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

[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???

Oh and thanks for proving my point about partisan politics.....

 

[Katzndogz]

When republicans think about spending cuts, they mean things like not allowing Nancy Pelosi being able to use the air force as her private taxi service. When democrats think about spending cuts, they mean things like not having an air force.

 

[Ringel05]

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?

Unfortunately, in this age of entitlements, I'm afraid it is.

 

[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?

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

Well, they were borrowing money at the time to fund the military that WAS defending us from foreign attacks.

And a little bit of temporary shortfall is not the end of the world by any means imho. But we've turn it into a steady thing. Folks think a balanced budget is draconian and punitive and just unreasonable now.

 

[Moonglow]

When republicans think about spending cuts, they mean things like not allowing Nancy Pelosi being able to use the air force as her private taxi service. When democrats think about spending cuts, they mean things like not having an air force.

They're all wingnut supporters..

 

[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..

Well, they were borrowing money at the time to fund the military that WAS defending us from foreign attacks.

And a little bit of temporary shortfall is not the end of the world by any means imho. But we've turn it into a steady thing. Folks think a balanced budget is draconian and punitive and just unreasonable now.

I don't. They can set up a saving fund for emergencies, like war, natural disasters etc. Just like states.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Does anyone know if they plan on closing foreign bases?

protecting other countries costs us a LOT

I don't have a problem with closing some bases and letting Japan and Europe cover more of their own expenses

And those people can be transferred state side to replace over paid contractors.

we lose a lot of money paying contractors to do jobs we could do ourselves

 

[Ringel05]

When republicans think about spending cuts, they mean things like not allowing Nancy Pelosi being able to use the air force as her private taxi service. When democrats think about spending cuts, they mean things like not having an air force.

If only that were true....... Thank you also for proving my point about partisan politics.....

 

[nodoginnafight]

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

Well, they were borrowing money at the time to fund the military that WAS defending us from foreign attacks.

And a little bit of temporary shortfall is not the end of the world by any means imho. But we've turn it into a steady thing. Folks think a balanced budget is draconian and punitive and just unreasonable now.

I don't. They can set up a saving fund for emergencies, like war, natural disasters etc. Just like states.

I can go for that. And I can even go for a little temporary debt to deal with real emergencies. (I don't count natural disasters in this category because we KNOW they are going to happen. We don't know where or the exact nature of the emergency, but we KNOW they are going to happen).

 

[Two Thumbs]

Hagar is just stating the obvious

And it's obvious he isn't too bright

Hagal is an Einstein compared to you, Jroc.

the dismantlement of the military back to the point where we could not respond to a major conflict is smart, brilliant even, since it's clear that that idea is horrible beyond reason, but the idea of making us vulnerable is the clear intention.

 

[rightwinger]

And it's obvious he isn't too bright

Hagal is an Einstein compared to you, Jroc.

the dismantlement of the military back to the point where we could not respond to a major conflict is smart, brilliant even, since it's clear that that idea is horrible beyond reason, but the idea of making us vulnerable is the clear intention.

Which conflict would you have us prepare for?

 

[hangover]

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.

We don't have any "allies" we can count on. They all learned better from Iraq. They all count on us for foreign aid. We buy the only friends we have. Even the United Nations counts on us for 75% of its funds. The U.N. doesn't protect other countries, they expect us to do it. The U.S. is the biggest chump in the world.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Hagal is an Einstein compared to you, Jroc.

the dismantlement of the military back to the point where we could not respond to a major conflict is smart, brilliant even, since it's clear that that idea is horrible beyond reason, but the idea of making us vulnerable is the clear intention.

Which conflict would you have us prepare for?

a possible large scale world war

The oceans are no longer barriers, we should be prepared at all times, rather than, once again, play catch up.

 

[hangover]

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.

Well duh. Cons only want to cut spending for the elderly(SS), the EPA, education, and health care. Military spending is YOUR sacred cow, war monger.

 

[Ringel05]

Well, they were borrowing money at the time to fund the military that WAS defending us from foreign attacks.

And a little bit of temporary shortfall is not the end of the world by any means imho. But we've turn it into a steady thing. Folks think a balanced budget is draconian and punitive and just unreasonable now.

I don't. They can set up a saving fund for emergencies, like war, natural disasters etc. Just like states.

I can go for that. And I can even go for a little temporary debt to deal with real emergencies. (I don't count natural disasters in this category because we KNOW they are going to happen. We don't know where or the exact nature of the emergency, but we KNOW they are going to happen).

I'd go with that also but unfortunately I'm a realist, politicians wouldn't be able to resist the temptation to use that money elsewhere.
Whomever is the president: "We need to balance the budget before the next election!"
Aide: "Well sir we have all those untapped moneys in the emergency fund."
Pres: "We can't touch that."
Aide: "We'll get Senator so-and-so to pass an emergency bill allowing us to use it"
Pres: "What emergency?"
Aide: "I'll call Dustin Hoffman, he did that Wag the Dog film."
Pres: "Make it happen."

 

[Ringel05]

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.

We don't have any "allies" we can count on. They all learned better from Iraq. They all count on us for foreign aid. We buy the only friends we have. Even the United Nations counts on us for 75% of its funds. The U.N. doesn't protect other countries, they expect us to do it. The U.S. is the biggest chump in the world.

Keep swingin' Sparky.

 

[Moonglow]

Foreign aid does come to the USA.

 

[rightwinger]

the dismantlement of the military back to the point where we could not respond to a major conflict is smart, brilliant even, since it's clear that that idea is horrible beyond reason, but the idea of making us vulnerable is the clear intention.

Which conflict would you have us prepare for?

a possible large scale world war

The oceans are no longer barriers, we should be prepared at all times, rather than, once again, play catch up.

With whom?

Where is our threat?

 

[Nosmo King]

The "cuts" Secretary Hagel has in mind are actually a 20,000 troop INCREASE under law. Due to sequestration, the budget could only support a military with 400,000 troops.

Because congress is completely dysfunctional, we got sequestration. Hagel is adding troops based on current law.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Which conflict would you have us prepare for?

a possible large scale world war

The oceans are no longer barriers, we should be prepared at all times, rather than, once again, play catch up.

With whom?

Where is our threat?

are you pulling my chain or do you really not know?