Bring Back the Draft?

[georgephillip]

How would an 18% cut in defense spending affect the US unemployment rate?

There would be an up-tick in the unemployment rate with an 18 percent cut in defense spending, but, my concern would be the effect on readiness (both operational and materiel<I spelled it right, look it up), innovation, and new construction.

Retiree and veteran's benefits erosion has been occuring and the president wants to cut deeper. That must stop. We may not need a military 100 times larger and more expensive than the next 10 countries combined but maybe 50 or 60 times. The citizenry must decide what their military's mission and abilities are and vote in those who will put those desires in effect.

There is plenty of waste in DOD and room for meaningful cuts. One place of course is government contractors. The R&D, approval, and construction process is too long and costly. Conversely, outside companies are vital to the security of the nation. The federal hiring process is bogged down with requirements that does not always put the best candidate in the job. My daughter's future husband for example runs a program at a DC area military base and has government co-workers who cannot do half of what their resume said they could do. He and his fellow contractors are needed to get done what the GS employees are actually hired to do.

With the military deployment cycle getting back to normal and combat operations coming to a close, the cost of doing DOD business will go down. This is not a time to let down and draw down because there will be a need for decades to come for the USA to be the strongest leader in the free world.

What's your take on the upcoming sequestration?

"The looming across-the-board budget cuts that could put scores of Americans out of work next year are all President Barack Obama&#8217;s fault.

"That&#8217;s according to congressional Republicans &#8212; the majority of whom voted for the deal that laid the groundwork for the cuts in the first place."

Some projections of impending job losses that I've seen recently suggest 100,000s of defense-related workers would be let go, which would probably guarantee a double-dip recession.

Sequester hits home for Republicans  - Politico.com - The Charleston Gazette - West Virginia News and Sports -

 

[old navy]

How would an 18% cut in defense spending affect the US unemployment rate?

There would be an up-tick in the unemployment rate with an 18 percent cut in defense spending, but, my concern would be the effect on readiness (both operational and materiel<I spelled it right, look it up), innovation, and new construction.

Retiree and veteran's benefits erosion has been occuring and the president wants to cut deeper. That must stop. We may not need a military 100 times larger and more expensive than the next 10 countries combined but maybe 50 or 60 times. The citizenry must decide what their military's mission and abilities are and vote in those who will put those desires in effect.

There is plenty of waste in DOD and room for meaningful cuts. One place of course is government contractors. The R&D, approval, and construction process is too long and costly. Conversely, outside companies are vital to the security of the nation. The federal hiring process is bogged down with requirements that does not always put the best candidate in the job. My daughter's future husband for example runs a program at a DC area military base and has government co-workers who cannot do half of what their resume said they could do. He and his fellow contractors are needed to get done what the GS employees are actually hired to do.

With the military deployment cycle getting back to normal and combat operations coming to a close, the cost of doing DOD business will go down. This is not a time to let down and draw down because there will be a need for decades to come for the USA to be the strongest leader in the free world.

What's your take on the upcoming sequestration?
"The looming across-the-board budget cuts that could put scores of Americans out of work next year are all President Barack Obama&#8217;s fault.

"That&#8217;s according to congressional Republicans &#8212; the majority of whom voted for the deal that laid the groundwork for the cuts in the first place."

Some projections of impending job losses that I've seen recently suggest 100,000s of defense-related workers would be let go, which would probably guarantee a double-dip recession.

Sequester hits home for Republicans* - Politico.com - The Charleston Gazette - West Virginia News and Sports -

Remember the Super Committee, that small group of congresspeople that absolved all the elected representatives of the People of their responsibilities?

To start with, I think it was designed to fail from the get-go. Even if it was a legit entity, they failed miserably at their job. They did not have the courage to make tough decisions. Politics is all about re-election for most members of congress instead of a vocation. Many of them are not qualified or capable of governing or developing and administrating policy.

There are many smart people who have stated that the national debt is our greatest threat to national security. That means to me that the debt must be brought down. Regardless of one's view on whether we have a spending or taxing problem, one thing for sure is cuts have to be made. That is where both congress and the president have failed in their leadership and governance. Instead of coming up with a plan that outlines meaningful cuts and revenue strategies, they spent their time arguing, blaming, and campaigning.

 

[Borillar]

You pretty much nailed it, I support a bigger Military as well.

"No draftees would not be less likely to commit suicide and the left does not want the draft to "help" the military. They believe a draft will prevent us from waging war when needed and provide a means to mount Viet Nam era protests if we do."

More like politicians would be less likely to embroil our country in needless wars of choice and other military adventurism with their own kids' lives on the line. I can see some logic in that belief, but disagree entirely on the idea of bringing the draft back. Involuntary servitude is not the American way.

"You pretty much nailed it, I support a bigger Military as well."

What is the threat the country is facing that would necessitate cold war force levels? All these additional ships, aircraft, tanks, bombs, guns, ammunition, and personnel cost a huge pile of money. As the right is fond of pointing out (at least when the president is a Democrat), we are out of money.

I would agree that the forces we do have should be modernized. It's ridiculous that we are still using ancient B-52's, and many of our front line fleet ships were built in the 70's. But many programs are just bottomless funding pits that don't yield many workable solutions - the V22 Osprey, F-22, B-2 stealth bomber come to mind.

We have people right now on their 5th, 6th, even 7th combat deployment. I support a bigger Military so we don't have to keep sending the same people over there over and over again burning them out.

I think a better solution for Afghanistan is to declare victory and get the fuck out. Bin Laden is dead. Nothing left in Afghanistan to fight about except a pile of rocks.

 

[georgephillip]

There would be an up-tick in the unemployment rate with an 18 percent cut in defense spending, but, my concern would be the effect on readiness (both operational and materiel<I spelled it right, look it up), innovation, and new construction.

Retiree and veteran's benefits erosion has been occuring and the president wants to cut deeper. That must stop. We may not need a military 100 times larger and more expensive than the next 10 countries combined but maybe 50 or 60 times. The citizenry must decide what their military's mission and abilities are and vote in those who will put those desires in effect.

There is plenty of waste in DOD and room for meaningful cuts. One place of course is government contractors. The R&D, approval, and construction process is too long and costly. Conversely, outside companies are vital to the security of the nation. The federal hiring process is bogged down with requirements that does not always put the best candidate in the job. My daughter's future husband for example runs a program at a DC area military base and has government co-workers who cannot do half of what their resume said they could do. He and his fellow contractors are needed to get done what the GS employees are actually hired to do.

With the military deployment cycle getting back to normal and combat operations coming to a close, the cost of doing DOD business will go down. This is not a time to let down and draw down because there will be a need for decades to come for the USA to be the strongest leader in the free world.

What's your take on the upcoming sequestration?
"The looming across-the-board budget cuts that could put scores of Americans out of work next year are all President Barack Obama&#8217;s fault.

"That&#8217;s according to congressional Republicans &#8212; the majority of whom voted for the deal that laid the groundwork for the cuts in the first place."

Some projections of impending job losses that I've seen recently suggest 100,000s of defense-related workers would be let go, which would probably guarantee a double-dip recession.

Sequester hits home for Republicans* - Politico.com - The Charleston Gazette - West Virginia News and Sports -

Remember the Super Committee, that small group of congresspeople that absolved all the elected representatives of the People of their responsibilities?

To start with, I think it was designed to fail from the get-go. Even if it was a legit entity, they failed miserably at their job. They did not have the courage to make tough decisions. Politics is all about re-election for most members of congress instead of a vocation. Many of them are not qualified or capable of governing or developing and administrating policy.

There are many smart people who have stated that the national debt is our greatest threat to national security. That means to me that the debt must be brought down. Regardless of one's view on whether we have a spending or taxing problem, one thing for sure is cuts have to be made. That is where both congress and the president have failed in their leadership and governance. Instead of coming up with a plan that outlines meaningful cuts and revenue strategies, they spent their time arguing, blaming, and campaigning.

Do I remember the weirdness of the Gang of Six....

"The Gang of Six plan proposes to reduce the cumulative deficit by $3.6-3.7 trillion over ten years relative to the CBO&#8217;s March 2011 baseline. Everyone&#8217;s excited about it. Four trillion dollars! Hooray!

"The weird thing is that if you are claiming deficit reductions against the CBO&#8217;s baseline, I think intellectual honesty requires you to point out that, according to the CBO&#8217;s baseline, there is no deficit problem.

"The projected 2021 deficit is $729 billion, but net interest spending is $807 billion (Table 1-5). That means that the primary budget is running a surplus of $78 billion, the entire deficit is due to interest payments on the debt, and the debt has stabilized around 75 percent of GDP.

"This is not a great situation, but it&#8217;s no emergency, either."

The Weirdness of 10-Year Deficit Reduction | The Baseline Scenario

Those smart people you mentioned who correctly, imho, label our national debt (as opposed to deficit) as the greatest threat to national security can be found on the Left and Right sides of the political spectrum. It is impossible for me to imagine how elected Republicans AND Democrats will ever find the leadership to solve it.

 

[old navy]

Remember the Super Committee, that small group of congresspeople that absolved all the elected representatives of the People of their responsibilities?

To start with, I think it was designed to fail from the get-go. Even if it was a legit entity, they failed miserably at their job. They did not have the courage to make tough decisions. Politics is all about re-election for most members of congress instead of a vocation. Many of them are not qualified or capable of governing or developing and administrating policy.

There are many smart people who have stated that the national debt is our greatest threat to national security. That means to me that the debt must be brought down. Regardless of one's view on whether we have a spending or taxing problem, one thing for sure is cuts have to be made. That is where both congress and the president have failed in their leadership and governance. Instead of coming up with a plan that outlines meaningful cuts and revenue strategies, they spent their time arguing, blaming, and campaigning.

Do I remember the weirdness of the Gang of Six....

"The Gang of Six plan proposes to reduce the cumulative deficit by $3.6-3.7 trillion over ten years relative to the CBO’s March 2011 baseline. Everyone’s excited about it. Four trillion dollars! Hooray!

"The weird thing is that if you are claiming deficit reductions against the CBO’s baseline, I think intellectual honesty requires you to point out that, according to the CBO’s baseline, there is no deficit problem.

"The projected 2021 deficit is $729 billion, but net interest spending is $807 billion (Table 1-5). That means that the primary budget is running a surplus of $78 billion, the entire deficit is due to interest payments on the debt, and the debt has stabilized around 75 percent of GDP.

"This is not a great situation, but it’s no emergency, either."

The Weirdness of 10-Year Deficit Reduction | The Baseline Scenario

Those smart people you mentioned who correctly, imho, label our national debt (as opposed to deficit) as the greatest threat to national security can be found on the Left and Right sides of the political spectrum. It is impossible for me to imagine how elected Republicans AND Democrats will ever find the leadership to solve it.[/QUOTE]

yep, the annual deficit is just added to the debt. I agree that people on the right and left recognize the problems we have but it takes courage to make tough decisions.