• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pentegon set to release new cuts to Active Duty

ecofarm said:
I support cuts across the board. If I am to believe that more can be done with less in regard to welfare, how am I to feel otherwise in regard to the military?
Click to expand...
A rare instance where we agree.
 
j-mac said:
And there will always be a US with a big stick on the world stage, count on it.
Click to expand...
Really? Tell me what we did about the Rwanda genocide or the Slaughter in Sudan. Oh that's not a big stick, it's a masturbatory aid...
 
DVSentinel said:
US military to unveil plan to cut personnel costs | Fox News

Extracted:


Published February 22, 2014
The Wall Street Journal
Facebook1601 Twitter447 Gplus20

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is set Monday to recommend a limit on military pay raises, higher fees for health-care benefits and less generous housing allowances to prune billions of dollars in benefits from the defense budget, setting up an election-year confrontation with veterans groups and lawmakers.

Faced with steadily increasing military personnel costs that threaten to overwhelm an ever-tighter budget, Mr. Hagel is also expected to include a one-year freeze on raises for top military brass—a gesture meant to show that the best-compensated leaders also will make sacrifices.

Pentagon officials describe the package of cuts, which will be part of the military's coming budget, as a modest and realistic attempt to save billions of dollars needed to protect other critical portions of U.S. defense spending.

The majority of service members are E-4 or Below (Distribution of Enlisted Ranks)

Here is the military enlisted pay charts for 2014 2014 Military Pay Chart

The military received a 1% increase for 2014 with food prices alone projected to go up 2.5% to 3.5% this year. These people risk their lives everyday for all of us and yet live at or near the poverty level and now some want to cut their pay and increase their costs even more.

If cutting this to the military is what is necessary to maintain the welfare state, then we need to reconsider or priorities, or the veterans/military should decide not to defend such a state.
Click to expand...

Well how about stopping all the unnecessary hardware that the Pentagon is forced to buy because of political reasons? That could save a bundle! Do you really need that many Abraham's tanks built when you have thousands standing in big desert parking lots mothballed?

Blaming the wealth-fare state for these cuts is simplistic and ignorant. The military is 1/3 of the total budget once you add stuff up... it is a major post and like everything else, needs to be cut.
 
PeteEU said:
Well how about stopping all the unnecessary hardware that the Pentagon is forced to buy because of political reasons? That could save a bundle! Do you really need that many Abraham's tanks built when you have thousands standing in big desert parking lots mothballed?

Blaming the wealth-fare state for these cuts is simplistic and ignorant. The military is 1/3 of the total budget once you add stuff up... it is a major post and like everything else, needs to be cut.
Click to expand...
Nothing more ridiculous than foreigners telling us how to spend our money.
 
American said:
Nothing more ridiculous than foreigners telling us how to spend our money.
Click to expand...

Nothing more ridiculous than arrogance and pride getting in the way of common sense.
 
PeteEU said:
Nothing more ridiculous than arrogance and pride getting in the way of common sense.
Click to expand...

You biased hate for us is well known. Save us your feigned concern.
 
PeteEU said:
Nothing more ridiculous than arrogance and pride getting in the way of common sense.
Click to expand...

you know what i agree the US should go back to a pre-WW2 mentality. screw everyone else and you can fend for yourselves.

i have been an advocate of pulling out of the UN for a while and not acknowledging it as any sort of government body with any type of power.
that would save us billions of dollars a year in foreign aid and UN dues.

when something happens in the world you guys can take care of it on your own. if you want our help then you can pay the bill for our resources.
i see no reason as to why US taxpayers are on the hook to defend other nations. you either can take care of yourself or not. if you need help from someone else
sure no problem here is the bill for us coming in and saving you.

as people say we are not the police of the world and if you want us to be then time to start paying for it.
 
reinoe said:
Really? Tell me what we did about the Rwanda genocide or the Slaughter in Sudan. Oh that's not a big stick, it's a masturbatory aid...
Click to expand...

Yes, where was Clinton on Rwanda? And where is Obama on the Sudan? Funny how liberals love to tout how they are for human rights, and people, but when the chips are down, they fall silent, and let it happen....Where is Obama on Syria? Assad lied to his face and made him look like a fool on the world stage, yet Obama does nothing....

Don't tell me about "masturbatory" when on foreign policy demo's are locked in the upstairs bathroom with a tube of super glide, and a roll of paper towel.
 
ludin said:
you know what i agree the US should go back to a pre-WW2 mentality. screw everyone else and you can fend for yourselves.

i have been an advocate of pulling out of the UN for a while and not acknowledging it as any sort of government body with any type of power.
that would save us billions of dollars a year in foreign aid and UN dues.

when something happens in the world you guys can take care of it on your own. if you want our help then you can pay the bill for our resources.
i see no reason as to why US taxpayers are on the hook to defend other nations. you either can take care of yourself or not. if you need help from someone else
sure no problem here is the bill for us coming in and saving you.

as people say we are not the police of the world and if you want us to be then time to start paying for it.
Click to expand...


Hear, hear!!!! It must be so easy for PeteEU, or Monte sitting in Europe knowing that there are the full complement of US troops, and hardware at the ready to save them if needed, even as they spit in our faces.
 
j-mac said:
Hear, hear!!!! It must be so easy for PeteEU, or Monte sitting in Europe knowing that there are the full complement of US troops, and hardware at the ready to save them if needed, even as they spit in our faces.
Click to expand...

what people don't understand is that it is cheaper to deploy bases around area's than it is to have to ship them across the ocean to get where they need to go.
what is worse is if you have to ship them there in an emergency the enemy can cut you off or attack you in transport and then you are really in trouble.

as i say if hagel wants to cut our military then lets cut him and all the benefits he gets for not doing a bloody thing.
 
The money ripped from the pockets of our service personnel will help cover the costs of giving free everything to illegal immigrants and extending unemployment benefits for 100 years to all our lazy bums.
 
This isnt about sequester, nor is it about budget cuts. It is about right sizing the military based on actual need. No one want to see the military gutted or put in a situation where anyone's life is at risk but anyone that follows military affairs knows that prior to and during wars you have buildups in manpower and after the wars you have draw downs. It really isnt a question of it is is necessary...it is. It is a question of if it can be done efficiently without hurting mission readiness. That isnt quite so clear. Recent past history hasnt shown that to be the case.
 
PeteEU said:
Where was Bush on Sudan? It started under him after all. A bit of selective partisan outrage there eh?
Click to expand...

Weak Pete, Bush is no longer in the Oval office. This was supposed to be the era where Obama over saw the oceans recede, and the world come together for a coke....So, I'll ask again Where's Obama?

From Sept. of last year:

When President Obama addressed the United Nations General Assembly this week, the speech ran to more than 5,000 words, most of them focused on turmoil in the Middle East and North Africa. Yet the president never mentioned the continuing genocide conducted in several parts of Sudan by President Omar al-Bashir.

There was a time when Mr. Obama expressed outrage over the mass murder and aerial bombardment of civilians in the Darfur region of western Sudan. In 2007, the then-presidential hopeful said the Western world's silence regarding the slaughter in Sudan would leave "a stain on our souls."

Now President Obama has joined that silence. These days, to learn about what is transpiring in Sudan, one must turn to Radio Dabanga, broadcasting from the Netherlands. A recent report described the bombardment of a Darfur village called Abu Tega, which was "completely burned and the population fled in all directions."

Mia Farrow and Daniel Jonah Goldhagen: Mass Slaughter and Obama's Mystifying Indifference - WSJ.com
Click to expand...

As with most things Obama, he talked a lot of **** trying to get in office, only to get in and do little or nothing...What a loser.
 
VanceMack said:
This isnt about sequester, nor is it about budget cuts. It is about right sizing the military based on actual need. No one want to see the military gutted or put in a situation where anyone's life is at risk but anyone that follows military affairs knows that prior to and during wars you have buildups in manpower and after the wars you have draw downs. It really isnt a question of it is is necessary...it is. It is a question of if it can be done efficiently without hurting mission readiness. That isnt quite so clear. Recent past history hasnt shown that to be the case.
Click to expand...

I might believe that if Obama wasn't pushing pay raises for AFLCIO workers and was cutting fat out of other agencies also. He is doing nothing to push cuts elsewhere, but his appointee wants cuts to the military. Hmm, who votes for the DNC couldn't have anything to do with it, could it?
 
DVSentinel said:
I might believe that if Obama wasn't pushing pay raises for AFLCIO workers and was cutting fat out of other agencies also. He is doing nothing to push cuts elsewhere, but his appointee wants cuts to the military. Hmm, who votes for the DNC couldn't have anything to do with it, could it?
Click to expand...
Very separate issues. From a real world perspective, there should be cuts in the military. No doubt, politics comes into play...but that doesnt change reality.
 
j-mac said:
Weak Pete, Bush is no longer in the Oval office. This was supposed to be the era where Obama over saw the oceans recede, and the world come together for a coke....So, I'll ask again Where's Obama?

From Sept. of last year:



As with most things Obama, he talked a lot of **** trying to get in office, only to get in and do little or nothing...What a loser.
Click to expand...

Weak? Clinton aint in office either... and yet he was mentioned.

Fact is Sudan started under Bush, he did nothing.. and now you some how expect Obama to do something? Why was there no expectation that Bush did anything? Why no blaming him at least as much as Obama? Oh yea, typical right wing bull**** of not owning up to your own mistakes.
 
PeteEU said:
Weak? Clinton aint in office either... and yet he was mentioned.

Fact is Sudan started under Bush, he did nothing.. and now you some how expect Obama to do something? Why was there no expectation that Bush did anything? Why no blaming him at least as much as Obama? Oh yea, typical right wing bull**** of not owning up to your own mistakes.
Click to expand...

Yeah? Clinton isn't in office, but he did nothing to stop Rwanda....(You brought it up) As far as why I expect Obama to do something, how about the fact that he campaigned on it in 2007, only to ignore it once he got in....But that's ok with you right? Talk about bull****, and not owning ones own mistakes...You have a big double standard Pete. Typical.
 
Here's an interesting little aside to the debate about military spending and necessary vs unnecessary hardware:

Article from 2012, before the sequester:

(CNSNews.com) - President Barack Obama increased inflation-adjusted Department of Defense spending by 10 percent--even while ending the war in Iraq.

That is more than the automatic cut in defense spending that will take place in January if Obama and Congress do not agree to a new spending-and-debt-limit deal.

In fiscal 2008, the year before Obama took office, real Defense Department spending was $526.9 billion in constant 2005 dollars, according to official figures published by the Office of Management and Budget. Four years later, in fiscal 2012, which ended on Sept. 30, real Defense Department spending was $582.5 billion in constant 2005 dollars.

The $55.6 billion jump in real Defense Department spending from 2008 to 2012 was a 10.5 percent increase.

- See more at: Obama Increased Real Defense Spending by More Than 10 Percent | CNS News
Click to expand...

It seems to me that the issue with military spending, as with any government program, is not funding but efficiency. A lot of federal money tends to get wasted regardless of who is at the helm.
 
j-mac said:
Yeah? Clinton isn't in office, but he did nothing to stop Rwanda....(You brought it up) As far as why I expect Obama to do something, how about the fact that he campaigned on it in 2007, only to ignore it once he got in....But that's ok with you right? Talk about bull****, and not owning ones own mistakes...You have a big double standard Pete. Typical.
Click to expand...
He didn't bring it up I did. Rwanda under Clinton. Sudan under Bush. Yet you expect Obama to take the criticism for not doing anything in Sudan but give Bush a complete pass. You're such an obvious partisan hack.

Our military isn't about "carrying a big stick". You besmirch Teddy's name when you try to invoke that phrase. Our military is about protecting corporate interests first and protecting our public interests second.
 
reinoe said:
Really? Tell me what we did about the Rwanda genocide or the Slaughter in Sudan. Oh that's not a big stick, it's a masturbatory aid...
Click to expand...

That's an issue of political will with the civilian leadership, not about the availability or ability of the US military.
 
Moon said:
That's an issue of political will with the civilian leadership, not about the availability or ability of the US military.
Click to expand...

The point is, it doesn't matter how big the stick is: there are a multitude of reasons why we don't get involved in causes that seem worthwhile, and yet we also frequently find ourselves using the military in ways that are not about protecting the interests of American civilians or even American interests.
 
While I'm against decreasing the standing size of the Army I'm not necessarily against reducing or redirecting expenditure with regards to the Army and the Marine Corps. I think we've developed a very flawed funding narrative with regards to potential future threats by focusing, by necessity, on low intensity warfare and the need for capable occupation forces. As a result the Navy has suffered with regards to funding for maintenance, full crew compliments, and new non-carrier procurement (yes the naval design and procurement process is really f-ed up right now and needs dramatic improvement) and we've lost really critical Air Force programs like the F-22. I'd like to see a little less money directed towards the Army and Marines and more directed towards the Navy, the Air Force (less bases, more BRAC, more planes), and R&D.

Reducing troop strength isn't the way to go though. Mothball equipment, cut production lines, terminate specific R&D projects but don't permanently reduce troop strength. Once you make that decision it is so difficult to muster the political will to raise troop levels again barring catastrophe and it severely hobbles our ability to respond to threats as they emerge by shrinking our manpower pool.
 
reinoe said:
He didn't bring it up I did. Rwanda under Clinton. Sudan under Bush. Yet you expect Obama to take the criticism for not doing anything in Sudan but give Bush a complete pass. You're such an obvious partisan hack.

Our military isn't about "carrying a big stick". You besmirch Teddy's name when you try to invoke that phrase. Our military is about protecting corporate interests first and protecting our public interests second.
Click to expand...

So tell me when Obama said in the campaign "to fail to do anything about Sudan is a stain on our soul"... Then got into office, what has he done?

But I'm the hack right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom