Obama To Cut Defense

[ArlJim78]

no shocker here, anyone could see this coming. He wants to cut the one department that actually has a mandate from the constitution. Meanwhile he pushes a trillion dollar pork-a-poolaza that spreads the lard far and wide.

this makes sense right? because none of the military spending actually employs anyone, and it never has any tangible benefit. Not like weather-proofing federal buildings and buying green electric cars or re-sodding the mall or giving billions to ACORN.
"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."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/30/defense-official-obama-calling-defense-budget-cuts/

[prospector]

talk about a wrong direction...

[DJofSD]

Kind of makes a mockery of the oath he took, doesn't it.

[HUSKER55]

If the military used the Hummer as a battle wagon only and brought back the original Jeep as an APV you could probably save $55 B in gas alone. Plus, it would put auto workers back to work.

[Lefty]

More money for ACORN less for defense. Yeah, dims make a lot of sense.

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't understand. Didn't the Democrats tell us for years Bush skimped on equipment to protect our troops? The wrong vests, no vests, no armor, the wrong armor, etc. etc.

We've been told how thin our ranks our, how poorly equipped our troops our, and THIS is the change we get?
Holy moly!

[Bubba X]

I don't understand. Didn't the Democrats tell us for years Bush skimped on equipment to protect our troops? The wrong vests, no vests, no armor, the wrong armor, etc. etc.

We've been told how thin our ranks our, how poorly equipped our troops our, and THIS is the change we get?
Holy moly!
Perhaps reading the following might help your understanding:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/11/10/pentagon_board_says_cuts_essential/

The cuts are the result of recommendations made by the Defense Business Board, an internal Pentagon oversight body that also includes several private sector executives.

You may not like or agree with the reasons.

[PaceAdvantage]

Is this the first time ever a branch of gov't or the military recommended that it receive less money?

Are you claiming that Obama's 10% cut is based entirely on these recommendations?

[Bubba X]

Is this the first time ever a branch of gov't or the military recommended that it receive less money?

Are you claiming that Obama's 10% cut is based entirely on these recommendations?

1. Probably. At least I'd bet that way.
2. How would I know?

[ArlJim78]

upon further review, the whole story that Fox reported was wrong. The spending that was set forth by the administration was the same as what Bush had forecast and amounts to an 8% increase. The 10% cut is only relative to a draft by the Joint Chiefs which was apparently an effort to obtain big new funding from the new administration.

obviously some of the typical budget gamesmanship going on here, but I'm glad to know that what was originally reported by Fox was wrong. They're not trying to cut back on defense spending while we're fighting a war, so my comments are taken back.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003022493

[ddog]

Pa

you protest too much. yes, they were and are underfunded for the mission.
that doesn't equate to gross funding levels though.

the "mission" as set out by Bush was not doable ever.
It was based on a fantasy that we could eliminate evil and tyrants from the world.

I think that takes a little higher pay grade than prez.
To then write checks to accomplish that is foolish.

[dutchboy]

Problem is with the math they use to promote the idea of tax cuts. If the first plan is to raise taxes by 20% and the final plan is to only raise taxes 10% they can then talk about how they cut taxes by 10%.

"Liars figure and figures lie"

[boxcar]

Pa

you protest too much. yes, they were and are underfunded for the mission.
that doesn't equate to gross funding levels though.

the "mission" as set out by Bush was not doable ever.
It was based on a fantasy that we could eliminate evil and tyrants from the world.

I think that takes a little higher pay grade than prez.
To then write checks to accomplish that is foolish.

So...what we do instead is allow evil and tyrants to thrive in the world? Oh, wait...I nearly forgot -- the Carter Doctrine. We can always talk the tyrants out of their evil plans. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[DJofSD]

It was based on a fantasy that we could eliminate evil and tyrants from the world.
Eliminate is the incorrect word to use. Evil and tyranny exists in all humans, it is part of the condition.

Control or contain would be a better word.

It similar to parasites in horses. You never completely eliminate them but you can learn to keep them at a low level and to manage them. Same thing with bad doers in political office that violate human rights -- that is as long as you have the balls to act.

[Dahoss9698]

Hard to believe Fox reported something incorrectly....:lol:

[ddog]

look the eliminate/defeat was Bushes construction , not mine, I would never have set forth on such a foolish mission for our country.

and no having the balls to act is not the problem.
the issue is having the sense to know that everything is not ours to solve.

the point i was trying to make as to the funding is the same as i have been trying to make for years.

OUR MILITARY IS TOO SMALL FOR THE DEMANDS/GOALS THAT HAVE BEEN SET FOR IT SINCE 2001.

rummy thought, (i am being kind here) that we could outsource most of the functions that are needed outside of the actual war fighting to our and other countries private contractors.

That was and is based on hope and not facts.
As anyone could tell you that has dealt with this kind of deal, once in the theater you NEED a centrally controlled FULLY COMMITTED force that carries out your national goals.

This can not be possible when you have private contractors that have the right of refusal if the theater looks too dangerous or the employees (private) just want to go home or not perform.

So, when you send our troops into a country and we are going to take down whatever we need to for the win and after that we are not anymore just going to turn around and march out then you HAVE to make sure your MILITARY force contains all the other types of services that are required to control the place and begin to restore services ,etc.

So, the model was flawed and we STILL DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH FORCE and will not have via all vol force.

So , yeah the balls to act are nice , but we defeat our own efforts and pour/WASTE tons of money because we essentially throw gobs of money at the country and hope some of it does some good someday.

So, in the balls aspect, you need to have the balls to face this problem first, we don't , before you lay our troops balls on the line over there, where ever that is next time.

I know the Rush types who get off on spewing one liner put downs are astounded but a lack of balls is not normally why things go bad.

As to doctrines, that would be IKE, regan,the smart elder bush and most all presidents since the beginning of the republic, yeah carter too.

get real.

[Lefty]

Of course, the president should never act on world wide intel that prescribes that would be the prudent course. And the fact that we have decimated Al Qaeda and have won militarily and freed millions should never never dissuade liberals from their constant b.s.

[DJofSD]

"Balls!" said the queen, "If I had two, I'd be King!"

It's too damn bad that Clinton didn't have a pair. Maybe Hill-dog has them.

[DanG]

Every time I hear our Military budget discussed I think back to Eisenhower’s famous speech 48 years ago warning of sustaining the “Military Industrial Complex”.

Not only did he see the future; but it’s grown far beyond what he could have envisioned. The alliance he warned of (Executive / Pentagon and Contractors) has swollen to a staggering % of our GDP. It’s so enormous we no longer have accurate accounting figures to discuss it. Dozens of appropriations fall outside the defense department to hide massive amounts of spending.

Eisenhower warned of this escalation on many levels; with one being the political ramifications of raining in excessive spending.

PA (correctly) speaks of Bush getting called on our troops lacking certain gear; that’s not through lack of funding however; that’s the lack of management / oversight of appropriations. Let a fiscally responsible elected official (Libertarian :) ) mention “defense cuts” and watch the opposition party start looping sound bites for the sheep to follow. “There not supporting the troops etc...yada, yada”.

If you disagree philosophically with current “bailouts”; then it is very difficult intellectually to approve of the defensive department spending when you actually get under the hood. Current / functioning weapons systems are routinely discarded to make way for the next contract because the sole reason the manufacturers exists is through our government (tax payer) contracts. This is precisely the “sustaining complex” that was prophesized 48 years ago.

Weak on defense…never in our lifetime and the rational among us realize that; but our spending in the “name” of defense has escalated well beyond rational levels.

BTW: Among the inexcusable crimes in the process are…

• The fraction of funding (and focus) spent on our Veterans.

• The pay rate of our enlisted and the lack of direct compensation the spouse / children receive in addition to the base salary of whom serves.

[ddog]

dog, thatta boy. If you can't hold your own in a debate; don't respond with a cogent argument; just go on the personal attack.

lefty, i did not personally attack you , i suggested that if you wish to post one liners that you go to where those are most often posted.

you posted your usual tired lib shot your other goofy democracy cannard.

If we brought democracy to Iraq , then we are fools.

that's not what built this country and the further down the road we try to get to it seems to bring us lower as we go.

so, once again, if your twitters are the best you can do then fine, that's not an attack it seems to be the facts.

How you can construe that as a personal attack is beyond me , but neo-cons do have one thing in common these days, they see themselves as victims at all times.

you see, I was not talking about world-wide intell, has nothing to do with my post.
even if your world-wide intell is correct, what that leads one to is not what we did and/or how we did or are doing it.

So, to point out that you either can't or chose not to attempt to reply to what I posted , but instead pulled out your canned lines is a personal attack or just the facts as seen here?

[delayjf]

the "mission" as set out by Bush was not doable ever.
It was based on a fantasy that we could eliminate evil and tyrants from the world
Wrong, the mission was to get Saddam and Al Queda - it was never to oust each and every evil Tyrant in the World. There are no plans nor where there ever any plans to invade Zimbabwe, Burma, etc.

[delayjf]

Every time I hear our Military budget discussed I think back to Eisenhower’s famous speech 48 years ago warning of sustaining the “Military Industrial Complex”.

I will certainly agree with you that there is plenty of waste with regards to Military spending. And you will never hear me disagree with a pay raise for the enlisted ranks. But I am of the opinion that sustaining the US Military Industrial Complex is not a bad thing.

[NoDayJob]

[QUOTE=ArlJim78]no shocker here, anyone could see this coming. He wants to cut the one department that actually has a mandate from the constitution. Meanwhile he pushes a trillion dollar pork-a-poolaza that spreads the lard far and wide.

I'd like to know which fence is he talking about--- da fence at our Southern
border or da defense dep't. or mebee both??? :rolleyes:

[ddog]

Wrong, the mission was to get Saddam and Al Queda - it was never to oust each and every evil Tyrant in the World. There are no plans nor where there ever any plans to invade Zimbabwe, Burma, etc.

sorry, that's your policy , that was not the policy from the CINC.

His original policy was exactly as I stated, he stated it as well.

Of course, we are still at it, AFG has been under resourced for years, still is.

Obviously we did not plan to have the resources needed.
It's self evident. We are getting ready to send troops from Iraq, we hope, to AFG.

Proves the point right there.
Even your redefined mission has not been resourced to this date.

[Burls]

upon further review, the whole story that Fox reported was wrong.Hey!.....there's a first. :lol: :lol:

[delayjf]

the "mission" as set out by Bush was not doable ever.
It was based on a fantasy that we could eliminate evil and tyrants from the world

Are you are saying that the CINC said if was his policy to eliminate evil and tyrants through out the world?? First of all, CINC's don't make policy, they are instruments of the Administrations policy.

And by the way, the mission was accomplished, we eliminated Saddam and the Tailiban and Al Queda are on the run as well. If the Taliban /AL Queda still exist it's due to politics not military inability; the only thing keeping the Taliban / Al Queda alive in AFG is the Pak border.

[Tom]

And Democrats, Jeff. And democrats.
Harry Reid = terrorist helper.
Murtha, Pelosi, Obama.......terrorist enablers.