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

reply to post by neo96

Money is meaningless.

Then why, exactly, are you so concerned with how much this country spends on social programs (which is less than what they spend on the military, which you are defending)?

reply to post by captaintyinknots

Then why, exactly, are you so concerned with how much this country spends on social programs (which is less than what they spend on the military, which you are defending)?

That was explained on page one and following posts.

The defense industry employs BLUE COLLAR workers who pay income tax that PAYS for those social programs.

Gut defense, and social programs TAKE A HUGE revenue CUT.

The people from those jobs go on social engineering programs, and WE ARE STILL SPENDING the same, and a hell of alot more.

Money is an issue right ?

The rationale behind gutting defense.

WE WILL STILL BE SPENDING MORE MONEY. Just without introducing new wealth to offset the cost.

ONCE again for those who don't really even bother listening to what I say.

Defense introduces NEW WEALTH via INCOME tax to pay for people who are NOT paying income tax.

reply to post by HomerinNC


They have already f*3ked the military out of Retirement benefits. Congress cut the Retirement COLA for military. However BEFORE doing this MOST military were afforded two options:

1. Redux - $30,000 lump sum upon retirement + COLA = inflation - 1
2. High Three - full COLA adjustment retirement benefits.

Congress just killed the High Three and those that opted for High Three will be getting a new version of the Redux which DOES NOT include the $30,000 they could have taken previously.

"...pass the KY let's get ready for some intense serious arse f@#kin'!!"

reply to post by neo96


I have more knowledge about its workings than you do apparently. Say what you want about social programs, but at least they are helping people. All the army is good for is subjecting others to our whims and killing people. We may use a warship or two to help disaster victims, but that certainly isn't something that we need a whole military force for. You mention we need this army for China, a country that we AREN'T at war with. Why do we need an army to fight large land battles if we aren't at war yet? We have plenty of technology to let us know if China decides to get hostile, and it doesn't take long to train new soldiers. If we reduced our force size, we could easily build it back up again if China did become a threat. Try again son.

P.S. While I certainly think social program spending should be cut, I think it should be cut after removing bloat from things we don't need, like an army budget greater than over half of the rest of the world combined.

neo96
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Then why, exactly, are you so concerned with how much this country spends on social programs (which is less than what they spend on the military, which you are defending)?

That was explained on page one and following posts.

The defense industry employs BLUE COLLAR workers who pay income tax that PAYS for those social programs.

Gut defense, and social programs TAKE A HUGE revenue CUT.

The people from those jobs go on social engineering programs, and WE ARE STILL SPENDING the same, and a hell of alot more.

Money is an issue right ?

The rationale behind gutting defense.

WE WILL STILL BE SPENDING MORE MONEY. Just without introducing new wealth to offset the cost.

ONCE again for those who don't really even bother listening to what I say.

Defense introduces NEW WEALTH via INCOME tax to pay for people who are NOT paying income tax.

Youre contradicting yourself. Either money matters or it doesnt. You have now said both.

Now, lets think about revenue generated by social programs, and the fact that the majority who receive them have paid into them...
Ahh nevermind, I know you too well to bother.

Keep spending dem billions on shiny toys....who cares if the number of people in poverty in this country and around the world is increasing exponentially....

WCmutant
reply to post by HomerinNC

 

They have already f*3ked the military out of Retirement benefits. Congress cut the Retirement COLA for military. However BEFORE doing this MOST military were afforded two options:

1. Redux - $30,000 lump sum upon retirement + COLA = inflation - 1
2. High Three - full COLA adjustment retirement benefits.

Congress just killed the High Three and those that opted for High Three will be getting a new version of the Redux which DOES NOT include the $30,000 they could have taken previously.

"...pass the KY let's get ready for some intense serious arse f@#kin'!!"

The COLA cuts were restored already for people in the military they will only be in effect for those who have not signed up yet. Although that is likely to also change and be restored.

reply to post by WCmutant


Add to that the cuts and adjustments in the Tri-care package our military has and it's a real trifecta hitting them now. Pay, Retirement and Medical. A hack and slash taken across all three when this little game is done being played.

This wouldn't have even made sense, done this way, under Clinton. We were at PEACE under Clinton. No active wars or pending wars outside the dust up in Kosovo and police action in Somalia. Even there...it would have made for a "What are you thinking?!" moment.

Now? With one war still running...and the U.S. up to it's tail feathers in near open combat in a number of other nations at the moment? They really have to be kidding... We're setting ourselves up for a surprised like 1941...with a 3rd rate, cut down military to match. When it comes, it'll be just like that morning for National readiness and capability to react as we need to. At this rate, it may even be worse.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

I have more knowledge about its workings than you do apparently.

Anyone who judges our military by how much we spend on it clearly doesn't.

Say what you want about social programs, but at least they are helping people.

If you call being a slave to the state 'helping'.

All the army is good for is subjecting others to our whims and killing people.

Now that is BS since everyone KNOWS the military doesn't start wars our civilian commander, and chief, and politicians do.

The military job is to go fight,and die. guess the last 6 years have proven winning is no longer part of that equation.

We may use a warship or two to help disaster victims, but that certainly isn't something that we need a whole military force for

That is not the function of the military. Never has been.

You mention we need this army for China, a country that we AREN'T at war with.

Been paying attention to current events ?

Venezala, Ukranine, the Arab Springs, China terroritial 'flexing'.

Trouble is every where in the world.

Why do people have problems with being prepared ?

We have plenty of technology to let us know if China decides to get hostile, and it doesn't take long to train new soldiers.

Technology China gets by hacking, and stealing.

China has always been hostile.

. If we reduced our force size, we could easily build it back up again if China did become a threat. Try again son.

Yeah someone does need to try again because that comment can't get anymore asinine.

Reduce!

Building back up will be 'so easy' !!!

Oh wow.

neo96
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.

You're being a huge hypocrite here neo...

You sit here whining about cutting spending to the military, and then say the following:

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

Which is it? You say cutting funding to the military hurts the military, yet then you say spending money on a military doesn't make it good?

You are looking at half the problem, and causing the other half.

You see the waste in social programs, and instead of just addressing that issue, you go too far and become a shill for the MIC because you hate social spending waste?

Real talk for a minute neo, the MIC AND the social spending is OUT OF CONTROL. They are simply the same thing under a different name. Liberals use social programs to bilk money out of the citizenry, conservatives used the MIC. They are both corrupt. They are both doing severe damage to this country.

It seems some people are still stuck in the 1950's... or 1550s, I guess it's just the same crap over and over again anyway.

onequestion

Yeah, cut military benefits.

Yup that should be the last thing they cut. In fact the politcians who sent the poor sods out too fight should get there pensions cut to boost the vets benifits.

onequestion
Don't bring them home or anything just cut their benefits. Then when they get back home, they wont have a job, well also label them crazy so they can't get guns. By the time they get back it will be impossible to pay for an education because its so expensive. Besides the jobs they train for wont be there when their done training because our entire country is training for the same set of jobs.

What a conundrum.

Yup the best way to save money is stop the pointless wars and most of all giving aid to countrys like Saudi Arabia, pakistan and isreal that do not share the wests values.

onequestion
Anyway, at least were bring them home in time to fight the coming invasion from the Asian continent. The Chinese are probably building boats with all the steal their producing and buying from all over the world.

Now your good arguments sliding into brainless paranoia. Shame the post started off so well....

onequestion
Do the math, 2.1 billion chinese and 390 million Americans.

Numbers matter very little.....Even America couldnt invade America, the logitics and supply lines needed alone is almost next to impossible.

onequestion
Oh but you know whats better, their trying to disarm us! Hah.

They could cut the US defence by half and the USA could still take on China and Russia alone 4x over. would just mean you would have stop you bullying and power plays and concentrate on DEFENCE.

I do believe we should cut a good chunk out of the military budget. The best way to do that is to get rid of the many expensive bases on foreign soil and let those countries handle their own defense. Hell, many of those countries don't even like us or want us there. So, instead of cutting troop benefits, bring those benefits back to U.S. shores. Troops spend loads of money into local economies, like for instance, housing allowance used to rent places in the area. They spend money buying various things. There are many dying communities in the U.S. that would benefit economically from a military presence. I'd rather that money be spent here at home than spent overseas.

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.

BS

The USA so far ahead right now its a joke. Scaleing back abit wont hurt. It just means you have to stop building up that empire of yours and concentrate on defence.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

Youre contradicting yourself.

NO.

Either money matters or it doesnt. You have now said both.

Intentionally being obtuse there?

Sounds pretty much like it.

Now, lets think about revenue generated by social programs, and the fact that the majority who receive them have paid into them..

No in cases like SS, and medicare a person only pays 6%, employers match that contribution, and the difference is made up by new people added to the ponzi scheme.

Because people get more out than they ever paid in.

Ahh nevermind, I know you too well to bother.

Nope.

Keep spending dem billions on shiny toys....who cares if the number of people in poverty in this country and around the world is increasing exponentially..

Keep spending trillions on social de-evolution. That leads to 'prosperity'.

In 2010 alone, government at all levels oversaw a transfer of over $2.2 trillion in money, goods and services. The burden of these entitlements came to slightly more than $7,200 for every person in America. Scaled against a notional family of four, the average entitlements burden for that year alone approached $29,000.

online.wsj.com...

reply to post by James1982

You're being a huge hypocrite here neo... You sit here whining about cutting spending to the military, and then say the following: "I find it rather hilarious that some people think our military is the 'best' by the amount we spend on it." Which is it? You say cutting funding to the military hurts the military, yet then you say spending money on a military doesn't make it good?

Nope because for some odd reason some peoples reading comprehension has epically failed.

We spend more on EVERYTHING in this country. Which should mean we should have the 'BEST' than everybody.

WE DON't.

The people who are being hypocrits are those saying gut defense and expand social engineering programs.

Still spending money there.

You see the waste in social programs, and instead of just addressing that issue, you go too far and become a shill for the MIC because you hate social spending waste?

As opposed to being a 'shill' for the WELFARE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX ?

reply to post by crazyewok

The USA so far ahead right now its a joke.

Taken a look at your own military ?

Germany's ?

China's ?

India's ?

Far ahead ?

Look up NBS Mantis CRAM, China, and India's supersonic cruise missile technology.

China shooting down satellites etc.

The US is NOT far ahead of the curve.

neo96
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Anyone who judges our military by how much we spend on it clearly doesn't.

You'd MAYBE have a point if our spending was somewhere in the ballpark of other countries' military spending. Then you could argue that it is misspent resources. HOWEVER since it has been pointed out to you that we spend more than the next half of the world put together on our military, we either have the BEST military in the world or a HUGE corruption problem in the Department of Defense. Both warrant reduced spending.

If you call being a slave to the state 'helping'.

Political rhetoric. We are still helping them survive day to day.

Now that is BS since everyone KNOWS the military doesn't start wars our civilian commander, and chief, and politicians do.

This has nothing to do with the sentence you quoted. Who cares who starts the wars? The military is STILL being used to enforce our will overseas and kill people. Try again.

The military job is to go fight,and die. guess the last 6 years have proven winning is no longer part of that equation.

There is no winning an unwinnable war. Sorry that you haven't realized that yet, but it's true.

That is not the function of the military. Never has been.

Never said it was, but it certainly doesn't stop us from sending troops and ships to other countries to help with natural disasters.

Been paying attention to current events ?

Venezala, Ukranine, the Arab Springs, China terroritial 'flexing'.

Trouble is every where in the world.

Why do people have problems with being prepared ?

All of these things could be better handled by a small, mobile army consisting of mainly special forces.

Technology China gets by hacking, and stealing.

China has always been hostile.

Provide a link where China said it was at war with us. Being unfriendly with us != warpath.

Yeah someone does need to try again because that comment can't get anymore asinine.

Reduce!

Building back up will be 'so easy' !!!

Oh wow.

It's better than spending buckets of money that could go to other things on a military that doesn't do anything or gets trained on equipment it never uses. I thought you wanted a reduction of the debt and deficit? Or are you just like every other Republican and only want to see it for things that YOU don't like?

I wanted to add something here in what seems to be a big area of confusion. "The military spending..." is not a big unified budget and the Military essentially breaks down into 4 areas of spending overall. It's not QUITE this clear in the raw budget papers, but it's very close to it.

Operations (Training, Fighting, Paying people and feeding them)
Research and Development (Thinking new stuff up to spend more to build)
Veterans Affairs (What happens after leaving the military)

and a far less well defined, but no less real designation that absolutely sits away from the rest in terms of handling for budgets and planning. We could call that "Advanced Projects and Systems". There you have the Aurora, the B-2 Spirit, the TR-3B (If it exists as such) and a whole range of other things like the X-37 we do know exist.

2 of the first 3 have already been cut and are still being cut. That's what they love to cut and make big public scenes of. The 3rd, R&D, is contractor territory and where a good % of funding for that area goes.. DARPA to Lockheed and Raytheon. A wide range...but sacred cows and generally beyond the scope of a lowly DOD Secretary to even suggest cutting ...altho Chuckie probably has lunch with some of those guys himself, so I'd credit a more personal motive in his case.

#4...is where I think a good portion of America's black budget goes. While our guys are sucking down crappy MRE's and drinking water from packets in the mud, the 4th area is where they have the whizz bang budgets that, often, themselves are classified for programs the very names of are likewise, classified.

They hit our men...while they keep their precious toys and order more. Always more. That is the problem and where not all defense money is remotely equal. Yeah, it needs cuts. It needs intelligent cuts.....but just sending a child with a brush hog to go forth and mow the world. (sigh)

reply to post by neo96

Intentionally being obtuse there? Sounds pretty much like it.

Explain. In one post you said money doesnt matter. In another you said that spending A was good and spending B was bad. You are contradicting yourself, and you can try and dance around it, but its right there for all to see.

No in cases like SS, and medicare a person only pays 6%, employers match that contribution, and the difference is made up by new people added to the ponzi scheme.

And the gov't BORROWS from SS to pay for things like...you guessed it, MILITARY BUDGET. nice try though. You know who is the biggest holder of american debt? Thats right, the SS administration.

Keep spending trillions on social de-evolution. That leads to 'prosperity'.

Hmmm...so spending more on death and destruction than anything else is good...spending some one helping our populace be healthy and fed is bad. Interesting logic.

neo96

Taken a look at your own military ?

Erm the UK isnt going to be takeing back the colonys if thats what your worried about

Anyway news flash UK and USA miltary are joined at the hip.

They need to make some intelligent cuts I say start at the top, the Commander in Chief and Hagel. That cuts a lot of dead weight pork right there....