Pentagon Plans to Shrink Army to Pre-World War II Level

[Unkotare]

We don't need armed forces.

Everybody in the world loves us.

It's been that way since January, 2009.

Hasn't it?

This mistake, maybe more than all the other ill-considered things obama has done to our country, may in the end prove the most disastrous.

 

[hangover]

We don't need armed forces.

Everybody in the world loves us.

It's been that way since January, 2009.

Hasn't it?

If the right wingers would quit trying to be the world dictator, and just used the military to defend THIS country instead of invading other countries, the military could be cut in half.

But cons want a war based economy that gives us perpetual war. With that kind of economy, we get war or recession. THAT is why McCain wants to invade Syria, the Ukraine, Egypt, and Iran.

 

[Unkotare]

We don't need armed forces.

Everybody in the world loves us.

It's been that way since January, 2009.

Hasn't it?

If the right wingers would quit trying to be the world dictator, and just used the military to defend THIS country instead of invading other countries, the military could be cut in half.

But cons want a war based economy that gives us perpetual war. With that kind of economy, we get war or recession. THAT is why McCain wants to invade Syria, the Ukraine, Egypt, and Iran.

Do you get anything out of being such a mindless, hyper-partisan hack all the time? Your every post can be predicted beforehand. What's the point? Have you ever even tried thinking instead of 'playing a role'?

 

[nodoginnafight]

We don't need armed forces.

Everybody in the world loves us.

It's been that way since January, 2009.

Hasn't it?

If the right wingers would quit trying to be the world dictator, and just used the military to defend THIS country instead of invading other countries, the military could be cut in half.

But cons want a war based economy that gives us perpetual war. With that kind of economy, we get war or recession. THAT is why McCain wants to invade Syria, the Ukraine, Egypt, and Iran.

Yes, of course their are war profiteers. Always have been - always will be. It's not really a partisan thing.

I'm not entirely opposed to responding to calls for help from those around the world who are being bullied. But we can only afford to do what we can afford. I don't know about "cut in half" but I agree that we can get the job done on a lot less.

 

[Ringel05]

Hagel has a major uphill battle. He's talking about closing bases, cutting troop numbers, retiring the A-10, etc.
This means jobs will go bye-bye including civilian businesses that support and cater to the military and it's personnel. Some towns rely on those bases for their very existence. There are a lot of Senators and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle who will fight this tooth and nail.

The extent of the proposed cuts aside, You have hit upon some of the biggest hurdles to cutting ANY government spending.

(Of course campaign contributions from defense contractors are also a huge factor imho)

No one ever said cutting government spending is going to be completely painless. It is going to hurt some - and all the partisans are going to try to make sure it is the other guys who hurt rather than their guys.

I hate to imagine what we are going to leave to our grandchildren - all because we lacked the courage and the work ethic necessary to get our fiscal house in order.

I agree but then that raises the specter of trade offs. What's the ripple effect? How many more people end up on government assistance (though for some it will be short term)? Is this the right time for this move? What will be our cost when we have to rebuild? (And eventually we will). Will it heavily outweigh our current savings ratio?
The primary issue I think needs addressing is the (often) quadruple and quintuple built in redundancy inherent in our government, not the simple real checks but the obvious overkill. That would probably free up a third of our national budget which could then be partially applied where those checks are weak or non-existent.
People resist change in almost every aspect of life especially if the change is (or perceived to be) financially negative. Part of each state's representatives job is to bring home and keep the bacon for their constituents, it's part of the process so cutting spending that affects their state will meet with heavy resistance.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Hagel has a major uphill battle. He's talking about closing bases, cutting troop numbers, retiring the A-10, etc.
This means jobs will go bye-bye including civilian businesses that support and cater to the military and it's personnel. Some towns rely on those bases for their very existence. There are a lot of Senators and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle who will fight this tooth and nail.

The extent of the proposed cuts aside, You have hit upon some of the biggest hurdles to cutting ANY government spending.

(Of course campaign contributions from defense contractors are also a huge factor imho)

No one ever said cutting government spending is going to be completely painless. It is going to hurt some - and all the partisans are going to try to make sure it is the other guys who hurt rather than their guys.

I hate to imagine what we are going to leave to our grandchildren - all because we lacked the courage and the work ethic necessary to get our fiscal house in order.

I agree but then that raises the specter of trade offs. What's the ripple effect? How many more people end up on government assistance (though for some it will be short term)? Is this the right time for this move? What will be our cost when we have to rebuild? (And eventually we will). Will it heavily outweigh our current savings ratio?
The primary issue I think needs addressing is the (often) quadruple and quintuple built in redundancy inherent in our government, not the simple real checks but the obvious overkill. That would probably free up a third of our national budget which could then be partially applied where those checks are weak or non-existent.
People resist change in almost every aspect of life especially if the change is (or perceived to be) financially negative. Part of each state's representatives job is to bring home and keep the bacon for their constituents, it's part of the process so cutting spending that affects their state will meet with heavy resistance.

We might cause higher unemployment when we take a lot of borrowed money out of the economy. I can almost guarantee that it WILL be financially negative for a whole lot of people.

But what are the consequences if we don't?

That scares me more.

 

[BlindBoo]

We are in the same war we were in in 1998...bubba didn't realize it then and Obabble doesn't realize it now.

Sorry but it was Bush and his cronies that didn't understand the threat, despite multiple warnings. They were pushing for Star Wars as the only way to deal with rogue nations who wanted to strike at us. Of course that was pre-9-11.

Bin laden came on the scene in 2001...?

That's right, bin Laden was not on President Bushes radar.

 

[Unkotare]

Do you people think that free and open trade has largely thrived since the 50s just because everyone decided to be nice? Do some of you myopic morons not notice where China is directing its build up of naval power and presence? It's possible to look beyond the end of your own nose, you know.

 

[Mr. President]

PLUS Obama the "hater of wars" has opened up deployment regions in Africa, South East Asia, and South America. Gee I'm glad he is getting us out of Afghanistan and cutting the troop numbers now that they won't have anything to do...

 

[hangover]

We don't need armed forces.

Everybody in the world loves us.

It's been that way since January, 2009.

Hasn't it?

If the right wingers would quit trying to be the world dictator, and just used the military to defend THIS country instead of invading other countries, the military could be cut in half.

But cons want a war based economy that gives us perpetual war. With that kind of economy, we get war or recession. THAT is why McCain wants to invade Syria, the Ukraine, Egypt, and Iran.

Do you get anything out of being such a mindless, hyper-partisan hack all the time? Your every post can be predicted beforehand. What's the point? Have you ever even tried thinking instead of 'playing a role'?

Whine about cutting spending, when whine when spending is cut, then whine when your war mongering is exposed. Poor baby.

 

[Synthaholic]

We don't need armed forces.

Everybody in the world loves us.

It's been that way since January, 2009.

Hasn't it?

Thanks for another retard thread!

 

[ScienceRocks]

I propose brining 60% of all troops outside of America home and cutting to 400 billion/year.

Maybe investing some of the 250 billion into science, infrastructure, and r&d? Sounds like a plan.

 

[Synthaholic]

Hagel has a major uphill battle. He's talking about closing bases, cutting troop numbers, retiring the A-10, etc.
This means jobs will go bye-bye including civilian businesses that support and cater to the military and it's personnel. Some towns rely on those bases for their very existence. There are a lot of Senators and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle who will fight this tooth and nail.

Which just further proves that the military has become a government works program.

But wait a minute...I thought the government didn't create jobs???

 

[Ringel05]

The extent of the proposed cuts aside, You have hit upon some of the biggest hurdles to cutting ANY government spending.

(Of course campaign contributions from defense contractors are also a huge factor imho)

No one ever said cutting government spending is going to be completely painless. It is going to hurt some - and all the partisans are going to try to make sure it is the other guys who hurt rather than their guys.

I hate to imagine what we are going to leave to our grandchildren - all because we lacked the courage and the work ethic necessary to get our fiscal house in order.

I agree but then that raises the specter of trade offs. What's the ripple effect? How many more people end up on government assistance (though for some it will be short term)? Is this the right time for this move? What will be our cost when we have to rebuild? (And eventually we will). Will it heavily outweigh our current savings ratio?
The primary issue I think needs addressing is the (often) quadruple and quintuple built in redundancy inherent in our government, not the simple real checks but the obvious overkill. That would probably free up a third of our national budget which could then be partially applied where those checks are weak or non-existent.
People resist change in almost every aspect of life especially if the change is (or perceived to be) financially negative. Part of each state's representatives job is to bring home and keep the bacon for their constituents, it's part of the process so cutting spending that affects their state will meet with heavy resistance.

We might cause higher unemployment when we take a lot of borrowed money out of the economy. I can almost guarantee that it WILL be financially negative for a whole lot of people.

But what are the consequences if we don't?

That scares me more.

My problem with the whole process is politicians generally can't see past the next election. Traditionally the Dems focus on cutting the military and the Pubs focus on cutting social services, almost always for political capital to use in their campaigns. Neither side seems willing to address the waste that occurs across the board in all areas of government. After the end of the "Cold War" both Bush I then Clinton started and accelerated the intel and military cuts that left us relying on our allies, a very short sighted approach that had dire and expensive consequences.
Yes, I agree that spending has to be curtailed but I know (been dealing with the government for decades) that if the true waste across the board is addressed the cuts could be just as great. Of course that will also create some short term economic/employment issues but it could strengthen all of the governments activities in everything they do in the long run. Don't think that will ever happen, partisan politics won't allow it.

 

[Ringel05]

Hagel has a major uphill battle. He's talking about closing bases, cutting troop numbers, retiring the A-10, etc.
This means jobs will go bye-bye including civilian businesses that support and cater to the military and it's personnel. Some towns rely on those bases for their very existence. There are a lot of Senators and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle who will fight this tooth and nail.

Which just further proves that the military has become a government works program.

But wait a minute...I thought the government didn't create jobs???

Uuummmmm, kinda generalizing just a bit..... aren't we...... Missed the part about towns (local businesses) that cater to the military personnel as well as the civilian population.......

 

[nodoginnafight]

Generation after generation of Americans have made sacrifices for this nation.
I hate to think that THIS generation is incapable of making sacrifices to get our fiscal house in order.
Our out-of-control debt will destroy this nation eventually - if we don't do something.
Do we have the will and the backbone to make sacrifices?

It's not just military spending that is out of control.

We can't turn it all around overnight. It took a long time for us to dig the hole we are in this deep. It's going to take a long time to dig our way out. But for right now, IS ONE FRIGGIN' BALANCED BUDGET TOO MUCH TO ASK?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Cutting the defending the world bull shit is the first good step Gutting our science and infrastructure that would probably lead to decrease in economic growth is just a bad idea.

 

[Unkotare]

If the right wingers would quit trying to be the world dictator, and just used the military to defend THIS country instead of invading other countries, the military could be cut in half.

But cons want a war based economy that gives us perpetual war. With that kind of economy, we get war or recession. THAT is why McCain wants to invade Syria, the Ukraine, Egypt, and Iran.

Do you get anything out of being such a mindless, hyper-partisan hack all the time? Your every post can be predicted beforehand. What's the point? Have you ever even tried thinking instead of 'playing a role'?

Whine about cutting spending, when whine when spending is cut, then whine when your war mongering is exposed. Poor baby.

This is what I mean. What do you get out of being such a mindless hack? Anything? Do you get some thrill out of lying about my position as long as you can feel 'left' enough? Actually thinking can be fun too, you know. You should try it sometime.

Regarding your lies: I have never advocated cutting military spending. It is a very, very bad idea and our economic woes cannot be resolved that way in any case. "War mongering" is obviously empty hyperbole that you may feel free to shove back up your ass from whence you pulled it.

 

[Moonglow]

Generation after generation of Americans have made sacrifices for this nation.
I hate to think that THIS generation is incapable of making sacrifices to get our fiscal house in order.
Our out-of-control debt will destroy this nation eventually - if we don't do something.
Do we have the will and the backbone to make sacrifices?

It's not just military spending that is out of control.

We can't turn it all around overnight. It took a long time for us to dig the hole we are in this deep. It's going to take a long time to dig our way out. But for right now, IS ONE FRIGGIN' BALANCED BUDGET TOO MUCH TO ASK?

It's not traditional at the federal level..they should have put it in the Constitution..

 

[Moonglow]

Even Reagan got shit for closing US military bases ....