• 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!

Think tank recommends big benefits cuts

apdst

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,937
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Hell of a way to say, "Thank you!".

A new report by a liberal-leaning think tank recommends a dramatic overhaul of military pay, retirement and health care benefits as part of a $1 trillion cut in defense spending over 10 years.

The Center for American Progress calls for capping pay raises, eliminating military health benefits for many retirees who are covered by an employer-provided plan, and reducing the value of military retired pay as well as making retirees wait until age 60 to start receiving it.

Army Times Mobile - Think tank recommends big benefits cuts
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
Hell of a way to say, "Thank you!".
Click to expand...

Spending is how we control all aspects of the government. As much as I respect our military, they shouldn't get a blank check to operate either.

For one thing, we don't have the money to pay for such a large military. For another, we need to stop our mentality that we are justified in our Wars Against Everything. Such things are deleterious to us as a stable, thriving nation.
 
our commitment to veterans is close to the last thing that i would cut. i would, however, support cutting our military role on the world stage big time. if someone has served, though, they should be taken care of for life in exchange for that sacrifice.
 
samsmart said:
Spending is how we control all aspects of the government. As much as I respect our military, they shouldn't get a blank check to operate either.

For one thing, we don't have the money to pay for such a large military. For another, we need to stop our mentality that we are justified in our Wars Against Everything. Such things are deleterious to us as a stable, thriving nation.
Click to expand...

Yeah because you see a lot of disabled veterans with a Benz parked in front of their McMansions. Hell a good chunk of them are either living with relatives or in houses built/given to them by charities. Retired Senators and Congressmen get a huge package compared to veterans. Give me a break.
 
samsmart said:
Spending is how we control all aspects of the government. As much as I respect our military, they shouldn't get a blank check to operate either.

For one thing, we don't have the money to pay for such a large military. For another, we need to stop our mentality that we are justified in our Wars Against Everything. Such things are deleterious to us as a stable, thriving nation.
Click to expand...

So you agree to do the same to entitlements right?
 
Fisher said:
Yeah because you see a lot of disabled veterans with a Benz parked in front of their McMansions. Hell a good chunk of them are either living with relatives or in houses built/given to them by charities. Retired Senators and Congressmen get a huge package compared to veterans. Give me a break.
Click to expand...

Fine. Then let's cut spending from our active duty members in the military and instead spend it on military veterans.
 
samsmart said:
Fine. Then let's cut spending from our active duty members in the military and instead spend it on military veterans.
Click to expand...

You can try, but the left underestimates how many minorities are in the military who are not going to be satisfied with your welfare checks.
 
Fisher said:
You can try, but the left underestimates how many minorities are in the military who are not going to be satisfied with your welfare checks.
Click to expand...

So you disparage spending cuts to veteran benefits but now you equate veteran benefits to welfare checks?
 
American said:
So you agree to do the same to entitlements right?
Click to expand...

Somebody who was praising FEMA yesterday didn't see the coverage of those dressed in camo helping stranded people apparently.
 
apdst said:
Hell of a way to say, "Thank you!".
Click to expand...

Apdst, everything's got to be examined. Even veterans' benefits. In your heart your know that. The one thing I don't agree with? Pay raises. I don't think our soldiers get paid near enough.
 
samsmart said:
So you disparage spending cuts to veteran benefits but now you equate veteran benefits to welfare checks?
Click to expand...

Take away the military and what do you suppose a lot of these poor minorities are going to be doing to support themselves? They sure as hell won't be thanking you for their welfare check and pulling the lever for you. The military provides a critical platform for upward mobility for poor people. They train doctors, nurses, instill leadership skills, etc. In terms of economics, it makes a billion times more sense to have the military as it is than college loans and grant programs to help people, especially when there are so few jobs that will pay you enough not to be buried under your student loan debt for 15-25 years.
 
American said:
So you agree to do the same to entitlements right?
Click to expand...

Only if we cap executive pay for large businesses so they can hire more employees so they can get jobs with viable pay so they won't need entitlements.
 
Fisher said:
Take away the military and what do you suppose a lot of these poor minorities are going to be doing to support themselves? They sure as hell won't be thanking you for their welfare check and pulling the lever for you. The military provides a critical platform for upward mobility for poor people. They train doctors, nurses, instill leadership skills, etc. In terms of economics, it makes a billion times more sense to have the military as it is than college loans and grant programs to help people, especially when there are so few jobs that will pay you enough not to be buried under your student loan debt for 15-25 years.
Click to expand...

If we're going to have the military just be a jobs program then we can provide just as many jobs to doctors and nurses, even more, by instituting a national health service to provide universal health care.
 
samsmart said:
If we're going to have the military just be a jobs program then we can provide just as many jobs to doctors and nurses, even more, by instituting a national health service to provide universal health care.
Click to expand...

Your side created Obamacare. Make up your minds and let us know which argument you are going to go with.
 
Fisher said:
Your side created Obamacare. Make up your minds and let us know which argument you are going to go with.
Click to expand...

My side didn't make Obamacare.

My side supports a national health service to provide universal health care.
 
Cut all the spending on the F-35 and all these useless weapons first.

Par for the course George Soros, douchebag.:thumbdown
 
samsmart said:
Only if we cap executive pay for large businesses so they can hire more employees so they can get jobs with viable pay so they won't need entitlements.
Click to expand...

I don't remember you proposing any conditions on military cuts, I guess those are much easier to stomach.
 
MaggieD said:
Apdst, everything's got to be examined. Even veterans' benefits. In your heart your know that. The one thing I don't agree with? Pay raises. I don't think our soldiers get paid near enough.
Click to expand...

this is why I oppose massive defense cuts.it's always the soldiers to get hit first and the hardest.
 
MaggieD said:
Apdst, everything's got to be examined. Even veterans' benefits. In your heart your know that. The one thing I don't agree with? Pay raises. I don't think our soldiers get paid near enough.
Click to expand...

But see, thats the damn problem. I fine if EVERYTHING is on the table. But its not. I'd have no problem with pay freezes, bigger Tricare copays if it was part of an across the board cut. I have hard time swallowing that pill when we're increasing spending on every damn welfare entitlement and government bureaucracy.
 
Fishstyx said:
But see, thats the damn problem. I fine if EVERYTHING is on the table. But its not. I'd have no problem with pay freezes, bigger Tricare copays if it was part of an across the board cut. I have hard time swallowing that pill when we're increasing spending on every damn welfare entitlement and government bureaucracy.
Click to expand...

As long as a single dollar is spent for medicaid and welfare, military pay, benefits and retiree pay and benefits should never be touched. Cutting those who have sacrificed and did their best to keep this country safe so that you can give freebies to the lazy and stupid who have never contributed much if anything to society and are an overwhelming burden upon our society is ludicrous.

Military members are not getting paid anywhere near enough for what they do. Five years ago before I retired, I was handing out WIC paper work to married E-5s who had children. Considering the time spend from home, the dangers of the jobs they do, they already sacrifice more than any civilian who never served could possibly understand. That is the ones that don't get messed up or killed doing their jobs. And we pay these people so little that a large number of them qualify for other government assistance programs targeted towards the poor. So this messed up "think tank" thinks that for less money and benefits than a welfare recipient receives, these people should still go ahead and sacrifice themselves for the good of the country? Maybe we should sacrifice this think tank for the good of the country instead.
 
My concern is that too often we go into this cutting frenzy like Freddie Kruger. The idea to cut government and make it more efficient is what Obama is finally getting around to with economics. he is looking for duplication in effort across the executive branch and centralizing it all inton one group. Carter did this and Clinton tried. To just hack our way through the executive is stupid and ends up being actually wasteful. This scalpel affect would also be towards agencies and offices that no longer serve a useful purpose or are part of some Congressmans long ago wet dream. (if you have seen the movie Dave, you will know what i mean.)

The only exception to this is the Defense Dept. Study after study has shown (GAO) has shown that the DOD can be cut by 30+% and not loose any effectiveness. I would hope that monies dedicated to the troops and logistics would be carefully reviewed first, but there is a hell of alot of waste in DOD.
 
wolfman24 said:
My concern is that too often we go into this cutting frenzy like Freddie Kruger. The idea to cut government and make it more efficient is what Obama is finally getting around to with economics. he is looking for duplication in effort across the executive branch and centralizing it all inton one group. Carter did this and Clinton tried. To just hack our way through the executive is stupid and ends up being actually wasteful. This scalpel affect would also be towards agencies and offices that no longer serve a useful purpose or are part of some Congressmans long ago wet dream. (if you have seen the movie Dave, you will know what i mean.)

The only exception to this is the Defense Dept. Study after study has shown (GAO) has shown that the DOD can be cut by 30+% and not loose any effectiveness. I would hope that monies dedicated to the troops and logistics would be carefully reviewed first, but there is a hell of alot of waste in DOD.
Click to expand...

This would be the same GAO that said that KC-135 Tankers built in 1957 would still be good and serve us until at least 2050? The same GAO that says we don't need a new Air Superiority fighter even though the F-15 has been in service since 1972 and many of the actual air frames were built and have been in service since the 1970s? The same GAO that said we didn't need the B-1 or the B-2 even though the B-52 has been in service since the early 1950s? What is the actual age of most of our FA-18s, F-16s, A-10s, M1 tanks, Bradleys, F-117As, our Naval Ships and submarines. How many years can we maintain a $100+ billion dollar maintenance program to keep all this aged equipment running? How much would we save in the long run replacing aged systems with new ones that the GAO always tells us we don't need?

The GAOs history on military matters is so bad, it is amazing they are still allowed to even comment or exist, much less have anyone actually listen to them.

Tell you what, if you think the GAO is right, then go buy yourself a 40-50 year old car, keep it running and use it for your needs. After all, according the their logic, it still "works" and meets your needs, so it doesn't need replacing.
 
DVSentinel said:
This would be the same GAO that said that KC-135 Tankers built in 1957 would still be good and serve us until at least 2050? The same GAO that says we don't need a new Air Superiority fighter even though the F-15 has been in service since 1972 and many of the actual air frames were built and have been in service since the 1970s? The same GAO that said we didn't need the B-1 or the B-2 even though the B-52 has been in service since the early 1950s? What is the actual age of most of our FA-18s, F-16s, A-10s, M1 tanks, Bradleys, F-117As, our Naval Ships and submarines. How many years can we maintain a $100+ billion dollar maintenance program to keep all this aged equipment running? How much would we save in the long run replacing aged systems with new ones that the GAO always tells us we don't need?

The GAOs history on military matters is so bad, it is amazing they are still allowed to even comment or exist, much less have anyone actually listen to them.

Tell you what, if you think the GAO is right, then go buy yourself a 40-50 year old car, keep it running and use it for your needs. After all, according the their logic, it still "works" and meets your needs, so it doesn't need replacing.
Click to expand...

WHAT??? the GAO (General Accounting Office) is the budget branch of Congress. they don't recommend ****. Your not making any sense at all.
 
Sorry folks but you cannot have it both ways. If we are to take the knife to the federal budget, we have to look at some of the big ticket items that are discretionary and defense fits that description to the tee.

We are going to have to decide as a people if we want to continue to outspend the next 12, 14, 17 whatever that number is now nations defense spending COMBINED or do we believe we can still have national security if we just outspend the to top five or so combined? At what point is it overkill?

We are actually seeing people talk about cutting things that people worked their entire lives for like Social Security and before we do that we should have a long hard discussion about just where we want our limited resources to go to. Do we want money going into the pockets of those who worked hard for it and help up their end of the bargain for the last four or five decades or do we want to continue on a military spending binge?
 
samsmart said:
Only if we cap executive pay for large businesses so they can hire more employees so they can get jobs with viable pay so they won't need entitlements.
Click to expand...


Which doesn't have anything to do with the Federal Budget. The pay for executives in corporations is another issue for another day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom