The kids don't like it when the parents argue, just saying.
I agree Roland, and like I stated early here I will continue the DISCUSSION as long as it remains a discussion. I am not going to fight, argue , or name call anyone over this issue. This is all just good discussion and it helps me figure out what makes others tick. I am fascinated by what people believe and why. I have noticed that people base the way they see the world on their collective experiences. It is VERY rare for someone to actually look at a given situation in a completly non biased viewpoint. We filter everything we encounter through this experience filter and that is what we base our opinions on.
Change someones experience and you can change their views on many things. It's very interesting to me.
I was trying not to comment on this again to no avail. There are plenty of places to cut the DoD budget that will not affect the troops on the front line, middle line or in the rear. Mil budget cuts are not synomous with the lowly grunt getting the shaft. There is plenty of frivilous spending in the G to include the DoD.
I agree 100%. Sorry if that goes against the grain of our usual consensus. LMAO
OK I can agree with that. So are you saying it is somehow the US role to go around the world and take these types of people out? I would argue that it would be more effective and much much cheaper to ignore these people unless they try to come or bring that sh it to your country. Why go looking for it, particularly during times of such economic struggle? You never said you included the whole of any country, but you also never clarified that you thought otherwise and the way you wrote what you said lead me to make the statement I did about how you percieve an enemy. My apologies.
Well, there's the rub, ain't it? To go looking for trouble to stop it, or let it come to you. 9/11 showed what happens when you sit back and let it come to you; Afghanistan is what happens when you go after trouble.
I don't have any real answer to this question; on the one hand, I think we can't afford to just sit back and let problems fester until they explode; Hitler rose to power because every country said "It's not my problem" until it eventually became their problem. But then again, we can't afford to go sticking our noses in everyone elses business - being the world's police is just too much for our economy or military to bear. Where to draw the line? Well, that's where our leaders gotta use their judgment; it's a case-by-case basis and there aren't any black/white answers.
OK I can agree with that. So are you saying it is somehow the US role to go around the world and take these types of people out? I would argue that it would be more effective and much much cheaper to ignore these people unless they try to come or bring that sh it to your country. Why go looking for it, particularly during times of such economic struggle? You never said you included the whole of any country, but you also never clarified that you thought otherwise and the way you wrote what you said lead me to make the statement I did about how you percieve an enemy. My apologies.
Well, there's the rub, ain't it? To go looking for trouble to stop it, or let it come to you. 9/11 showed what happens when you sit back and let it come to you; Afghanistan is what happens when you go after trouble.
I don't have any real answer to this question; on the one hand, I think we can't afford to just sit back and let problems fester until they explode; Hitler rose to power because every country said "It's not my problem" until it eventually became their problem. But then again, we can't afford to go sticking our noses in everyone elses business - being the world's police is just too much for our economy or military to bear. Where to draw the line? Well, that's where our leaders gotta use their judgment; it's a case-by-case basis and there aren't any black/white answers.
I won't go into 9/11 because I would have to go into wether I thought that the attack on 9/11 was unprovoked or a response from people who felt they were the ones trying to get back at someone else for percieved wrongs. So it comes down to interpretation of wether 9/11 was provoked or not.
The UN is supposed to be the policemen of the world, but due to many things including the political games played by certain members of the UN and the Security Council in particular, the UN will never gain the respect it needs to do it's job. I agree with your statement that it is a case by case decision, and that our leaders will have to use their judgement. Let's hope our leaders develop better judgement going forward then they have shown in the past.
I was trying not to comment on this again to no avail. There are plenty of places to cut the DoD budget that will not affect the troops on the front line, middle line or in the rear. Mil budget cuts are not synomous with the lowly grunt getting the shaft. There is plenty of frivilous spending in the G to include the DoD.
I agree 100%. Sorry if that goes against the grain of our usual consensus. LMAO
Yes but we have seen before, that taking money from/from things that will impact everybody from support to grunts to the airwing is easy and happens. Getting rid of the frivolous spending won't happen, not a lot of it that is. You're right not just dod but the g-unit as a whole needs to examine their spending and do things to cut back on unnecessary expenditures.
I was trying not to comment on this again to no avail. There are plenty of places to cut the DoD budget that will not affect the troops on the front line, middle line or in the rear. Mil budget cuts are not synomous with the lowly grunt getting the shaft. There is plenty of frivilous spending in the G to include the DoD.
