Arizona's New Immigration Law

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Rainy Parade

cut the defense budget way back.

There's a lot more to the defense budget than Procurement (primarily weapons systems) and Research & Dev. These two areas are only 32% of the defense budget. The remainder is operations, maintenance, personnel, construction and family housing. Don't forget the military provides jobs for a great many people.

I agree defense spending needs to be looked at, just like any other gov't program, to eliminate waste and unnecessary spending. But unless we get SS/Medicare figured out (approx 40% of fed budget) and reduce the national debt (interest is over 5% of fed budget) we aren't going to get our financial house in good order.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

There's a lot more to the defense budget than Procurement (primarily weapons systems) and Research & Dev. These two areas are only 32% of the defense budget. The remainder is operations, maintenance, personnel, construction and family housing. Don't forget the military provides jobs for a great many people.

I agree defense spending needs to be looked at, just like any other gov't program, to eliminate waste and unnecessary spending. But unless we get SS/Medicare figured out (approx 40% of fed budget) and reduce the national debt (interest is over 5% of fed budget) we aren't going to get our financial house in good order.

Personnel costs are huge in the military, and this is my biggest problem. If we define our military responsibilities as world policemen our budget probably is not gonna be reduced a lot. But if we define the scope in terms of national defense, you could go to an extremely reduced Army/Marine (boots on the ground are not needed if we are not extending our reach) with a heavy reserve component. I doubt many US citizens would not pick up arms if a Mexican or Canadien force attempted a land invasion of the US. Air Force and Navy and Space Defense forces are vital to our national defense, and thus can't really be touched, although in this area procurement should be put on a 3 year moratorium, only maintaining on going equipment, no new products or gizmos (except satellites cuz I need my MTV). We have a commanding lead in nearly every fighting system and production capacity to meet any threat in the next 3 years.

BUT as Rainy said, this part can't happen without Obama getting blasted as being soft, any more then Republicans can cut social programs without being blasted as being uncaring.

The US public needs a re-invention of understanding government's role, but most politicians, mainstream media, and internet blogging, lives and dies off the Republican/Democratic framework

[joethiesmanfan]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Personnel costs are huge in the military, and this is my biggest problem. If we define our military responsibilities as world policemen our budget probably is not gonna be reduced a lot. But if we define the scope in terms of national defense, you could go to an extremely reduced Army/Marine (boots on the ground are not needed if we are not extending our reach) with a heavy reserve component. I doubt many US citizens would not pick up arms if a Mexican or Canadien force attempted a land invasion of the US. Air Force and Navy and Space Defense forces are vital to our national defense, and thus can't really be touched, although in this area procurement should be put on a 3 year moratorium, only maintaining on going equipment, no new products or gizmos (except satellites cuz I need my MTV). We have a commanding lead in nearly every fighting system and production capacity to meet any threat in the next 3 years.

BUT as Rainy said, this part can't happen without Obama getting blasted as being soft, any more then Republicans can cut social programs without being blasted as being uncaring.

The US public needs a re-invention of understanding government's role, but most politicians, mainstream media, and internet blogging, lives and dies off the Republican/Democratic framework

Because they are uncaring.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by joethiesmanfan

Because they are uncaring.

and thus the proletariat has spoken

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Personnel costs are huge in the military, and this is my biggest problem. If we define our military responsibilities as world policemen our budget probably is not gonna be reduced a lot. But if we define the scope in terms of national defense, you could go to an extremely reduced Army/Marine (boots on the ground are not needed if we are not extending our reach) with a heavy reserve component. I doubt many US citizens would not pick up arms if a Mexican or Canadien force attempted a land invasion of the US. Air Force and Navy and Space Defense forces are vital to our national defense, and thus can't really be touched, although in this area procurement should be put on a 3 year moratorium, only maintaining on going equipment, no new products or gizmos (except satellites cuz I need my MTV). We have a commanding lead in nearly every fighting system and production capacity to meet any threat in the next 3 years.

BUT as Rainy said, this part can't happen without Obama getting blasted as being soft, any more then Republicans can cut social programs without being blasted as being uncaring.

The US public needs a re-invention of understanding government's role, but most politicians, mainstream media, and internet blogging, lives and dies off the Republican/Democratic framework

No problem with reducing our "boots on the ground" count, but it would have to be done gradually through attrition not involuntary separations. A lot more could be done "behind the scenes" with special forces and intel services, but our politicans don't have the stomach for that either.

Can't put a moratorium on procurement, production on major weapons systems can't be started and stopped on a dime. You also don't cut R&D, many developments from military R & D have gone on to have application in the civilian sector.

That being said, if a 5% cut (and I mean cut, not less of an increase) across the board to all gov't agencies/programs was implemented and spending levels kept constant until our national debt was at least halved and a balanced budget ammendment put in place, I'm on board.

[joethiesmanfan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

No problem with reducing our "boots on the ground" count, but it would have to be done gradually through attrition not involuntary separations. A lot more could be done "behind the scenes" with special forces and intel services, but our politicans don't have the stomach for that either.

Can't put a moratorium on procurement, production on major weapons systems can't be started and stopped on a dime. You also don't cut R&D, many developments from military R & D have gone on to have application in the civilian sector.

That being said, if a 5% cut (and I mean cut, not less of an increase) across the board to all gov't agencies/programs was implemented and spending levels kept constant until our national debt was at least halved and a balanced budget ammendment put in place, I'm on board.

Makes too much sense to come from the corporate structue of any entity, especially the gubmint.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Personnel costs are huge in the military, and this is my biggest problem. If we define our military responsibilities as world policemen our budget probably is not gonna be reduced a lot. But if we define the scope in terms of national defense, you could go to an extremely reduced Army/Marine (boots on the ground are not needed if we are not extending our reach) with a heavy reserve component. I doubt many US citizens would not pick up arms if a Mexican or Canadien force attempted a land invasion of the US. Air Force and Navy and Space Defense forces are vital to our national defense, and thus can't really be touched, although in this area procurement should be put on a 3 year moratorium, only maintaining on going equipment, no new products or gizmos (except satellites cuz I need my MTV). We have a commanding lead in nearly every fighting system and production capacity to meet any threat in the next 3 years.

BUT as Rainy said, this part can't happen without Obama getting blasted as being soft, any more then Republicans can cut social programs without being blasted as being uncaring.

The US public needs a re-invention of understanding government's role, but most politicians, mainstream media, and internet blogging, lives and dies off the Republican/Democratic framework

Keep in mind that our strong military provides a strong sense of security for our allies. Cutting back but so much could send a message that may not be so received. I don't think it's so simple to say "sucks to be you" (not that you did) and scale back our force projection.

I think the SecDef has recently been vocalizing cutting back, anyway. Whatever it is, it probably won't be substantial.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

Keep in mind that our strong military provides a strong sense of security for our allies. Cutting back but so much could send a message that may not be so received. I don't think it's so simple to say "sucks to be you" (not that you did) and scale back our force projection.

I think the SecDef has recently been vocalizing cutting back, anyway. Whatever it is, it probably won't be substantial.

While the moves would have to be in concert with our allies to prevent havoc, as much as possible, it should not be a debatable question as much as a firm resolve with assurances.

[joethiesmanfan]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

While the moves would have to be in concert with our allies to prevent havoc, as much as possible, it should not be a debatable question as much as a firm resolve with assurances.

As far as allies, I consider those that get money from us to survive not allies but client states. Besides, nobody can survive attacking any one of our allies except for maybe Karzi because his head is as good as gone.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by joethiesmanfan

As far as allies, I consider those that get money from us to survive not allies but client states. Besides, nobody can survive attacking any one of our allies except for maybe Karzi because his head is as good as gone.

I was thinking more so of europe/seato, but as far as those who we basically pay to stay at peace, egypt/israel, pakistan/india, and a few others, they are not allies but devils ya gotta deal with. I wouldn't consider to many pure client states as Soviet Union had back in the day. We generally encourage and expect that most of our allies to be productive high GDP equals, but we have continued to bear an unproportionate share of the military expenses. Of course by doing that, it gives our voice much more say in world affairs.

As a CS teacher once told me, everything is about trade-offs.