Obama to fire 100.000 soldiers next year

[zonly1]

here's another lahota
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiBxsCODB4w]Another Package Delivery Goes Wrong - YouTube[/ame]

just so you're paying attention

 

[Lakhota]

still out performs

Well, then have FedEx deliver your stuff.

 

[zonly1]

still out performs

Well, then have FedEx deliver your stuff.

right, it's cheaper rates with better customer services.

 

[editec]

Retract that "fired" comment lest you remain a stupid fuck.

Euro I think he wants you to call it honorably discharged, which is correct and sounds nicer but they are still being fired. Fired carries a connotation thats negitive.

I believe the more accurate term will be RIF'ed. Reduced In Force.

Another term for reducing the size of the military, now no longer in use, is DEMOBILIZED.

Hey, if people truly want a smaller cheaper government, you pretty much have to expect that the cuts are going to effect the military.

With an $800,000,000,000 annual cost DoD is the largest target for cost cutting in the budget.

 

[Warrior102]

Retract that "fired" comment lest you remain a stupid fuck.

Euro I think he wants you to call it honorably discharged, which is correct and sounds nicer but they are still being fired. Fired carries a connotation thats negitive.

I believe the more accurate term will be RIF'ed. Reduced In Force.

Another term for reducing the size of the military, now no longer in use, is DEMOBILIZED.

Hey, if people truly want a smaller cheaper government, you pretty much have to expect that the cuts are going to effect the military.

With an $800,000,000,000 annual cost DoD is the largest target for cost cutting in the budget.

It always is when a Democrat's in the White House

 

[The T]

Euro I think he wants you to call it honorably discharged, which is correct and sounds nicer but they are still being fired. Fired carries a connotation thats negitive.

I believe the more accurate term will be RIF'ed. Reduced In Force.

Another term for reducing the size of the military, now no longer in use, is DEMOBILIZED.

Hey, if people truly want a smaller cheaper government, you pretty much have to expect that the cuts are going to effect the military.

With an $800,000,000,000 annual cost DoD is the largest target for cost cutting in the budget.

It always is when a Democrat's in the White House

And when something erupts we are caught short as a result.

National defense is the #1 objective of Government. Statists love to neuter it in favour of Socialist domestic schemes.

 

[old navy]

Euro I think he wants you to call it honorably discharged, which is correct and sounds nicer but they are still being fired. Fired carries a connotation thats negitive.

I believe the more accurate term will be RIF'ed. Reduced In Force.

Another term for reducing the size of the military, now no longer in use, is DEMOBILIZED.

Hey, if people truly want a smaller cheaper government, you pretty much have to expect that the cuts are going to effect the military.

With an $800,000,000,000 annual cost DoD is the largest target for cost cutting in the budget.

It always is when a Democrat's in the White House

yep. End strength always goes down during the bad years when dems are in charge.

DOD spending is not really the "largest target for cost cutting" though. Discretionary spending and health care ranks up there with DOD.

File:U.S. Federal Spending - FY 2007.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plus, as mentioned before, national defense is the number one mandate from the Constitution. Also, the senate has not passed a budget in almost three years. The POTUS buget proposal gets laughed at, even by the Dems. Budgets bring discipline and the free-spenders in Washington do not want that.

My prediction is that the reduced numbers as outlined will not happen. There is plenty of room in federal spending for reductions that will not reduce national defense. Some of these cuts do involve DOD but at the contractor level. Some of these people are making way too much money for way too little return.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I believe the more accurate term will be RIF'ed. Reduced In Force.

Another term for reducing the size of the military, now no longer in use, is DEMOBILIZED.

Hey, if people truly want a smaller cheaper government, you pretty much have to expect that the cuts are going to effect the military.

With an $800,000,000,000 annual cost DoD is the largest target for cost cutting in the budget.

It always is when a Democrat's in the White House

And when something erupts we are caught short as a result.

National defense is the #1 objective of Government. Statists love to neuter it in favour of Socialist domestic schemes.

Shut the fuck up you stupid idiot. Take a peak into history and you'll see that the most socialist and statist regimes have the largest military forces, by which they can control the people.

 

[Warrior102]

Military during the Carter/Clinton years - low morale, low pay, ships rotting at the piers, crime (thieves, bad people allowed to stay/coddled)

Reagan/Bush years - Proud to serve!

 

[old navy]

Military during the Carter/Clinton years - low morale, low pay, ships rotting at the piers, crime (thieves, bad people allowed to stay/coddled)

Reagan/Bush years - Proud to serve!

That was my experience as well.

 

[Valerie]

Retract that "fired" comment lest you remain a stupid fuck.

I have a loved one who will soon be in his final year of committed service and when he recently went to reenlist he was told he may not be able to because they are cutting troops. The Army has been his job since he was 18 and he now has a wife and child a few years later. Is he going to be FIRED......? Call it what you will, but perfectly willing and able young soldiers are apparently being let go because of the budget.

 

[Warrior102]

Shut the fuck up you stupid idiot. Take a peak into history and you'll see that the most socialist and statist regimes have the largest military forces, by which they can control the people.

So who's protecting your cowardly, never-served ass here in the U.S.?

 

[The T]

Military during the Carter/Clinton years - low morale, low pay, ships rotting at the piers, crime (thieves, bad people allowed to stay/coddled)

Reagan/Bush years - Proud to serve!

That was my experience as well.

Ditto.

 

[editec]

Retract that "fired" comment lest you remain a stupid fuck.

I have a loved one who will soon be in his final year of committed service and when he recently went to reenlist he was told he may not be able to because they are cutting troops. The Army has been his job since he was 18 and he now has a wife and child a few years later. Is he going to be FIRED......? Call it what you will, but perfectly willing and able young soldiers are apparently being let go because of the budget.

Have no fear Valarie.

I'm sure he'll be embraced and cherished by the private sector just as so many other Americans have been embraced and cherished by it.

After all we're all Americans, right?

 

[Lovebears65]

3000 sailors already got laid off in mid or later career so they dont have to give them a retirement check ... Same is what Clinton did in the 90s. U.S. News - Navy to lay off 3,000 mid-career sailors