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

It seems "support our troops" really only meant support the wars.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

I know what the article says, but you are arguing AGAINST doing that. I'm defending the article. Did you forget how an argument works?

Yeah someone clearly doesn't know how an argument works.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. YOU are the one who came into the thread saying that social program spending needs to be cut before military spending and that the military NEEDS to have the same level of spending since you implied that cuts will put defense contractors out of business. These are ALL Republican talking points. I certainly haven't heard any Democrats or third parties suggesting that rhetoric.

Someone is still putting words in someones mouth.


I have clearly argued for 5 pages that defense cuts is ONE BIG SNiPPIN MISTAKE AMERICA.

But hey who cares!

Tow the administration line. Parroting them makes them 'right'.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


I have nothing to prove to you or anybody, but I will address the issue of fixing, is not fixing when it comes to the US economy because the reason our nation is in the economic mess it is today is due to the corruption that runs in Washington and that means all political trash equally.

We elected them and they sell themselves and the voters to the devil, they get to keep their lavish lifestyles while pocketing private interest money to sell the nation, while we the commoners get nothing but crap.

neo96

Tow the administration line. Parroting them makes them 'right'.

Or maybe *shock horror* people just plain out disgaree with you! wow thats a novel thought......

Doesnt make them a obama loveing democrat .

crazyewok

neo96

Tow the administration line. Parroting them makes them 'right'.

Or maybe *shock horror* people just plain out disgaree with you! wow thats a novel thought......

Doesnt make them a obama loveing democrat .

Well those people who defend what the current admin does, and it's cronies tend to be 'Democrats'.

I figured Eurpoeans would hate when America cuts their defense.

Because it means they have to up their spending.

After all the last 60 years of EU outsourcing their defense to America is why their militaries have been small.

neo96


Well those people who defend what the current admin does, and it's cronies tend to be 'Democrats'.

BS
Are you blind?
I see alot of people who are very anti Obama and Anti demorcrat on this thread that seem to think that some cuts may be a good idea.

Or are you one of these silly minded simple people who only think in terms or Dermocrat and Republicans How cute......

reply to post by neo96


While US government keeps cutting on the defense remember that is one thing that keeps increasing also, the briberies I mean foreign aid to countries that are friendly to the US that has not been cut at all now under the Obama administration include known terrorist groups in the middle east.

The irony.

reply to post by crazyewok

I see alot of people who are very anti Obama and Anti demorcrat on this thread that seem to think that some cuts may be a good idea.

Those cuts can't be anymore stupid.

Especially when the current administration just gave 'defense' contractors' wage increases, and other government 'employees', Cost of living raises to SS.

And the epic failure and billions wasted on the Care Act.

The military is paying for the administrations epic blunders.

Plus the GM bailouts, and the 800 billion dollar stimulus that even today has nothing to show for it.

I guess since they can't disarm us ,they'll leave us exposed with inferior defenses.
Then we ALL would be fighting,good thing I know what to do then.

marg6043
reply to post by neo96

 

While US government keeps cutting on the defense remember that is one thing that keeps increasing also, the briberies I mean foreign aid to countries that are friendly to the US that has not been cut at all now under the Obama administration include known terrorist groups in the middle east.

The irony.

Thank you.

The billions wasted on foreign aid.

When immigrants from around the world send billions more to their 'homes'.


www.dailymail.co.uk...

reply to post by neo96


Exactly, people were thinking that Obama was going to increase their minimum wages and what he increases was the pay for federal employees.

But what people doesn't understand is that a regular federal employees makes a lot more than a mere 10.00 and hour so it was nothing but a big propaganda scam.

neo96
[

Well those people who defend what the current admin does, and it's cronies tend to be 'Democrats'.

I figured Eurpoeans would hate when America cuts their defense.

Because it means they have to up their spending.

After all the last 60 years of EU outsourcing their defense to America is why their militaries have been small.

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

Again more BS.

In the cold war maybe.

But now France and Britain alone have enough power to manage Russia. With Germany and the Scandinavian country’s too? We can handle our own just fine.

Anyway most people are not suggesting a complete US withdrawal. No harm in a USAF squadron or two and a few batttions being stationed in close allies like UK, France, Canada, Australia ect US troops don’t die there and costs are likely reasonable. Plus if the USA was actually attacked for REAL I’m pretty sure we would come to help so its makes sense to keep SOME alliances, plus the benefits of officer exchanges, combined R&D and mutual training is likely priceless. I wouldn’t lose any sleep if the USA withdrew as Russia would have a long way to go to be a threat but there no point as we all share similar goels and values so the benfits likley outweight the cost for both partys.

I think what people would actually like to see is a withdraw from countries of questionable character like Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia ect Places were your actually giving billions of $ of military hardware and aid not to mention the cost of keeping bases and US assets in such high risk areas. And the cost in intervening in countries like Iraq which really posed zero threat to US security, and the warmongering over Syria and Iran?

There plenty to cut and still not live yourself defenceless. In fact if you stoped your meddling in ME affairs and proping up corrupt and questionable regimes you could likely save billions without even touching your defence spending on actually important issues like defence of the pacific from China and North Korea.

reply to post by crazyewok



I don't know about that, because is not country in the EU that will do anything including wiping their butts without asking US to back them off first.

And not I am not been sarcastic this time.

marg6043


I don't know about that, because is not country in the EU that will do anything including wiping their butts without asking US to back them off first.

And not I am not been sarcastic this time.

BS both the UK and France are pretty self sustaining

UK even fought a entire war of defence in the 80's without US help. France have also done a few independant operations. Plus the UK had done a hell of a lot for the USA in both Iraq and Afganistan. Ok I dont agree with those two wars but dont you forget the UK took a big chunk of both of them. Not serving as rear echelon support troops but as front line units in some of the hardest fought places. DONT EVER forget that. DONT EVER forget the British troops that have died were American troops would likley have.

reply to post by crazyewok


I think is all about treaties, US is involved in pacts and treaties that make sure that countries within those pacts that includes the EU will no engage in any wars unless they are approved by the UN. In case any country within the EU gets attacked or in trouble US will back them without questions.

I think I read something about this a long time ago somewhere.

Having looked at this issue and having an idea about the US military industry, there are a few things that can be stated:

This is a sword that will cut 3 ways and it is one that the country will have to consider. The first is that with the budget cuts, means that they will have to reduce the forces around the world, those who were eligible for retirement will probably consider it and get out, causing a round of promotions in the US military. It will also mean that any would be drums of war will have to be beating long and loudly, before the country gets involved in any overseas operations. It means countries will now have to deal with their own problems or those of their neighbors, rather than the USA going in and acting as police for the world.

But the down side, is that now there is no incentive for people to stay in the military, or to join, it could be that recruitment goes way down, who wants to go into a job for no benefits, for themselves or their families, where they could be killed in the line of duty? So there is that aspect.
And then there is one other aspect that has not been discussed, the benefits to the country that comes from having this kind of military.

There has been tangible assets that the public has seen, from all of this military spending. Things that we all use in our daily lives, or have access to, some have come from the military r&d, that at one time had some of the best military applications that are now accessible and used by the public. This spans in our every day lives, from the internet we are using, to telecommunications, to radar, gps, the microwave. Even some medicines were developed and used by the US military, and is now out for general use in the population.

Is it worth it?

reply to post by crazyewok


BTW, I want to reaffirm that I admire the UK for their faithful alliance to the US, yes US would not have engaged in many of the last few wars if it was not for the support of the UK and the EU.

reply to post by sdcigarpig



I see a side to this that i dont think most have yet. Private militarys may well become the ideal choice when and if recruitment falls off so much that the armies are neutered and useless. PMCs would not need benefits at all. all they do is operate for the pay. Maybe metal gear is not far off on where military ops are heading toward.

Wrabbit2000
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)

The sad part is that this subject invariably leads to arguing. What makes it sad is that if up to the average citizen #1 and 3 should be the most generous sections of the military budget. With #2 getting just enough to stay ahead of everyone else. What people are really after when they say they want military cuts they want the black projects cut, they want to stop buying equipment that Congress keeps insisting we buy because it is good for their Districts. This should require very little brains and zero imagination to get a satisfactory military budget that falls inline with our actual needs.

reply to post by yuppa

Yes and no. While a private military force may seem like a good idea, at the same time it is bad, as then some protections that most national militaries would get. A private military force is just a mercenary group, and like most businesses go to the highest bidder, could you or would you trust the defense of the country or even say your state to a group that could be bought by the highest bidder?