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

SLAYER69
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....

edit on 24-2-2014 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

Id say cut all Aid to Isreal, Pakistan, Eygpt and Saudi Arabia

That will save a lot of money.


Why prop up country who values and ethics are alien to the west.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

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.

Arguing for the sake of 'arguing' ?

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

If you call stagnation 'survival'

Their todays no better than their yesterdays, and their tomorrows will be the same.

Wouldn't call that helping, surviving.

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 agai

No need to try again.

BY a civilian commander in chief, and politicians.

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

So we go to war just for the hell of it then eh ?

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

Like Vietnam was?

Like Afghanistan was?

Record on that ain't been too great.

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

Why yes nothing says 'ally' better than backing Iraq,Iran,North Korea, and Syria, and hacking government sites, and corporate sites!

Lots of links about.

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?

Gasp Imma a Republican !!!!

Now there is a 'dirty' word!

If Republican opposites were so all hair on fire so GD concerned about 'debt' and deficits' they would cut social engineering spending.

But no wait cut DEFENSE.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

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.

For crying out loud.

Explained here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Explained again here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Explained here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Explained here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Explained here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

For the last time.

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.

You do know them military service men ALSO pay SS right ?

THEY ALSO PAY INCOME TAX.

THAT pays for the SS 'trust' fund.

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.

Totally ignore this post I see.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

crazyewok

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.

What I am talking about is BAE systems.

One of the worlds best if not the best weapon system manufacture.

That is not American.

reply to post by neo96


Ahhh, I get it. Money doesnt matter unless you say it does.

By all means, ignore the facts of social programs. Ignore that every dollar paid in food stamps actually nets $1.25 in consumer spending. Ignore that the only reason the military budget can be so high is because they take DIRECTLY from social programs.

neo96
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.

The military has always had contractors wanna know why? Because the military builds next to nothing. Just about every weapon, plane and vehicle is always contracted out. The more you post just shows how little you actually know about the military.

neo96
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Arguing for the sake of 'arguing' ?

Dodging my points I see. Very classy...

If you call stagnation 'survival'

Their todays no better than their yesterdays, and their tomorrows will be the same.

Wouldn't call that helping, surviving.

Exactly, I called it survival. That's all I called it. I'd rather these people survive then die, starving in the streets. I don't agree with the high social program spending, but it's CERTAINLY better than a bloated military budget.

No need to try again.

BY a civilian commander in chief, and politicians.

Seriously, what does this have to do with ANYTHING? Militaries of ALL kinds are used for subjecting others to our will and killing people. It doesn't matter who is at the helm, it is just true. Stop deflecting the points.

So we go to war just for the hell of it then eh ?

Guess so, it certainly isn't to defend our freedoms like Republicans like to yell about.

Like Vietnam was?

Like Afghanistan was?

Record on that ain't been too great.

Both of those two wars are examples of our large ground force based military failing to fight guerrilla warfare tactics of underequipped and poorly defined enemies. You just proved my point with those examples.

Why yes nothing says 'ally' better than backing Iraq,Iran,North Korea, and Syria, and hacking government sites, and corporate sites!

Lots of links about.

AGAIN, not being a true ally doesn't mean that we are at war with them. Why do we need a large ground force to stop cyberterrorism? Your points don't make any sense.

Gasp Imma a Republican !!!!

Now there is a 'dirty' word!

Why yes you do buy into the BS left/right rhetoric that all Democrats and Republicans fall for. Examples of this are shown throughout the thread with your political rhetoric about social program spending being WORSE than military spending. Both may be bad, but you have to be a callous asshole to think that spending money on something designed to kill other people is better than spending money on making sure large sections of the population don't starve to death.

If Republican opposites were so all hair on fire so GD concerned about 'debt' and deficits' they would cut social engineering spending.

But no wait cut DEFENSE.

Explain to me why paying to make sure someone doesn't starve to death is worse than paying to maintain a force designed to kill large amounts of foreign people. Try not to use any political rhetoric. I doubt you'll accomplish this though, I've read your other posts and threads.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

Ahhh, I get it. Money doesnt matter unless you say it does.

Apparently not.

By all means, ignore the facts of social programs.

