For The Devil

[patfromlogan]

I have an idea how the US could save a little money, and it's not cleaning up the welfare rolls, unless one considers capitalism and it's unholy bond to the military industrial complex welfare for the rich.

[Cullion]

You could certainly save money there, but it wouldn't be enough.

[mike321]

I have an idea how the US could save a little money, and it's not cleaning up the welfare rolls, unless one considers capitalism and it's unholy bond to the military industrial complex welfare for the rich.

Some defense cuts would be great especially with some intense pressure to eat the cuts while maintaining the same defense posture. (This is to avoid the typical blackmail where a department cuts vital service first.)

[legomepanda]

I agree, fewer officers the better. But the bulk of the defense spending fat is in the waste. Efficient spending I believe is the answer.

[patfromlogan]

what defense posture? Over 100,000 soldiers in Germany and Japan? WTF for? $920,000,000 a day for years in Iraq? WTF for? http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/...rica-pentagon#

[legomepanda]

what defense posture? Over 100,000 soldiers in Germany and Japan? WTF for? $920,000,000 a day for years in Iraq? WTF for? http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/...rica-pentagon#

That's why the military's in Japan and Germany. To maintain the posture. Global force. For good.

[mike321]

what defense posture? Over 100,000 soldiers in Germany and Japan? WTF for? $920,000,000 a day for years in Iraq? WTF for? http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/...rica-pentagon#

Just to start. If you don't make them maintain the status quo they will pull the bureaucrat game and cut essentials first: ammo, enlisted pay, veteran care, aircraft maintenance etc. I am saying make leaders cut fat while maintaining status quo or find ones that will. Then, (as in step 2) look at what our commitments and global strategy is. I am not advocating maintaining the current global strategy indefinitely.

[legomepanda]

Just to start. If you don't make them maintain the status quo they will pull the bureaucrat game and cut essentials first: ammo, enlisted pay, veteran care, aircraft maintenance etc. I am saying make leaders cut fat while maintaining status quo or find ones that will. Then, (as in step 2) look at what our commitments and global strategy is. I am not advocating maintaining the current global strategy indefinitely.

When has military pay ever decreased? How are you going to get people to spend less without giving them less money? Especially when next years budget depends on how much you spend this year.

[mike321]

When has military pay ever decreased? How are you going to get people to spend less without giving them less money? Especially when next years budget depends on how much you spend this year.

You decrease enlisted pay through inflation/pay freezes and reducing enlisted promotion opportunities, or reduce other benefits. Or you can do a force reduction. I would give them less money; I just would not let them off the hook for any responsibilities yet. Reducing defense obligations is step 2. As far as basing budgets on spending all of your current budget, I would eliminate that. Surpluses should mean you stay on board when actual defense ( as in size of the military) cuts happen. I am also assuming it is possible to keep our nation as safe as it is now with a reduced military budget. I strongly suspect this is the case.

[Cullion]

Your deficit is currently bigger than your defence budget. You could completely disband the whole military and still be sliding deeper into debt on the basis of unfunded entitlements. You all realise this, yes ? What next?