Because it's whatever number FNC tossed out?

 

[vol4eva]

Can we say our fortunes are now reversed?

What you say is part of it but passive rebellion from their own citizens was part of their downfall.

For instance, from a former kulak working on a collective;
"We plowed the fields for the first few rows deep, then as we circled inward we raised the plows a notch or so until when the got to the middle of the field we were running in high gear with the plow barely touching the ground, we knew the inspectors in their shiny shoes wouldn't want to get them muddy so they would get out of their car, stand by the road and delcare the field plowed properly."

"No matter how much we produced, we knew we would be on a starvation diet the next winter because the state would take so much."

(The year after the fall of the USSR they had so much grain that they had no place to store it, they piled it in great mounds and covered it with tarps to try to save it for the coming year.)

From a factory worker; "Typically we were slow to go to work in the morning, argueing with the commissar about haste, at the morning break we would argue with the commissar and take ten or fifteen minutes extra before going back to work, at lunch we would send out for vodka and argue with the commissar before going back to work, by two in the afternoon most everyone was so drunk they would fasten their shirt in a vise so they could stand up to the work bench."

Total state control is a bad thing and goes against human nature and will nerver work no matter how many times it is tried.






Romes main problem was treason from within.





True but it is expected to go down by $6b in 2013.

Considering the vast amount of new money being introduced into the economy and resultant inflation makes the cuts higher than most would think.

Since Obama has been in office, non defense government benefits have increased 32%.





As Reagan said; "I have lived through three wars and none of them were caused by a strong American defense."





Take into account that Clinton cut defense to the bone while he was president.

Also, we are delaying the building on the next nuclear attack sub.

I'm not really concerned about the 100,000 force reduction. We'll have the numbers if some major ground conflict broke out. I'm concerned with keeping our weapon and technological superiority, which as of now we will. The Ohio class replacement will only be delayed by two years. The Air Force is going full speed ahead with the F-35 and new bomber program. They will invest more in cyber warfare, drones, and missile defense. It looks like the Army and Marines will keep all of its major vehicle programs. I think we'll be okay.

 

[gsvol]

vol4evaI'm not really concerned about the 100,000 force reduction. We'll have the numbers if some major ground conflict broke out. I'm concerned with keeping our weapon and technological superiority, which as of now we will. The Ohio class replacement will only be delayed by two years. The Air Force is going full speed ahead with the F-35 and new bomber program. They will invest more in cyber warfare, drones, and missile defense. It looks like the Army and Marines will keep all of its major vehicle programs. I think we'll be okay.

What do you think about Obama adding to the federal
civilian payroll by 12%?

What do you think about Obama increasing the cost
of federal civilian payroll from 18 to 24% of the GNP?

Not responding to the article right now, just felt like doing some quick digging on that particular website's origins, and found this about its founder. He's a fellow by the name of Joseph Farah. The beloved Ann Coulter referred to him as a "publicity whore" and "swine":

Ann Coulter’s email to The Daily Caller about WorldNetDaily | The Daily Caller

I suppose at one time Ann Coulter may have had some
credibility.

If she ever did, then she has completely lost it along the
way.

The only thing I've ever seen that I like about her was
her knack for getting under the skins of liberals.

Last night I listened to Mark Levin deconstruct her latest
article, line by line, word by word for about an hour,
clearly demonstrating she was clueless about that which
she was writing.

Levin's recently released book, "Ameritopia" has been
number one on the NYTs best seller list for the past
two weeks.

I'll say one thing for Farrah, he will publish items the
main stream won't and furthermore, it looks to me like
that if what he says in the piece above isn't factual,
the the media, including Coulter (not that she has any
real claim to credibility herself), would ba all over it like
stink on a skunk.