• 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

apdst said:
Of course there is. But, the DoD is given, "X", dollars each year and told to spend it as they wish. Typically, their wish is to keep the high dollar R&D projects and make the cuts on the bottom end; where individual soldiers are affected the most.
Click to expand...

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.
 
apdst said:
Of course there is. But, the DoD is given, "X", dollars each year and told to spend it as they wish. Typically, their wish is to keep the high dollar R&D projects and make the cuts on the bottom end; where individual soldiers are affected the most.
Click to expand...

Robert Gates so far seems to different, hence the cut for the F22 program, the fact he did not want the extra heavy lift cargo jets congress demanded. He would from what I understand like to cut the DDX frigette program as well but politics prevents that
 
apdst said:
Ok! First things first: thank you for your service.

The fact that you're a butter-bar explains alot about your attitude. A word to the wise, that, "I know it all and everyone else is a dumbass", attitude you're sporting, will be the beginning and the end of your career. That's coming from an 11M/B40-H, with PLDC, BNCOC, ANCOC and 1SC under his belt; for what it's worth.

When you get to a line unit and the drawdown takes place, you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

Trust me, I don't act the same way here that I do there haha.
 
maybe paul is talking about not giving haliburton $10000 to build a toilet, instead of actual cuts on personel.



70% of the intelligence budget is given to private institutions, maybe we do for ourselves what we've had greedy, profit driven institutions doing for us.



maybe the defense spending cuts won't affect day to day operations, but will instead address the waste associated with government spending on the private sector.
 
apdst said:
After the defense cuts take place, our troops will find themselves embroiled in a protracted conflict and lack equipment. Then what?

The reality of defense cuts, is that the cuts start at the bottom and go up. Which means that Sgt. Joe, his wife and three kids aren't going to be able to get quarters on post, because of the cuts and, because of the cuts, his BAQ (basic allowance for quarters) will get cut. Combat arms troops won't be able to conduct as much live fire training, which will deny them the realistic training they need to be able to transition onto an actual battlefield. Specialized training will be cut back, meaning that fewer soldiers will be qualified outside their primary MOS.

Training, is the first thing that suffers when cuts are made to the defense budget.
Click to expand...

I agree with Paul in that the Pentagon is filled with bureaucrats that need to be sent packing. I don't think of some of them as military people, they're "militicians" caring more about politics than success.

This year, under Obama, has had the highest death toll to date.

How can I overlook that? I have supported the reasons for Afghanistan and Iraq. Not because of partisanship but because i BELIEVED IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR OUR COUNTRY but am now concerned that we are leaderless, no plan to win.

I used to wonder how many Americans had to die there for the left to figure out there were bad guys there. I gave up on that when the left touted the death toll not as a example of how bad they were but how bad Bush was, the more the terrorists killed, the harder the left attacked Bush. Never the killers.

I knew Bush wanted to DEFEAT them, but now Obama has presided over more dead in one year. Who believes he cares? Wheres the evidence? How many should die while he dances on narcissistic feel good tours?

Yes, the military should be on the table too, but not those serving while told "they've lost" but the creeps who try to force social policy while lives are on the line. Militicains we don't need.
 
stealthy said:
I agree with Paul in that the Pentagon is filled with bureaucrats that need to be sent packing. I don't think of some of them as military people, they're "militicians" caring more about politics than success.

This year, under Obama, has had the highest death toll to date.

How can I overlook that? I have supported the reasons for Afghanistan and Iraq. Not because of partisanship but because i BELIEVED IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR OUR COUNTRY but am now concerned that we are leaderless, no plan to win.

I used to wonder how many Americans had to die there for the left to figure out there were bad guys there. I gave up on that when the left touted the death toll not as a example of how bad they were but how bad Bush was, the more the terrorists killed, the harder the left attacked Bush. Never the killers.

I knew Bush wanted to DEFEAT them, but now Obama has presided over more dead in one year. Who believes he cares? Wheres the evidence? How many should die while he dances on narcissistic feel good tours?

Yes, the military should be on the table too, but not those serving while told "they've lost" but the creeps who try to force social policy while lives are on the line. Militicains we don't need.
Click to expand...

What?... Did I miss something here? Highest death toll for what?

Iraq Body Count

Total deaths?

dbtimeline.php


Death from gunfire?

gunexec.php


Suicide attack deaths?

bombs.php
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
After the defense cuts take place, our troops will find themselves embroiled in a protracted conflict and lack equipment. Then what?

The reality of defense cuts, is that the cuts start at the bottom and go up. Which means that Sgt. Joe, his wife and three kids aren't going to be able to get quarters on post, because of the cuts and, because of the cuts, his BAQ (basic allowance for quarters) will get cut. Combat arms troops won't be able to conduct as much live fire training, which will deny them the realistic training they need to be able to transition onto an actual battlefield. Specialized training will be cut back, meaning that fewer soldiers will be qualified outside their primary MOS.

Training, is the first thing that suffers when cuts are made to the defense budget.
Click to expand...

You mean like the Base Closure Commission? Oh wait, that one doesn't work. You mean lie canceling the funding for unneeded new gear? Oh wait, that one doesn't work either. I am sure you can actually document your claim that this is how it is, you would never make wild claims without backing them up.
 
apdst said:
Of course there is. But, the DoD is given, "X", dollars each year and told to spend it as they wish. Typically, their wish is to keep the high dollar R&D projects and make the cuts on the bottom end; where individual soldiers are affected the most.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is true, but again I am sure you can back up your claim.
 
stealthy said:
Hatuey said:
What?... Did I miss something here? Highest death toll for what?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's called Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Ah apologies, your post gave the impression that Obama had a higher death toll for both wars. So what you're saying is that because Obama has 'presided over more dead in one year' he wants the troops to do badly for his own political gain? Does that apply to all wars or just this one? Does it apply to the war while Obama is President? Or does it also apply to Bush's presidency? Because if we go by your logic in 2003, Bush wanted the troops in Iraq to lose while wanting those in Afghanistan to win. I mean after all, this is the same administration who thought we'd be greeted as liberators in Iraq and everything would work itself out within a few months. I'm sorry, I'm trying to make sense out of your post.
 
Last edited:
stealthy said:
I agree with Paul in that the Pentagon is filled with bureaucrats that need to be sent packing. I don't think of some of them as military people, they're "militicians" caring more about politics than success.

This year, under Obama, has had the highest death toll to date.

How can I overlook that? I have supported the reasons for Afghanistan and Iraq. Not because of partisanship but because i BELIEVED IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR OUR COUNTRY but am now concerned that we are leaderless, no plan to win.

I used to wonder how many Americans had to die there for the left to figure out there were bad guys there. I gave up on that when the left touted the death toll not as a example of how bad they were but how bad Bush was, the more the terrorists killed, the harder the left attacked Bush. Never the killers.

I knew Bush wanted to DEFEAT them, but now Obama has presided over more dead in one year. Who believes he cares? Wheres the evidence? How many should die while he dances on narcissistic feel good tours?

Yes, the military should be on the table too, but not those serving while told "they've lost" but the creeps who try to force social policy while lives are on the line. Militicains we don't need.
Click to expand...

the US spend as much as the next 27 countries combind on its military. china, england, russia, isreal, all of em...COMBIMNED. its not an "either" "or" thing. they can cut military spending AND increase social spending, were they so inclined.
 
My opinion of Rand Paul just inched slightly upward. Let's see how serious he is.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Robert Gates so far seems to different, hence the cut for the F22 program, the fact he did not want the extra heavy lift cargo jets congress demanded. He would from what I understand like to cut the DDX frigette program as well but politics prevents that
Click to expand...

There's a difference between cutting a single R&D program and cutting the entire defense budget.
 
Redress said:
You mean like the Base Closure Commission? Oh wait, that one doesn't work. You mean lie canceling the funding for unneeded new gear? Oh wait, that one doesn't work either. I am sure you can actually document your claim that this is how it is, you would never make wild claims without backing them up.
Click to expand...

For someone with an extensive military career, there sure is alotta stuff you don't know. Why is that?
 
librep said:
Economic globalization is reality, and whether or not we like the idea of that, it's presence is not debatable. I fail to see the benefit of eliminating foreign aid outside of the staggering 40 billion dollars (at most) that we'd save. There are more worthwhile and less damaging pockets of fat we could cut.
Click to expand...

Its not the government's job to rob people of their money to give to other countries. If people wanna prop up other nations defense, start a charity.
 
apdst said:
For someone with an extensive military career, there sure is alotta stuff you don't know. Why is that?
Click to expand...

Because you just claim stuff to be true which isn't? Go ahead, document your claim, show that you are right.
 
Hatuey said:
Well, the thing is that the military is everybody's ox to some extent.

Even if you're not in the military you're at the very least likely to know somebody in the military. Families which depend on military paychecks aren't going to take Paul's goring all that well. After all, it's not like he ever served. His father did, but he's now a career politician. So as Navy would say 'it's no skin off their backs'.

I'm all for gutting some social programs as they're ineffective. Cutting the military budget? Depends what we're cutting and how much we're cutting. Anything above 10% would be political suicide for any politician who supports it.
Click to expand...

We could cut 10% from the military budget without batting an eyelash. Continuing to fund the military establishment at wartime levels when we're scaling back our operations is just one more way to grow the government ever larger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mpg
Rand Paul is just another 'cheerleader'. He's going to say all the things that make the peanut gallery jump up and down and come to their feet to have their shrill voices heard.

One example is this little exchange yesterday on ABC's This Week.

AMANPOUR: One of the emergencies is going to be voting to lift the debt ceiling.

PAUL: Right.

AMANPOUR: Would you do that?

PAUL: I don't believe I will vote to raise the debt ceiling.

AMANPOUR: You won't?

PAUL: No. I think that we need to send a message -- we need to send a strong message that...

AMANPOUR: The government would default, then.

PAUL: Well, only if we won the vote, would they default.

AMANPOUR: So you think it won't pass?

PAUL: You know, I think it's unlikely. There are people who vote against the debt ceiling every time to send a message that adding more debt is wrong.

'This Week' Transcript: Rand Paul, Rep. Mike Pence and David Stockman - ABC News
Click to expand...

He'll vote no because he knows it will pass without his vote and now he has cover and can go back to his constituents and say 'Well I voted against raising the debt'.

But when there's a close vote, he'll have an 'associate' on his shoulder making sure he votes the 'right way', much the way Cantor held Louisiana's Cao's hand during a health care vote.

He'll try to be a rebel and they'll let him, all the way up until he tries to impede their agenda. Then he'll conform or be gone.
 
librep said:
There are certainly some areas of military funding that could be cut (weapons modernizaton/development would be a good start), but somehow I get the feeling that Paul is talking about VA benefits and the 20-40 billion spent on foreign aid. Neither of which is a great idea. It would be good to have more transparency regarding the military budget, there is a lot of money floating around under the title of "undisclosed funds" that should be sorted.
Click to expand...

No, he's first talking of the massive bureaucracy which eats up money. Fact of the matter is that we can maintain a strong, technologically advanced military without all the money we're spending now. Certainly if we adopt a more non-interventionist policy. There are lots of places to cut from without harming the efficiency of the military or putting our soldiers in significantly increased danger.

And if anyone who runs their mouth about a balanced budget or responsible government are serious about those things, they'll understand that this is a necessary path to help get there.
 
apdst said:
After the defense cuts take place, our troops will find themselves embroiled in a protracted conflict and lack equipment. Then what?
Click to expand...

I don't believe this has to be the case. DOD needs to develop a framework that breaks down its expenditures by various function i.e., compensation, combat/combat readiness/training, new equipment/weapons systems/technology, R&D, strategic planning, etc. Once that is done, the importance of each item as to be assessed according to the core mission/strategic goals. Precedent should be given to areas that are most important to the core mission/strategic goals. Other things are expendable if savings need to be achieved. At the same time, the planning for missions/conflicts needs to become far more robust than it presently is. If that requires a separate military-civilian strategic planning group, then so be it.

All of that may sound obvious, but practices toward those ends are deficient. That the contracting process is largely dysfunctional e.g., the magnitude of cost overruns of the JSF is just one example. That it costs $1.3 million per soldier per year in Afghanistan (an asymmetric cost disadvantage) is another. Those factors are converging to push the U.S. military toward a situation either where it must score a decisive and lasting knockout blow quickly or risk losing early conflict gains in a war of attrition.

Furthermore, the number of "surprises" i.e., the outbreak of low-level civil conflict in Iraq and rise of a Taliban-led insurgency in Afghanistan (both of which should have been widely anticipated given the history/structure/dynamics of those societies), illustrate a badly flawed planning process. Those two risks were as close to obvious ones as there were. How many more subtle risks are missed? IMO, that flawed process has undermined progress and also consumed resources/time/effort required to devise strategy corrections.

Finally, the U.S. does not face an existential threat along the lines of that which existed during the latter part of the Cold War. Cold War-level expenditures (relative to GDP) are not necessary. Given long-term fiscal challenges facing the U.S., the Pentagon, like any other governmental unit, will need to become more productive with the resources it obtains.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
I was wondering how far the apple fell from the tree

I expect a massive backlash towards Rand Paul from this statement
Click to expand...

Am of the opposite opinion. Believe there is a large portion of the country has woken up to the fact that this absurd deficit spending pattern has to stop or at least slow down. Both sides of the political spectrum realize this. My guess is that putting military spending on the table will be widely embraced, at least in rhetoric.

That said, the picture will be somewhat different when it gets down to specifics. Individual congress pricks will be obligated to try and protect their personal turf. That's just the nature of the beast.

But getting the dialog opened is the first important step. And then worry about the detail fights when we get to it.....;)


.
 
Ikari said:
No, he's first talking of the massive bureaucracy which eats up money. Fact of the matter is that we can maintain a strong, technologically advanced military without all the money we're spending now. Certainly if we adopt a more non-interventionist policy. There are lots of places to cut from without harming the efficiency of the military or putting our soldiers in significantly increased danger.

And if anyone who runs their mouth about a balanced budget or responsible government are serious about those things, they'll understand that this is a necessary path to help get there.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Wrong and a really bad idea, and I guess Paul is not Conservative.

I would say we could hold the line but not cut back.

Our biggest threat today is not from the outside but the inside and from the Socialist/Marxists at the top.

We managed to show a few the door but there is a lot of them still to throw out on their Butts.

There are a lot of places where cuts can be made, and anyone with a brain knows we have got to cut taxes and thus create jobs.

As long as the DUMB-ASS Obama is still around we are pretty much screwed. We are about to go off the cliff if the PHONY Health Bill isn't stopped, and California voted for State Wide economic suicide and there is no hope left there, at all.

Why is it so many people have no clue when it comes to the economy. This is not hard to figure out.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom