• 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!

Sen.-elect Paul: GOP must consider military cuts

Then I certainly hope that this is seriously up for debate, because it would be a good change of pace to see somebody talk seriously about a top-down reduction in military expenditures.

It would indeed. Though it's not really something the Republocrats want to do. I'm sure if you investigated that amount of money spent on bureaucracy, the way contracts are awarded and the value of them, etc. that we would find ways to save tons of money while not significantly altering that ability of the military to respond to threats against our sovereignty.
 
Did someone seriously just suggest that Paul is "not a conservative" because he's for:

1. Reducing the size of government
2. Reducing the amount of money government spends

Yeah, you're absolutely right. What a ****ing kookball. What conservative stands for those things. Jesus, Paul, why couldn't you just be a conservative and for conservative principles.
 
Did someone seriously just suggest that Paul is "not a conservative" because he's for:

1. Reducing the size of government
2. Reducing the amount of money government spends

Yeah, you're absolutely right. What a ****ing kookball. What conservative stands for those things. Jesus, Paul, why couldn't you just be a conservative and for conservative principles.

It's the Golden Calf for some. They don't even realize they have false idols.
 
Did someone seriously just suggest that Paul is "not a conservative" because he's for:

1. Reducing the size of government
2. Reducing the amount of money government spends

Yeah, you're absolutely right. What a ****ing kookball. What conservative stands for those things. Jesus, Paul, why couldn't you just be a conservative and for conservative principles.

You see though this is why I jumped ship. I was born into a Republican family and eventually the Republicans lost their ways and got their heads shoved to far up their ass. I agree with more of what the Pauls say than most Republicans. At least when they talk about politics they are sincere and don't have some kind of douchey overtone about it like Bohner or McConnell.
 
It would indeed. Though it's not really something the Republocrats want to do. I'm sure if you investigated that amount of money spent on bureaucracy, the way contracts are awarded and the value of them, etc. that we would find ways to save tons of money while not significantly altering that ability of the military to respond to threats against our sovereignty.

I'm sure that you're correct. In addition, as I said, it would be nice to know how much we actually spend on defense with all the off budget expenditures that there are currently.
 
I totally agree, there's so much wasted money in the DoD. I'd go into details from my personal experience but quite honestly I wouldnt be completely comfortable with that.

But needless to say many DoD jobs and military bases are created or kept open long after their usefulness because they bring money and jobs to areas belonging to powerful Congressmen or Senators.

Also there's a whole lot of "Next-war-itis" that goes into the DoD. The F-22 program is a perfect example of this, its something which has no application in Iraq or Afghanitan and has in fact never been used in wartime but its been in developed and/or application for almost 2 decades, one of those decades being war years. But its something people say we may need for the "next-war" of course thats just an assumption as to what the next war will be. While its nice to be prepared, there's only so much money can afford.

I spent 20 years in the military. I disagree cuts should come at the expense of personnel or readiness. That being said, there are literally billions and billions of dollars that are wasted every year...just downright frivolous bull**** and the military should not be immune to belt tightening.
 
Did someone seriously just suggest that Paul is "not a conservative" because he's for:

1. Reducing the size of government
2. Reducing the amount of money government spends

Yeah, you're absolutely right. What a ****ing kookball. What conservative stands for those things. Jesus, Paul, why couldn't you just be a conservative and for conservative principles.

DID someone actually suggest that???
 
Indeed someone did

Must not attack the sacred golden cows...military...education...social security!!!!

If I said "End of Year Fall Out Money"...I wonder how many military and federal employees would laugh coffee through their noses...
 
I spent 20 years in the military. I disagree cuts should come at the expense of personnel or readiness. That being said, there are literally billions and billions of dollars that are wasted every year...just downright frivolous bull**** and the military should not be immune to belt tightening.

And I really think that is where Paul is coming from. Well that and probably advocating against interventionist policies. Things that can save us some serious cash. There is a lot of reform and cuts we can make to military spending withing significantly altering the readiness or ability of our military.

If we really want lower taxes and a more responsible government; then we're going to have to find places to cut spending.
 
Or "RAF Bentwaters"

Just for fun...to give an example of what gets spent...

In 1988 the military knew it was shutting down RAF Bentwaters. In 1990 congress allocated funding and built...