Yeah someone is clearly ignoring what pays for those programs.

Ignore that every dollar paid in food stamps actually nets $1.25 in consumer spending

Sure the hell not ignoring the billions food stamps make JP Morgan. Or the guaranteed income to food suppliers.

That will gets a revenue slash from defense cuts.

. Ignore that the only reason the military budget can be so high is because they take DIRECTLY from social programs.

Yeah someone is clearly ignoring social program spending is HIGHER.

We done here ?

Or still want to argue for the sake of arguing?

reply to post by buster2010

The military has always had contractors wanna know why? Because the military builds next to nothing. Just about every weapon, plane and vehicle is always contracted out. The more you post just shows how little you actually know about the military.

So why support the root cause of contracting out ?

Wait for it ?

Wait for it ?

The root cause is DEFENSE cuts!

Yeah the more someone does post clearly does show how little they know about the military.

Also stuff like Clinton making it illegal for the Us military to stockpile. That increases the cost to go to 'war'.

As the value of the dollar decreases systems COST MORE MONEY.

I find it amazing that the avdoctates who push defense cuts never take in to consideration of that thing called inflation.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

Dodging my points I see. Very classy...

What points ?

Exactly, I called it survival. That's all I called it. I'd rather these people survive then die, starving in the streets

Nice hyperbole.

Don't see people starving in the streets last time I heard America was one of the 'fattest' countries in the world.

But by all means. Feed those huddled masses with that glorious taxpayer subsidized GMO food!.

Seriously, what does this have to do with ANYTHING? Militaries of ALL kinds are used for subjecting others to our will and killing people. It doesn't matter who is at the helm, it is just true. Stop deflecting the points.

Doesn't matter!

Yeah someone is deflecting here.

Because the military has a CIVILIAN commander in Chief.

Guess so, it certainly isn't to defend our freedoms like Republicans like to yell about.

As opposed to the flip side of that coin who don't defend anything ?

Both of those two wars are examples of our large ground force based military failing to fight guerrilla warfare tactics of underequipped and poorly defined enemies. You just proved my point with those examples.

If you say so.

AGAIN, not being a true ally doesn't mean that we are at war with them. Why do we need a large ground force to stop cyberterrorism? Your points don't make any sense.

We are always at war with someone. Although some have delusions of something else like how everyone just 'loves' the US.

Why yes you do buy into the BS left/right rhetoric that all Democrats and Republicans fall for.

'
Wasn't the one throwing the term Republican around was I ?

Someone clearly does buy in to the left/right rhetoric.

Explain to me why paying to make sure someone doesn't starve to death is worse than paying to maintain a force designed to kill large amounts of foreign people.

Not even going to bother.

Once again because people are not starving in this country.

tothetenthpower
reply to post by onequestion

 

Yup, and there's the faux outrage.

Military suggests cuts, people jump up in the air, worried that American's military will fol overnight if we don't continue spending 50% of GDP in the thing.

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

~Tenth

Yes the military needs cuts, not the troops.

neo96
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

What points ?

These ones (particularly the bolded part):

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.

Nice hyperbole.

Don't see people starving in the streets last time I heard America was one of the 'fattest' countries in the world.

But by all means. Feed those huddled masses with that glorious taxpayer subsidized GMO food!.

That's because we have high social spending. What do you think these people will use to buy food if we make huge cuts to social spending? Using the current state of the country to describe what the country would look like if we cut social spending is just disingenuous.

Doesn't matter!

Yeah someone is deflecting here.

Because the military has a CIVILIAN commander in Chief.

I am not deflecting. The purpose of any military is to kill other people. I really have no clue why you keep stressing the fact that the president is a civilian. He still uses it (in America's name) to kill other people. And it certainly DOES matter.

As opposed to the flip side of that coin who don't defend anything ?

Where did I say that the military budget should be $0? Don't put words in my mouth.

If you say so.

I certainly do, because that was the state of the military during those wars.

We are always at war with someone. Although some have delusions of something else like how everyone just 'loves' the US.

I never claimed that the whole world loves us. AGAIN stop putting words in my mouth. You've been doing it the whole thread. Having small regional conflicts, doesn't necessitate having a HUMONGOUS army that could crush a whole continent. We can't even flex the full might of our military in the conflicts we've been in since WWII. What's the point in having a military that we cannot even fully utilize? Wouldn't it make more sense economically to have a military that is smaller and more focused on the things we ARE allowed to do?

Wasn't the one throwing the term Republican around was I ?

Someone clearly does buy in to the left/right rhetoric.

Do I? I'm not the one parroting Republican talking points. I'm the one trying to show you common sense on why we don't need a huge WWII style military anymore, but you just REFUSE to accept that we could possible be SOOOO much more efficient with a smaller, more focused military. AGAIN I used to be in the military, I know how the internal politics work.

Not even going to bother.

Once again because people are not starving in this country.

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

BECAUSE WE CURRENTLY GIVE THEM MONEY TO BUY FOOD! What do you think will happen if we stopped doing that, which is what you keep suggesting? Man you're thick.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

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.

So what ?

We spend more than the rest of the world on EVERYTHING.

What is the GD point ?

hat's because we have high social spending. What do you think these people will use to buy food if we make huge cuts to social spending?

Well they aren't going to get/have a blue collar job that pays well at defense companies. That make OTHER civilian products.

Still will be on those programs.

Using the current state of the country to describe what the country would look like if we cut social spending is just disingenuous.

No it isn't because ONCE AGAIN those companies make civilian products, and employ people from other companies that supply resources.

I am not deflecting. The purpose of any military is to kill other people. I really have no clue why you keep stressing the fact that the president is a civilian. H

Really there is no GD point of telling people like it is.

The military doesn't start wars. Their civilian leaders do.

Really there is no GD point there.

I never claimed that the whole world loves us.

Guess it is just better to be oblivious to the fact that the world is one giant crap sandwich and over the last 60 years we have always had to take a bite out of it.

Do I? I'm not the one parroting Republican talking points

That was hilarious I have never heard a 'republican' say half the stuff I do.

I'm the one trying to show you common sense on why we don't need a huge WWII style military anymore, but you just REFUSE to accept that we could possible be SOOOO much more efficient with a smaller, more focused military. AGAIN I used to be in the military, I know how the internal politics work.

Common sense say that is a pipe dream.

Easier to make comments like that when your job ain't on the line.

BECAUSE WE CURRENTLY GIVE THEM MONEY TO BUY FOOD! What do you think will happen if we stopped doing that, which is what you keep suggesting? Man you're thick.

The thick people don't understand where the money comes from to pay for that, and people who no longer have their jobs end right up on those programs.

Done insulting my intelligence ?

We done here?

My heart aches for the mistreatment of our men and women who have/are serving and upholding their oath. When does the hold of the oath stop?

Is it when the Commander in Chief/Congress fail repeatedly to keep their promises?
Is it when you are broken in body and spirit with no hope of help from the very people who made the promises?
Is it when your family fell apart because of the multiple deployments back to back?
Is it when you are called a terrorist because you are a veteran?
Is it when your vote was not counted?
Is it when you no longer have a job to come back to because your employer hired someone else to fill your position?
Is it when you stand in line for government assistance?
Is it when your experienced military leaders are fired/dismissed and hit with gag orders?

Perhaps this will be the straw that breaks the system. Perhaps this will be the undoing of the political arena. Perhaps this is when civilians no longer fear our soldiers turning their guns on us. Perhaps our veterans will remember the promises not kept. Perhaps we have a chance of getting our country back.

Who else remembers Obama seeking a "military exchange" with other nations when he first came to office? WHY??????

reply to post by MrSpad


That's for the corrected info. I was talking to a buddy of mine recently that's still in and he made it sound like the High Three was gone (which he chose). Found the updated news on that and it was announced just after he and I had talked about it.

neo96
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

So what ?

We spend more than the rest of the world on EVERYTHING.

What is the GD point ?

AGAIN I said that social programs need to be cut, but I've stressed several times in this thread that military spending should be cut first. You act like I only want military spending to be cut.

Well they aren't going to get/have a blue collar job that pays well at defense companies. That make OTHER civilian products.

Still will be on those programs.

So you think corporate welfare is ok but not civilian welfare?

No it isn't because ONCE AGAIN those companies make civilian products, and employ people from other companies that supply resources.

What will stop them from continuing to make civilian products that they can continue to sell to the public using the profits from said sales to continue to fund their development of civilian products? Are you suggesting that these companies NEED to be on corporate welfare to stay profitable? Isn't that the same thing as giving welfare to civilians to survive?

Really there is no GD point of telling people like it is.

The military doesn't start wars. Their civilian leaders do.

Really there is no GD point there.

FINE, the military doesn't start wars, a civilian does. Now explain to me why a large WWII style military is even necessary.

Guess it is just better to be oblivious to the fact that the world is one giant crap sandwich and over the last 60 years we have always had to take a bite out of it.

Oblivious to what? You are putting words in my mouth again. Read the next sentence VERY CAREFULLY. I never said that we shouldn't have a military; I said that we should reduce the size of the military to a more mobile force that can move and handle the regional scuffles we keep ending up in.

That was hilarious I have never heard a 'republican' say half the stuff I do.

Republicans are the ones currently fighting to maintain the same level of military spending. So not only do you parrot Republican talking points, you pretend like they are your own thoughts.

Common sense say that is a pipe dream.

Easier to make comments like that when your job ain't on the line.

Is your job on the line? Because as a veteran I certainly have a stake in reduced military spending since that will affect VA benefits. Your first sentence is extremely ignorant. Just because reducing the size of the military to something more mobile and efficient is a hard task and may be impossible, doesn't mean we shouldn't try and should just maintain the current bloat in military spending. AGAIN, we cannot even utilize the full 100% power of the U.S. military.

The thick people don't understand where the money comes from to pay for that, and people who no longer have their jobs end right up on those programs.

Done insulting my intelligence ?

We done here?

The money for those programs comes from the Fed, just like all the money in the country. But that is irrelevant, you are STILL putting words in my mouth since I am by no means advocating that we need to maintain the same level of social program spending. I just think that before we cut that spending, we need to cut military spending. The cuts are easier and less damaging economically.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


The US government is the biggest employer in the nation, without them unemployment in the US will make the nation a third world country indeed.

Remember US manufacturing is base now almost completely oversea in order to boost somebody else economy in what used to be you know third world countries.

The irony.

BTW the goal of Obama is to destroy completely the military to turned into the private sector

reply to post by Krazysh0t

So you think corporate welfare is ok but not civilian welfare?

Social engineering programs IS CORPORATE WELFARE.

FINE, the military doesn't start wars, a civilian does. Now explain to me why a large WWII style military is even necessary.

Read the GD article ?

READ IT ?

Cut to PRE world war 2 levels.

Republicans are the ones currently fighting to maintain the same level of military spending. So not only do you parrot Republican talking points, you pretend like they are your own thoughts.

Now who is putting 'words' in someones mouth!

Awesome I always love it when someone else tells me what I think!

Here finish this post.

Moving on to something with more substance.

neo96
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Social engineering programs IS CORPORATE WELFARE.

Deflection again. You know damn well what I'm talking about. Answer the question.

Read the GD article ?

READ IT ?

Cut to PRE world war 2 levels.

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?

Now who is putting 'words' in someones mouth!

Awesome I always love it when someone else tells me what I think!

Here finish this post.

Moving on to something with more substance.

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.

marg6043
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

The US government is the biggest employer in the nation, without them unemployment in the US will make the nation a third world country indeed.

Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. A saying that all politicians should learn since they try so hard to make fixes that don't hurt anyone. But those fixes only result in bandaid fixes that don't address the real problems, just create more pointless bureaucracy.

Remember US manufacturing is base now almost completely oversea in order to boost somebody else economy in what used to be you know third world countries.

So you think that this is a healthy relationship to maintain and we shouldn't do anything to correct that?

The irony.

BTW the goal of Obama is to destroy completely the military to turned into the private sector

Prove that last sentence, because that looks suspiciously like something I'd hear from Fox News or Infowars. I'd also say that Obama's use of drone warfare completely destroys your point. Can't have drone warfare if we've completely destroyed the military. But I guess that destroys your Obama hate rhetoric.