Page 6 of 10 First ... 2345678910 Last

Thread: For The Devil

  1. #51

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Illinois. Yay.
    Posts
    434
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    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.

  2. #52
    patfromlogan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Hilo Island of Hawaii
    Posts
    8,885
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    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#
    "Preparing mentally, the most important thing is, if you aren't doing it for the love of it, then don't do it." - Benny Urquidez

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Illinois. Yay.
    Posts
    434
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by patfromlogan View Post
    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.

  4. #54

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,577
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!

    For The Devil

    Quote Originally Posted by patfromlogan View Post
    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.

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Illinois. Yay.
    Posts
    434
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by mike321 View Post
    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.

  6. #56

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,577
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!

    For The Devil

    Quote Originally Posted by legomepanda View Post
    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.

  7. #57
    Cullion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    6,525
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    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?
    !!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!

    !! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!

    Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey



    I <3 Sirc.

  8. #58

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,577
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!

    For The Devil

    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    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?
    Actuarial reality for social security. This will mean later retirement ages, but will also increase spending for permanent disability claims (some jobs just can't work later in years even with longer life expectancies)

    Medicare, no answer, we may have bitten off more than we can chew.

    I would like to see tariffs come back but don't know how to accomplish this without hurting global economy.

  9. #59

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,577
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!

    For The Devil

    We will also need to grow our way out if this. Also very tough, new members of congress will be unable to "do" anything. Also many groups protest lack of government growth as cuts.

  10. #60
    hungryjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    3,486
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Time to take a swan dive off the so called 'fiscal cliff'. Won't happen though as the can will just be kicked a little further down the road.

    Problem is, as Mike says, too many call reduced spending a 'cut'. While the rest of us pay more/earn less, the entitled will carry on as before.

    I don't consider social security / medicare as entitlements except in those case where lazy bastards/bitches have acquired it through circumstances that should have been temporary. Pushing back the age to full benefits, again, is a probability.

    Welfare? We have the richest poor people in the world. It pays more for a single mother to make less income and collect a myriad to entitlements. There should be a line drawn somewhere in between.

    Politicians - they'll be OK any way about it. Parasites all.

    but I'm not angry

Page 6 of 10 First ... 2345678910 Last

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO