It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to recommend deep budget cuts targeting pay, benefits

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   

captaintyinknots
Hows about, rather than cutting benefits, we cut the actual fat from our military budget? You know, the BILLIONS of dollars that they spend? Ya know, the greatest consumer of fossil fuels on the planet? Ya know, the guys who hand out no bid contracts right and left?


Naw....thatd make too much sense...lets just take food out of people's mouths instead....
edit on 24-2-2014 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)


That has already been addressed.

In the last 6 years military doctrine has been to go 'green'.

Of course they are prolly handing out 'no bid' contracts for them solar panels, and wind turbines, and other nonsense.

That paints a bullseye on the people on the ground.

'Hey look there,' That glare from solar panels that's a target!'.




posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 





And that's OK to you?


Yeah that is ok to me. To have a superior military force instead of gutting them to 'Walmart' status.

Pay WalMart prices for the military, and you will get a Walmart military.




That the defense department effectively subsidizes the american middle class and supports basically the entire US economy?


Heard of the internet right ?

GPS ?

Drivers heads up display for high end cars, and lower end cars ?

Nightvision for autos?

Yeah it does. All that came from the military. Adapted to civilian use.




That in itself is one of the prime reasons your nation is turning itself into a third world country from the bottom up.


I think it is the 2.2 trillion dollars we spend on social programs. The asinine foreign aid. and the asinine blowing trillions on studying cow farts. and bridges to nowhere.


edit on 24-2-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   

beezzer
They cut Commissary benefits, they cut HOLA, COLA.

They wanted to make it hurt to the regular soldier and his/her family.

There are thousands of things they could have cut without hurting the men and women who serve.

But they didn't.

they wanted to make this painful, noticeable, and very loud.

Why?


Because they want more military service members on food stamps/ social engineering programs.

It's ok to be on the government dime except the military.

Civilians come one come all!

They are more important!.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



The military NEEDS reduction if you are to save your own country. It's gotten ridiculous.


I agree 100% and that may surprise some to hear, but shouldn't. We do need to cut the Military and I'd say cutting by double digit percentages works quite well for me. The problem isn't cutting. Goodness...we pump over half a TRILLION a year into it right now, and that's been close to a trillion a year in DOD "on the books" spending alone in the last decade.

The problem I have is WHO is doing the cutting and HOW. They appointed a political axe man to the Pentagon, and he's swinging an axe like a lumberjack. The problem is....only our troops and systems they actually USE on a daily basis is down at ground level to hack away on. The Defense contractors that account for 10's of billions in NET profits per year (at least until recently, and slowing now that the wars aren't raging) aren't at ground level. They're higher up there....

The ones that need the axe where it hurts are the yahoos planning the new bombers, fighters and weapons systems to come online 10-15 YEARS from now ..when we don't know how to keep the systems we have right now in budget and operating in a reliable way. The more fancy, the more likely it breaks regularly and sucks down many x's estimates for upkeep and refit.

Now VERY recently headlines have touted that new bomber in particular. Supposed to be the next generation deep penetration strategic bomber .. I see...while the troops actually in shooting contact today and tomorrow are told to make do with less, take less pay ...and oh, sorry guys..your benefits won't be much either. Budget cuts....but hey! Your children's children WILL have a sexy bomber to kill the new enemies with!

Somehow...I don't think that pitch will go so hot with the men and women at ground level, taking that Axe right between the eyes.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   

neo96
Here is the math.

The rest of the world is building up their militaries, and the current administration GUTS ours.

Same thing we saw with Carter, the same thing we saw with Clinton, and now what we see with the current potus.

This can't get any more ridiculous.

Meanwhile the same administration has increased social engineering spending.



You obviously failed math. America spends more than the next 25 nations combined none of whom are our enemies. We could cut the budget in half and still be outspending everyone. Paul Ryan and John Boehner wanted cuts to military personnel and it looks like their boy Hagel gave them what they wanted. The money is better spent on the people instead of building weapons that we sell to other nations at scrap prices even though they are still new.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 





The problem I have is WHO is doing the cutting and HOW.


I have problems too like the WHY ?

They want to depend on technology, and their push button war.

Sounds like they want to take out the 'human element'.

And what we have seen in the last 6 years is:

Drone crashes,them being hacked, and the lost of 'stealth helicopters'.

One on the lessons from World War 2 was Hitler's over dependence on technology.

And we all know how that turned out.

It was boots on the ground that won it at the end of the day.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 





You obviously failed math.


Nope nice try





America spends more than the next 25 nations combined none of whom are our enemies.


Says who ?

Russia has the mob, and their illegal arms to subsidize their spending.

China that communist regime does it's book keeping, and spends more.

And so what ?

We do have a moral obligation to give the military the best money can buy. Rather effing easy to say to slash military spending.

Our butts aren't on the line getting shot at, and blown up.

Blah





The money is better spent on the people instead of building weapons that we sell to other nations at scrap prices even though they are still new.


Not it isn't.

So bascially you would rather spend the entire tax revenue of the US on people sitting on their couches

I don't think so.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   

neo96

captaintyinknots
Hows about, rather than cutting benefits, we cut the actual fat from our military budget? You know, the BILLIONS of dollars that they spend? Ya know, the greatest consumer of fossil fuels on the planet? Ya know, the guys who hand out no bid contracts right and left?


Naw....thatd make too much sense...lets just take food out of people's mouths instead....
edit on 24-2-2014 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)


That has already been addressed.

In the last 6 years military doctrine has been to go 'green'.

Of course they are prolly handing out 'no bid' contracts for them solar panels, and wind turbines, and other nonsense.

That paints a bullseye on the people on the ground.

'Hey look there,' That glare from solar panels that's a target!'.
it really hasn't been addressed. The military budget could be cut by 1/3rd and still be the biggest in the world.

But people like to scream "less government" out of one side of their mouths while defending military spending out of the other.

Just silly. But also not worth the debate....far toomuch hypocrissy involved.
edit on 24-2-2014 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2014 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I have that same question of why, on that note.

Troops with high tech gear would be effective....but as you note, they don't want that. They want unmanned everything, 0 casualties (but a bloodbath for the enemy) and all the risk of saying Pie is good in a speech at the county fair.

Well..they'll get some of that anyway, I imagine. Well have our war by gizmos ..and the enemy in the next one will just bypass the battlefield we chose to gizmo them on while they hit our homes, malls and schools..as the ONLY target on Earth we have left them to actually DO something against.

Short sighted stinkin' thinkin'. Very Very short sighted....just no realism to it at all.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 





it really hasn't been addressed. The military budget could be cut by 1/3rd and still be the biggest in the world.


I find it rather hilarious that some people think our military is the 'best' by the amount we spend on it.

That can't be farther from the truth.




But people like to scream "less government" out of one side of their mouths while defending military spending out of the other.


True some people do scream 'less governent' while expanding it in the same breath vis a vis social engineering.

And we outspend the rest of the world on that too.




Just silly. But also not worth the debate....far toomuch hypocrissy involved.


Indeed the hypocrisy is thick!

Gut defense, and spend,spend,spend,spend,spend on social engineering programs!

Clearly money is no object just when it comes to the military.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


1) I didn't say best. I said biggest in terms of money spent. Nice try though.

2) I didn't say a thing about social programs.

Its amazing how debates with you always tem d to contain false accusations.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 





hort sighted stinkin' thinkin'. Very Very short sighted....just no realism to it at all.


I agree.

And I think they will be more likely to go to 'war'.

They: The civilian commander in chief, and politicians.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



We do have a moral obligation to give the military the best money can buy. Rather effing easy to say to slash military spending.

We already have the best military and even if we cut the budget in half we would still have the best military. Simply because we are the nation that builds the best weapons. And you should learn the difference between military spending and defense spending they are different.

You mean spend tax revenue on the people that can't find jobs because they have been moved overseas? Maybe we shouldn't have had a president that offered tax breaks to them then maybe their jobs would still be here.

It would also help if the Pentagon didn't lose trillions of dollars. Remember that little speech Rumsfeld gave just before 9/11?

edit on 24-2-2014 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Soldiers are sacrificed on the battlefield, soldiers are sacrificed on the geopolitical chess board, soldiers are sacrificed on the altar of propaganda, soldiers are sacrificed for the empire.

When will politicians and bankers make their sacrifice, for the empire they seek to build?


edit on 24-2-2014 by seasoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 





We already have the best military and even if we cut the budget in half we would still have the best military.


No we don't. Anyone who has taken a good look at the ROW military technology knows how WRONG that is.

Hell between 60+ year old military weapon systems like the b-52, the 40 year old tomahawk, The 40 year abrahams tank knows just how ridiculous comment that is.




Simply because we are the nation that builds the best weapons.


NO we aren't.

Hell all anyone has to do is look at FN, the SMAW, and the maingun for the Abrahams designed in Germany, and other EU countries.

Oh, and then there is the famous IC chips that are being made in CHINA of all places.

Every time defense gets gutted outsourcing increases.

Lot of current US issue is made elsewhere in the world.




You mean spend tax revenue on the people that can't find jobs because they have been moved overseas? Maybe we shouldn't have had a president that offered tax breaks to them then maybe their jobs would still be here.


They already do:

www.huffingtonpost.com...

money.cnn.com...

The rest of the world is currently making better systems than we are.

Anyone can look that up, but I guess some choose to believe in delusions of grandeur.

That overconfidence gets American servicemen killed.
edit on 24-2-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Pay attention here too:

The Clinton era of gutting defense led to the INCREASE usage of contractors.

Just a friendly reminder to those who hate contractors.

Every time defense gets cut there is a corresponding rise in contractor usage.

I would rather have a military that is accountable than to gut it to people who are not.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   

neo96
Here is the math.

The rest of the world is building up their militaries, and the current administration GUTS ours.

Same thing we saw with Carter, the same thing we saw with Clinton, and now what we see with the current potus.

This can't get any more ridiculous.

Meanwhile the same administration has increased social engineering spending.



Please explain why the country needs to have the highest military spending by several orders of magnitude, especially considering your stance that we don't have the best military in the world. This implies bloat and misspent resources. Anyways you are wrong. We don't NEED a huge standing army anymore. We need small tactical units to wage small, regional battles. Trust me I was actually IN the army. I was in field artillery and when I went to Iraq, I did MP work. What is the point in having people trained to operate indirect fire weapons then have them do something COMPLETELY unrelated to their military profession when they are actually deployed? Sorry bud, but you are wrong here. We DON'T need to spend this much money on the military that sits around and does nothing for large periods of time or does things that they didn't sign up to do. Maybe if we actually participated in a large land war again, you could have a case for a built up army, but right now it is just a bloat on books. Slash it. Again ex-soldier here, so don't try to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 





Please explain why the country needs to have the highest military spending by several orders of magnitude, especially considering your stance that we don't have the best military in the world.


It already has been explained.

We spend more money on education than the rest of the world. which means we should have the 'smartest' people on the planet.

We don't.

We spend more on healthcare than everyone else (medicare,medicaid) than the rest of the world. Which means we should have the best 'healthcare' system in the world.

We don't.

Money is meaningless.




Anyways you are wrong


Say you and everyone else who judges their military by money.

All of those people are WRONG.




We don't NEED a huge standing army anymore. We need small tactical units to wage small, regional battles


Really ?

How effective is that going to be against the worlds largest Army,Air Force in the world: CHINA ?




Trust me I was actually IN the army. I was in field artillery and when I went to Iraq, I did MP work.


SO what ?




We DON'T need to spend this much money on the military that sits around and does nothing for large periods of time or does things that they didn't sign up to do.


That's your opinion, others do vary with mileage.




Maybe if we actually participated in a large land war again, you could have a case for a built up army, but right now it is just a bloat on books. Slash it


They should slash social engineering programs then since they sit around and do nothing for large periods of time, etc.




Again ex-soldier here, so don't try to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.


So what ?

And I think I will.

Being in the military makes you an 'expert' on the entire US military, and the capabilities of the rest of the world weapon system's, and doctrine ?

interesting.
edit on 24-2-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
If Haliburton needs more money, the GOP will find a way to funnel it to them. Cuts don't matter.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   
The benefits cutting is the red red herring the Pentagon always uses as a way of saying "see we are cutting costs" while at the same time they know that would be a politcal mess for Congress so Congress nevers allows the benefit cuts and comes up with the money. That is an a verly old shell game. The real cuts of course would be reducing the size of the active duty Army down 490K. That is not a bad idea. They will expand the reserves and the NG so they still have the manpower to call up but, at the same time cutting costs. The fact is nobody else can touch the US and it becomes impossible to justify the spending. 75% of the worlds defence spending comes from the US and NATO. Bloated out of date forces like in Russia, China and India are only effective against other bloated out of date forces which is fine since those 3 nations border each other. None of the however even have the global projection power of the UK or France. Of course Russia has tried to reform to smaller better trained high tech forces but, the massive corruption and lack of skilled workers has kept that from happening. China and India also have toyed with idea but, the cost is far more than they are willing to pay.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join