I agree 100%. Sorry if that goes against the grain of our usual consensus. LMAO
Yes but we have seen before, that taking money from/from things that will impact everybody from support to grunts to the airwing is easy and happens. Getting rid of the frivolous spending won't happen, not a lot of it that is. You're right not just dod but the g-unit as a whole needs to examine their spending and do things to cut back on unnecessary expenditures.
I agree, but not making cuts just bcuz they usually make bad decisions is not the answer. Take the DoD bands for instance, The DoD has almost as many musicians as my agency has officers. Music Is great, when u can afford it but if its not being operationally useful probably should put it on hold until u can afford it again.
I was trying not to comment on this again to no avail. There are plenty of places to cut the DoD budget that will not affect the troops on the front line, middle line or in the rear. Mil budget cuts are not synomous with the lowly grunt getting the shaft. There is plenty of frivilous spending in the G to include the DoD.
I agree 100%. Sorry if that goes against the grain of our usual consensus. LMAO
Yes but we have seen before, that taking money from/from things that will impact everybody from support to grunts to the airwing is easy and happens. Getting rid of the frivolous spending won't happen, not a lot of it that is. You're right not just dod but the g-unit as a whole needs to examine their spending and do things to cut back on unnecessary expenditures.
I agree, but not making cuts just bcuz they usually make bad decisions is not the answer. Take the DoD bands for instance, The DoD has almost as many musicians as my agency has officers. Music Is great, when u can afford it but if its not being operationally useful probably should put it on hold until u can afford it again.
For sure, the ridiculous amount of musicians in the branches is massive! That and deployment dodgers. They need to be kicked out, I understand not everybody gets the chance to but people who go out of their way to not deploy need to go. Unless they are a conscientious objector then that's a different case. If they aren't willing to deploy they need to gtfo and make room for somebody that is.
All the branches have musicians. They play events on the base, parades, ball games and whatnot. For example the Marine Corps has the Presidents Own Band. They play all the presidential events and other things in the DC area. It's mainly a big pr thing imho, for most of them. Stuff like the Presidents Own, hold a big historical significance.
military bands are used to boost morale, perform for the public as well as for official events but the problem is that we have alot of them. And right now now I think the guys on the front lines will get a better morale boost from not losing their benies then they would from listening to a good rythem section
Didnt Eisnhower warn us about somthing with money, and military, and -----ehhhh, nevermind-----we have an axis of evil here afterall.
James Madison said, "A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787
There ya go vulch helped ya with some quotes of guys who had their *** together. Hope you appreciate it, I had to wade through alot of liberal "stop the hate" crap to get this. Appearantly they don't mind quoting "racist slave owning hick hayseeds" on this issue.
I'm betting there are BILLIONS of $$$ that could be saved without touching any money going to the troops or the equipping of them. Like all huge entities, there is waste and inefficiencies in the US military. They may not solve the problem, but these types of things should be taken care of before any talk of impact on the troops should even be discussed. IMO
I do agree that the federal spending needs to be cut from somewhere and that there is some fat from the DoD that can be trimmed off. However, why threaten the jobs of 70k soldiers and marines instead of making the federal government itself more efficient with our tax dollars or stop Congress from giving themselves a raise (which they vote on every year) first?
As a former Specialist in the US Army, the pay was great if you're an single 18 year old with no college debt and no kids. However, if you have an unemployed spouse (which is common because a lot of military spouses can't find lasting jobs on base or near the base) and/or a kid or two, you're easily below the poverty line. I've seen quite a few request their chain of command the permission to moonlight and still end up on welfare and food stamps. Yet these are the same guys spending 6 to 18 months baking in the desert while getting shot at or blown up. And the first course of action to save money is to dump 70,000 soldiers and marines with reduced or no benefits? Not only that, the Navy is also prepping to dump 30,000 sailors if Obama's plan goes through. No word yet from my friends in the Air Force.
While I do support reduced federal spending, making 100,000+ servicemen and women that are paid peanuts to protect their country and allies into new unemployed welfare recipients won't help the economy in the long run.
They did the same thing after the Gulf War. I think they called it the VSP program. They put a large portion of the middle management out on that early out program. They got rid of a lot of E4 and E5 NCO's. When it was all said and done I remember standing in my shop and looking back at me was nothing but E1 and E2 and a handful of civilians. No middle management and a reduced seasoned work force. I lost all my ramrods.
All the money spent on training those men and women went down the drain in the name of saving money. Then the RIF came all those displaced civil service from the naval shipyard that was closing came to the shop to claim a spot. So I lost a good civilian work force (last hired first fired) due to saving money.
When it comes to paying our military I don't want to hear squat from anybody on the right or left or middle. Chances are you haven't served and had to put up with the crap that our men and women put up with everyday. I joined the Air Force in 1975. Pay stunk then and the pay stunk when I retired. My civilian counterparts for all those years made more then I did and didn't have to do long stretches away from family.
I didn't see a real pay raise when Ford or Carter was in office until Pres. Reagan took office, I got a 13% pay raise across the board and during his term as our Commander and Chief I got my one and only re-enlistment bonus. I believe I got a few more pay raises like 3% until Clinton took office. No more pay raises from that point on until I retired. As far as retired bennies go I can't remember the last time I got a cost of living raise. 2% might not seem like a lot to some of you guys but try staying at the same pay you get in your civilian job with no raises despite the cost of living going up each year.
Before you shout cut DOD spending take a look at it from the first floor cause what ever you cut from the top does effect those at the bottom.
There is a lot of saving to be had in the acquisition process. They can start with programs that will benefit the military as a reason to pursue them and not because that work benefits companies in a specific state. They should also restructure contracts so the companies are shouldering more of the risk not the government, tie payment to milestone completion.
There is a lot of saving to be had in the acquisition process. They can start with programs that will benefit the military as a reason to pursue them and not because that work benefits companies in a specific state. They should also restructure contracts so the companies are shouldering more of the risk not the government, tie payment to milestone completion.
Comments
Change someones experience and you can change their views on many things. It's very interesting to me.
I don't have any real answer to this question; on the one hand, I think we can't afford to just sit back and let problems fester until they explode; Hitler rose to power because every country said "It's not my problem" until it eventually became their problem. But then again, we can't afford to go sticking our noses in everyone elses business - being the world's police is just too much for our economy or military to bear. Where to draw the line? Well, that's where our leaders gotta use their judgment; it's a case-by-case basis and there aren't any black/white answers.
The UN is supposed to be the policemen of the world, but due to many things including the political games played by certain members of the UN and the Security Council in particular, the UN will never gain the respect it needs to do it's job. I agree with your statement that it is a case by case decision, and that our leaders will have to use their judgement. Let's hope our leaders develop better judgement going forward then they have shown in the past.
"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787
There ya go vulch helped ya with some quotes of guys who had their *** together. Hope you appreciate it, I had to wade through alot of liberal "stop the hate" crap to get this. Appearantly they don't mind quoting "racist slave owning hick hayseeds" on this issue.
Yeah, I like that.
As a former Specialist in the US Army, the pay was great if you're an single 18 year old with no college debt and no kids. However, if you have an unemployed spouse (which is common because a lot of military spouses can't find lasting jobs on base or near the base) and/or a kid or two, you're easily below the poverty line. I've seen quite a few request their chain of command the permission to moonlight and still end up on welfare and food stamps. Yet these are the same guys spending 6 to 18 months baking in the desert while getting shot at or blown up. And the first course of action to save money is to dump 70,000 soldiers and marines with reduced or no benefits? Not only that, the Navy is also prepping to dump 30,000 sailors if Obama's plan goes through. No word yet from my friends in the Air Force.
While I do support reduced federal spending, making 100,000+ servicemen and women that are paid peanuts to protect their country and allies into new unemployed welfare recipients won't help the economy in the long run.
All the money spent on training those men and women went down the drain in the name of saving money. Then the RIF came all those displaced civil service from the naval shipyard that was closing came to the shop to claim a spot. So I lost a good civilian work force (last hired first fired) due to saving money.
When it comes to paying our military I don't want to hear squat from anybody on the right or left or middle. Chances are you haven't served and had to put up with the crap that our men and women put up with everyday. I joined the Air Force in 1975. Pay stunk then and the pay stunk when I retired. My civilian counterparts for all those years made more then I did and didn't have to do long stretches away from family.
I didn't see a real pay raise when Ford or Carter was in office until Pres. Reagan took office, I got a 13% pay raise across the board and during his term as our Commander and Chief I got my one and only re-enlistment bonus. I believe I got a few more pay raises like 3% until Clinton took office. No more pay raises from that point on until I retired. As far as retired bennies go I can't remember the last time I got a cost of living raise. 2% might not seem like a lot to some of you guys but try staying at the same pay you get in your civilian job with no raises despite the cost of living going up each year.
Before you shout cut DOD spending take a look at it from the first floor cause what ever you cut from the top does effect those at the bottom.
CutleryBarn
There is a lot of saving to be had in the acquisition process. They can start with programs that will benefit the military as a reason to pursue them and not because that work benefits companies in a specific state. They should also restructure contracts so the companies are shouldering more of the risk not the government, tie payment to milestone completion.