A new runway.
A 12 million dollar jet engine 'hush house' (the only aircraft assigned were A-10's...no hush house required)
A brand new commissary
A brand new bowling alley
A renovated officers club
600 housing units
Multiple maintenance and administrative buildings

in 1992 the base was abandoned and placed in caretaker status.
 
And I really think that is where Paul is coming from. Well that and probably advocating against interventionist policies. Things that can save us some serious cash. There is a lot of reform and cuts we can make to military spending withing significantly altering the readiness or ability of our military.

If we really want lower taxes and a more responsible government; then we're going to have to find places to cut spending.

Dont let this become a habit...but I completely agree. There IS common ground to find and fund cuts. Medicare and medicaid fraud has to be agressively targeted. I think every congressman should be paid 400k a year but from that 400k they have to pay for their staff, rent, any transportation, and must account for every penny over their usual salary. No all expenses paid fact finding junkets to the Bahamas...if they travel they travel commercial...etc. Social Security should be reviewed...we pay billions to non-us citizens simply because they fraudulently obtained SSNs. We have to stop funding frivolous research projects...not that isnt really cool to spend billions to see if there is a difference in the aerodynamic properties of colors...but because dammit right now we just cant afford it. No more bridges to nowhere...no more frivolous federal spending.
 
I don't how to feel about it, but truth is that dealing with the likes if ITT, Boeing, Locheed and Raytheon my entire career, I can tell you that there is much to be cut, if only we concentrated on the fat afforded military contracts. I've NEVER, not once seen the winning supplier for a military bid ever come in under budget. NOT ONCE. And, to the best of my knowledge, cost over runs are eaten by the tax-payer and paid to the supplier anyway. It's sort of a joke actually; so, there is much in the way of criticism of the industry that I agree with. You NEVER see this in the private sector. If you bid a price, you are damned well bound to it, and this is regardless of your costs going up, or whatever reason. Not the problem of the private company, it's yours as the supplier. That's how it should be.

By feeding the military contractors in this little form of charity (And they all know it goes on) we keep the competition out, small companies that actually would compete on an R&D level with the larger contractors; AND do it under, or at budget. This is the inefficiency of the US Gov't folks.

So yeah, there is a lot of room to make cuts, if not at first simply holding the suppliers accountable.


Tim-
 
I don't how to feel about it, but truth is that dealing with the likes if ITT, Boeing, Locheed and Raytheon my entire career, I can tell you that there is much to be cut, if only we concentrated on the fat afforded military contracts. I've NEVER, not once seen the winning supplier for a military bid ever come in under budget. NOT ONCE. And, to the best of my knowledge, cost over runs are eaten by the tax-payer and paid to the supplier anyway. It's sort of a joke actually; so, there is much in the way of criticism of the industry that I agree with. You NEVER see this in the private sector. If you bid a price, you are damned well bound to it, and this is regardless of your costs going up, or whatever reason. Not the problem of the private company, it's yours as the supplier. That's how it should be.

By feeding the military contractors in this little form of charity (And they all know it goes on) we keep the competition out, small companies that actually would compete on an R&D level with the larger contractors; AND do it under, or at budget. This is the inefficiency of the US Gov't folks.

So yeah, there is a lot of room to make cuts, if not at first simply holding the suppliers accountable.


Tim-

And how often do those government contractors invent a problem, pitch the solution to a soon to be retiring general, then get awarded a contract to fix a problem that never really existed in the first place (I know...I designed a few fancy black box wing stress solutions for a few of them...)
 
Exactly, so rather than getting upset about politicians making a reasonable suggestion, we should be upset at members of the DOD who are putting their pet projects at a higher priority than our troops, and who are holding our pocket books hostage through the ransoming of our troops well being.

I don't disagree. However, that's not the reality of the situation.

During the Great Depression, between the two world wars, when the Army didn't have money to feed the cavalry's horses; were they sold? Set free? Given away to good homes? Retired?

No, they were herded into large pits and hosed down with machine guns.

Military cuts always come in the form of less housing, fewer bennies and RIF's. The DoD can get rid of a single soldier and literally save millions. They can write a training schedual that has soldiers spending fewer days in the field and save millions more. They can cut down LFX's (live fire excercises) down to one a year, per unit and save even more millions in ammunition, fuel and spare parts.

