Obama and Gates Gut the Military
-
I personally think that the military is much to big. We could cut it in half and still have an adequate military for self defense. I believe that getting medical care for all of our citizens and vastly improving our education system would have a much better benefit for this country then just increasing the military. I also believe the savings from the military could benefit the 12 million "illegal" immigrants in this country. We could integrate them into our society where they could benefit the country greatly. Just my 2 cents.
-
I personally think that the military is much to big. We could cut it in half and still have an adequate military for self defense. I believe that getting medical care for all of our citizens and vastly improving our education system would have a much better benefit for this country then just increasing the military. I also believe the savings from the military could benefit the 12 million "illegal" immigrants in this country. We could integrate them into our society where they could benefit the country greatly. Just my 2 cents.
I personally think that the military is much to big. We could cut it in half and still have an adequate military for self defense. I believe that getting medical care for all of our citizens and vastly improving our education system would have a much better benefit for this country then just increasing the military. I also believe the savings from the military could benefit the 12 million "illegal" immigrants in this country. We could integrate them into our society where they could benefit the country greatly. Just my 2 cents.
And what of the (# that equals half of the current military) that will lose their healthcare once the "military is cut in half"?? Or do they not count? Or is healthcare suddenly free now that we've scaled back the ostentatious spending of the "military" ?
Education?
How many in the military are concurrently enrolled in universities all over the globe thanks to this extravagant military or will be once they complete their service? How much will losing that education they receive "benefit our country"?
Sure, scaling back the "evil military" sounds like a good idea over the bullhorn, but once you acquire any kind of ability to think on your own, or comprehend any kind of real information, you begin to understand where said cuts get made, who it affects, and that the net results only equal exponential loss.
-
I personally think that the military is much to big. We could cut it in half and still have an adequate military for self defense. I believe that getting medical care for all of our citizens and vastly improving our education system would have a much better benefit for this country then just increasing the military. I also believe the savings from the military could benefit the 12 million "illegal" immigrants in this country. We could integrate them into our society where they could benefit the country greatly. Just my 2 cents.
And what of the (# that equals half of the current military) that will lose their healthcare once the "military is cut in half"?? Or do they not count? Or is healthcare suddenly free now that we've scaled back the ostentatious spending of the "military" ?
Education?
How many in the military are concurrently enrolled in universities all over the globe thanks to this extravagant military or will be once they complete their service? How much will losing that education they receive "benefit our country"?
Sure, scaling back the "evil military" sounds like a good idea over the bullhorn, but once you acquire any kind of ability to think on your own, or comprehend any kind of real information, you begin to understand where said cuts get made, who it affects, and that the net results only equal exponential loss.
And what of the (# that equals half of the current military) that will lose their healthcare once the "military is cut in half"?? Or do they not count? Or is healthcare suddenly free now that we've scaled back the ostentatious spending of the "military" ?
Education?
How many in the military are concurrently enrolled in universities all over the globe thanks to this extravagant military or will be once they complete their service? How much will losing that education they receive "benefit our country"?
Sure, scaling back the "evil military" sounds like a good idea over the bullhorn, but once you acquire any kind of ability to think on your own, or comprehend any kind of real information, you begin to understand where said cuts get made, who it affects, and that the net results only equal exponential loss.
Hey Leg, I think this is a ruse.
The ol' Lob's pulling our collective dick.
WSS
-
And what of the (# that equals half of the current military) that will lose their healthcare once the "military is cut in half"?? Or do they not count? Or is healthcare suddenly free now that we've scaled back the ostentatious spending of the "military" ?
Education?
How many in the military are concurrently enrolled in universities all over the globe thanks to this extravagant military or will be once they complete their service? How much will losing that education they receive "benefit our country"?
Sure, scaling back the "evil military" sounds like a good idea over the bullhorn, but once you acquire any kind of ability to think on your own, or comprehend any kind of real information, you begin to understand where said cuts get made, who it affects, and that the net results only equal exponential loss.
Hey Leg, I think this is a ruse.
The ol' Lob's pulling our collective dick.
WSS
Hey Leg, I think this is a ruse.
The ol' Lob's pulling our collective dick.
WSS
What'd Chris Farley say? "Don't I feel like a horses pah-toot."
However, if we didn't have the same character(s) on our side of the fence*, I probably wouldn't have taken the bait.
*I believe that I've got the political fence post lodged squarely in my behind, yet a few instances of trade winds may push over to the right on occasion.
-
Hey Leg, I think this is a ruse.
The ol' Lob's pulling our collective dick.
WSS
What'd Chris Farley say? "Don't I feel like a horses pah-toot."
However, if we didn't have the same character(s) on our side of the fence*, I probably wouldn't have taken the bait.
*I believe that I've got the political fence post lodged squarely in my behind, yet a few instances of trade winds may push over to the right on occasion.
What'd Chris Farley say? "Don't I feel like a horses pah-toot."
However, if we didn't have the same character(s) on our side of the fence*, I probably wouldn't have taken the bait.
Heh heh.
Oh I could be wrong; that was just a guess.
I figured if he was really that looney he'd be over on the HeckShep Obamarama board.
WSS
-
Again, I know facts don't matter on this board, but Obama is "gutting" the military by ...wait for it ...increasing the amount spent on the military by 4% over what George W. Bush spent on the military. That's your "gutting the military". Taking what was spent on the military, and then adding an additional $14 billion dollars to it.
Some gut.
The increase also happens to be the same amount that the Bush administration budgeted for 2010. (I'm sure if Bush were still president you'd all be here screaming about him gutting the military too.)
Oh, and the Bush administration cut defense spending in 2007 and 2008. Obama is raising it by 4%.
Or as you hysterics say, he's "gutting the military."
Sorry, fellas. I know you want it to be one way, but it's the other way. Those are just the facts.
As for the F-22, we already have 135 of them. The Obama plan calls for making that number 187 before ending the program. Cutting that program will cost 24,000 jobs.
Note that the F-22 is not being used in Iraq or Afghanistan. We've spent $65 billion dollars on a plane that's never been used in battle once. We've got two wars going on, and 135 F-22s can't be used. This is why many people inside the military and out of it want to shift those resources elsewhere - to a plane we can, you know, use.
I'd ask you guys why you want to continue to build a plane that hasn't fired a shot to help our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why wouldn't you want to shift that money elsewhere?
Well, someone does. The Obama administration instead wants to build more F-35s. And that will add an additional 44,000 jobs. So yes, jobs will be lost on the F-22. 20,000 more will be produced through the manufacturing of the F-35s.
Again, some gut.
Notice that the article above doesn't even mention the additional F-35s in the Gates plan. Or that it's also a stealth Joint Strike Fighter like the F-22. (And that it's made by the same company.) And that the Brits also prefer the F-35 to the F-22.
I'll leave you all with a quote from a big time socialist who had the top tax rate at 90%. (Obama wants it to be 39%, mind you.)
"Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
I'll let you figure out who said that, and if he's talking about you.
-
Again, I know facts don't matter on this board, but Obama is "gutting" the military by ...wait for it ...increasing the amount spent on the military by 4% over what George W. Bush spent on the military. That's your "gutting the military". Taking what was spent on the military, and then adding an additional $14 billion dollars to it.
Some gut.
The increase also happens to be the same amount that the Bush administration budgeted for 2010. (I'm sure if Bush were still president you'd all be here screaming about him gutting the military too.)
Oh, and the Bush administration cut defense spending in 2007 and 2008. Obama is raising it by 4%.
Or as you hysterics say, he's "gutting the military."
Sorry, fellas. I know you want it to be one way, but it's the other way. Those are just the facts.
As for the F-22, we already have 135 of them. The Obama plan calls for making that number 187 before ending the program. Cutting that program will cost 24,000 jobs.
Note that the F-22 is not being used in Iraq or Afghanistan. We've spent $65 billion dollars on a plane that's never been used in battle once. We've got two wars going on, and 135 F-22s can't be used. This is why many people inside the military and out of it want to shift those resources elsewhere - to a plane we can, you know, use.
I'd ask you guys why you want to continue to build a plane that hasn't fired a shot to help our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why wouldn't you want to shift that money elsewhere?
Well, someone does. The Obama administration instead wants to build more F-35s. And that will add an additional 44,000 jobs. So yes, jobs will be lost on the F-22. 20,000 more will be produced through the manufacturing of the F-35s.
Again, some gut.
Notice that the article above doesn't even mention the additional F-35s in the Gates plan. Or that it's also a stealth Joint Strike Fighter like the F-22. (And that it's made by the same company.) And that the Brits also prefer the F-35 to the F-22.
I'll leave you all with a quote from a big time socialist who had the top tax rate at 90%. (Obama wants it to be 39%, mind you.)
"Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
I'll let you figure out who said that, and if he's talking about you.
Again, I know facts don't matter on this board, but Obama is "gutting" the military by ...wait for it ...increasing the amount spent on the military by 4% over what George W. Bush spent on the military. That's your "gutting the military". Taking what was spent on the military, and then adding an additional $14 billion dollars to it.
But I thought the bar was set by calling an increase in social prorams less than desired "slashing" over the last few years.
We back to the old definition again?
WSS
-
Well, there's some typical cherry picking. The F-22 is now, has been since 2005.
The F-32 DOES NOT GO INTO SERVICE until 2011. That's sceduled at 2011.
The F-22 costs about 138 million bucks a piece. The F-32, about 86 million a piece.
Because the F-32 comes in several versions, not a do a whole lot comprehensive design like the F-22.
Who said the F-22 can't be used? Why? Where is the reasoning behind this? Reference?
-
I agree with you both. On the one hand, Steve is right. This is a well-worn tactic used by both sides to complain about budget cuts.
On the other hand, as danamal says, what does this have to do with anything? It's certainly not proof that Gates' plan isn't worth doing, unless you believe that every defense expenditure is worthwhile - and not only that, that they're all so worthwhile that we should give the Joints Chiefs every single dollar they ask for or else you're "gutting" the military.
And to go further, often times when you're talking about social programs you have to keep up with population growth and inflation, so a cut in the growth of, say, school funding is often a real cut on a per pupil basis even though the actual budget got bigger.
That's less of an issue with military spending.
And so much of the noise on the right isn't because people are interested in maintaining the most efficient and powerful military in the world, but about admiring/adoring the military above all else.
And much of the noise you'll hear from the left is simple parochialism - House and Senate members defending jobs in their districts. (See: Dodd, Chris.)
Again, that is all somewhat irrelevant. It's about what's best for the military and the country, not what's best for the Pratt Whitney factory in Connecticut.
-
@danamal said:
But I thought the bar was set by calling an increase in social prorams less than desired "slashing" over the last few years.We back to the old definition again?
WSS
TRANSLATION
When confronted with facts that prove you wrong,Change the subject.......
Well I did quote from the post and commented on it no?
So since the subject had to do with just what I mentioned am I right or not Dan?
IU'll make it clearer.
Didn't the administrations opponents call actual increases in social spending slashing for the last 8 years?
Yes? No?
Pick one.
WSS
-
Heck is correct, Obama will actually spend a little more than Bush did. BUT:
Obama wants to CUT the budget in 2010:
Defense Official: Obama Calling for Defense Budget Cuts
Some overall budget figures are expected to be announced Monday.
FOXNews.com
Friday, January 30, 2009
The Obama administration has asked the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff to cut the Pentagon's budget request for the fiscal year 2010 by more than 10 percent -- about $55 billion -- a senior U.S. defense official tells FOX News.
Last year's defense budget was $512 billion. Service chiefs and planners will be spending the weekend "burning the midnight oil" looking at ways to cut the budget -- looking especially at weapons programs, the defense official said.
Some overall budget figures are expected to be announced Monday.
Obama met Friday at the White House with a small group of military advisers, including Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman, and Gen. Jim Jones, National Security Council chairman.
-
Is someone in here going to claim that there's nothing to be cut in the Defense Budget? That every single weapons program, no matter how outdated, is a worthwhile expenditures? Every defense contract is a good one? That every single dollar in the $500+ billion dollar Defense budget must be upheld?
If so, I'd love to hear that argument. Otherwise, this is all an exercise in bluster.
10% cut - BAD. 4% increase - GUTTING. 20% increase - F'CK YEAH!
Does it matter what's being cut? Or does it only matter who is doing the cutting?
In other words, what's being cut? The F-22 program, which has been a huge cost that has yet to return any benefit whatsoever? (Unless you count air shows and Toby Keith's hard-on as a benefit.) Sounds good to me. Let's make better use of our limited resources.
The Defense budget is monstrous, fellas. Absolutely monstrous. And bloated. And the reason it's so big and bloated is that no one ever has the political will to cut it in any meaningful way. Not Democrats or Republicans.
Guess why?
-
Is someone in here going to claim that there's nothing to be cut in the Defense Budget? That every single weapons program, no matter how outdated, is a worthwhile expenditures? Every defense contract is a good one? That every single dollar in the $500+ billion dollar Defense budget must be upheld?
If so, I'd love to hear that argument. Otherwise, this is all an exercise in bluster.
10% cut - BAD. 4% increase - GUTTING. 20% increase - F'CK YEAH!
Does it matter what's being cut? Or does it only matter who is doing the cutting?
In other words, what's being cut? The F-22 program, which has been a huge cost that has yet to return any benefit whatsoever? (Unless you count air shows and Toby Keith's hard-on as a benefit.) Sounds good to me. Let's make better use of our limited resources.
The Defense budget is monstrous, fellas. Absolutely monstrous. And bloated. And the reason it's so big and bloated is that no one ever has the political will to cut it in any meaningful way. Not Democrats or Republicans.
Guess why?
Is someone in here going to claim that there's nothing to be cut in the Defense Budget? That every single weapons program, no matter how outdated, is a worthwhile expenditures? Every defense contract is a good one? That every single dollar in the $500+ billion dollar Defense budget must be upheld?
If so, I'd love to hear that argument. Otherwise, this is all an exercise in bluster.
I'd be shocked if any government run monolith couldn't be trimmed and made many times more cost efficient.
The Defense budget is monstrous, fellas. Absolutely monstrous. And bloated. And the reason it's so big and bloated is that no one ever has the political will to cut it in any meaningful way. Not Democrats or Republicans.
Guess why?
Keep the money in circulation?
Keep from even more staggering unemployment numbers that would happen if we bring everybody home?
Bad PR?
You tell us, sarge.
WSS
-
No, that's ridiculous, and yes.
-
No, that's ridiculous, and yes.
No, that's ridiculous, and yes.
BTW I may be mistaken but I seem to recall arguing that govenment programs are inefficient and didn't you use the military as example to attempt to prove me wrong?
WSS
-
In and of itself, I have no problem with cutting the Pentagon's budget to make it more efficient, productive, cost effective, and better prepared to fight wars in the new world order of rogue states, etc.
In fact, I have questioned the need for the Air Force, itself, and suggested that a lot of money could be saved by having only the Army, Navy, and Marines (part of the Navy, any way) - all of which have air assets and competencies.
What gives me the most pleasure, however, is to see the CT liberal Dems come to the defense (no pun intended), whenever cuts are possible for submarines, fighter planes, helicopters - all manufactured by United Technologies Corporation, based in the State of Connecticut.
The hypocracy is transparent and, at least to me, laughable.
-
No, that's ridiculous, and yes.
BTW I may be mistaken but I seem to recall arguing that govenment programs are inefficient and didn't you use the military as example to attempt to prove me wrong?
WSS
BTW I may be mistaken but I seem to recall arguing that govenment programs are inefficient and didn't you use the military as example to attempt to prove me wrong?
WSS
Yes, because there's a difference between the actual military being a government organization that is efficiently run (hence the term "military-like efficiency") and the political problems with how the government funds the military, which often involves defense contractors and firms that aren't part of the military. They're two different things.
danamal just touched on one of those problems above - defense contractors in Connecticut. Find an old liberal House rep from CT named Sam Gedjenson and check out his thoughts on military spending. Then check his thought on military spending on submarines. Then find out of Electric Boat and General Dynamics were in his district.
This is what we're talking about.
Plus, I'm not going to argue that all government programs are efficient. I'd argue that blanket statements like "all government programs are inefficient" are useless because there are some that are total wastes of money, some are great programs that are run well, and everything in between.
-
BTW I may be mistaken but I seem to recall arguing that govenment programs are inefficient and didn't you use the military as example to attempt to prove me wrong?
WSS
Yes, because there's a difference between the actual military being a government organization that is efficiently run (hence the term "military-like efficiency") and the political problems with how the government funds the military, which often involves defense contractors and firms that aren't part of the military. They're two different things.
danamal just touched on one of those problems above - defense contractors in Connecticut. Find an old liberal House rep from CT named Sam Gedjenson and check out his thoughts on military spending. Then check his thought on military spending on submarines. Then find out of Electric Boat and General Dynamics were in his district.
This is what we're talking about.
Plus, I'm not going to argue that all government programs are efficient. I'd argue that blanket statements like "all government programs are inefficient" are useless because there are some that are total wastes of money, some are great programs that are run well, and everything in between.
Plus, I'm not going to argue that all government programs are efficient. I'd argue that blanket statements like "all government programs are inefficient" are useless because there are some that are total wastes of money, some are great programs that are run well, and everything in between.
Well without the red herring "all" I'd still feel that govenment programs contain a lot of waste and inefficiency by their general nature.
But to the military; bacon ham or tenderloin, it's all part of the pig.
WSS
-
Thought you'd enjoy some more on this from the always-on-target Fareed Zakaria:
"...Robert Gates's budget proposal has certainly gathered all the right opponents. There are the defense contractors, worried that decades of fraudulent accounting are coming to a halt; the Beltway consultants for whom the war on terror has been a bonanza; the armed services, which have gotten used to having every fantasy funded; and the congressmen who protect all this institutionalized corruption just to make sure they keep jobs in their state.
If you're wondering where to come down on the Gates plan, here's a simple guide: John McCain, the most thoughtful, reform-minded legislator on military issues, "strongly supports" it. Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe—who has compared the EPA to the Gestapo, Carol Browner to Tokyo Rose and environmentalists to the Third Reich—warns that it will lead to the "disarming of America." You choose.
...In recent decades, defense budgeting has existed in a dreamland, where ever-more-elaborate weapons are built without regard to enemies, costs or trade-offs. In 2008 the General Accounting Office said cost overruns for the Pentagon's 95 biggest weapons programs—just the overruns!—added up to $300 billion.
...America's cumulative cost overruns add up to more than the total annual defense budgets of China, Russia, Britain and France combined. This smacks less of deterrence and more of mindless extravagance and waste. The system has become so pervasive and entrenched that most people no longer bother to get outraged."
But some of you guys got outraged! Except you were outraged at Gates and Obama. How dare they try to save taxpayer money!
The rest is here
-
And on the F-22:
"Much of the Pentagon budget is based on wish lists from the services, often lists that were conceived during the Cold War. The Air Force developed such a strong attachment to its F-22 fighter-plane program that it failed to notice that the Soviet Union had collapsed and no great-power rival was around to get into dogfights with the U.S. military. We're fighting two wars right now, and not one of the 135 or so F-22s that we already have is being used in either theater. If you're wondering why the program is still around, here's one reason: its manufacture has been spread across 44 states."
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login