Weapons and vehicles cost money to purchase and maintain. The less they're used, the less maintanance that has to be done and the more longevity they have. If they're not being used, then soldiers aren't being trained. When soldiers hit the battlefield, with less training, more soldiers die.

During the prep up for WW2, US Army soldiers were training with wooden rifles.

Let's not forget, that as the military draws down, there will be more work load transferred to national gaurd units; like the infamous roundout brigades of the 90's. The results from that will be even more part time soldiers deployed to foreign battlefields.

Perhaps not you, but I'm sure that there are folks on this thread, who support military budget cuts, but were livid when national gaurd soldiers were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Those same folks would be beside themselves, if there were a draft. Conscription is certainly something to look forward to, when bean counters start taking an ax to the DoD's budget.
 
Because you just claim stuff to be true which isn't? Go ahead, document your claim, show that you are right.

Anyone that was actually in the military, during a draw down, can support what I'm saying. According to your accounts, one of those people would be you. Yet, you seem to think I'm lieing. Again, why is that?
 
Cutting Military spending so that perhaps, instead of obliterating some 3rd World Country with 10 Stealth bombers, maybe just 5 might suffice.

:2razz:
 
Anyone that was actually in the military, during a draw down, can support what I'm saying. According to your accounts, one of those people would be you. Yet, you seem to think I'm lieing. Again, why is that?

You are of course correct and the fact is that the draw-downs usually end up gutting the midterm career NCO force and creates a leadership vacuum that takes decades to fix. It doesnt HAVE to be that way. The force structure can and should remain intact (yes...INCLUDING those 10 stealth bombers). What needs to be gutted is the waste...and lord knows there is a ton of it.
 
Anyone that was actually in the military, during a draw down, can support what I'm saying. According to your accounts, one of those people would be you. Yet, you seem to think I'm lieing. Again, why is that?

If I thought what you said was a lie, I would have said that. I think you are wrong, because I was in the military during a drawdown, and they did find ways to cut the military without reducing readiness. Being wrong does not mean you are lying, only mistaken.
 
Cutting Military spending so that perhaps, instead of obliterating some 3rd World Country with 10 Stealth bombers, maybe just 5 might suffice.

:2razz:

What if we get into a war where we need 10 stealth bombers and only have 5? Then what?
 
I have a question for those that have been in the military for a good while.
Not sure I know how to get this across right but I'll try.

I have seen stories where we pay people (in Afghanistan for instance) to not do things that fund the Taliban such as not growing drug crops. This from what I read is a lot of money, does it work?

We also pay bribes in other ways too.

We pay say one tribe in money and supplies to fight against another for our side. Does that work?

I'm sure someone here knows what I am talking about.
 
If I thought what you said was a lie, I would have said that. I think you are wrong, because I was in the military during a drawdown, and they did find ways to cut the military without reducing readiness. Being wrong does not mean you are lying, only mistaken.

You said,

Because you just claim stuff to be true which isn't?

If I'm saying things that aren't true, then I must be lieing. Yes?

Look, Vancemack agress with my accessment. Is he a liar, too?

It's an irrefutable fact, the quickest and easiet way for the military to cut costs, is to get rid of personel. The quickest and easiest way to get rid of personel? Take away the bells and whistles along with a soldier's desire to be a member of the armed forces.

Higher standards and fewer perks, such as housing, bonuses etc.
 
I have a question for those that have been in the military for a good while.
Not sure I know how to get this across right but I'll try.

I have seen stories where we pay people (in Afghanistan for instance) to not do things that fund the Taliban such as not growing drug crops. This from what I read is a lot of money, does it work?

We also pay bribes in other ways too.

We pay say one tribe in money and supplies to fight against another for our side. Does that work?

I'm sure someone here knows what I am talking about.

Clinton paid the Taliban $43,000,000 to stop growing poppies and the Taliban complied. I guess it does work, sometimes.

IMO, Agent Orange would work better on those poppie fields, than bribes do.
 
I did not vote for Mr. Paul I voted for Mr. Conway but I will hold his feet to the fire about this now. I hope him, his father, and a few other Republicans actively try to get this and the intelligence community's budget better managed. This would help solve at least part of what I believe is wrong with our country and our budget.
Intelligence spending is very small compared to defense, SS and Medicare. We need to rely less on military and more on intelligence to fight terrorism.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom