Cut/GUT the Military Budget??????

bobwg

Expert Expediter
In another thread Witness said we need to cut the military budget, my question is how much more? We have been cutting down the military budget since the 1990s Look at all the bases that have closed and we have fewer people wearing the uniforms of our military. Funny when people talk about cutting spending the first place they want to go or for those on the left the only place they want to gut is the military
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
In another thread Witness said we need to cut the military budget, my question is how much more? We have been cutting down the military budget since the 1990s Look at all the bases that have closed and we have fewer people wearing the uniforms of our military. Funny when people talk about cutting spending the first place they want to go or for those on the left the only place they want to gut is the military

Deficit reduction needs to be done everywhere, that includes military and domestic spending.

for those on the left the only place they want to gut is the military

Keep politics out of it. The above statement is classic "us" against "them" argument.

Let me ask you, do you support Rand Paul?
 

bobwg

Expert Expediter
Again I ask how much more do you gut the military ???? as for Rand Paul I dont know where he stands on all the issues so will have to check but you didnt answer the question how much more to we gut the military????
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
We need a cut across the board of 10% except defense spending. The entitlements are the place they need to be cut the most, starting with social programs like Medicaid, Medicare and further rethinking of Social Security being changed.

Most will agree that defense spending has to have more accountability and savings coupled R&D expenditures being reduced more than 20%.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
Again I ask how much more do you gut the military ???? as for Rand Paul I dont know where he stands on all the issues so will have to check but you didnt answer the question how much more to we gut the military????

Responsibly winding down and ending the war in Afghanistan would be a start. Then Greg answered it quite well:

Most will agree that defense spending has to have more accountability and savings coupled R&D expenditures being reduced more than 20%.
 

bobwg

Expert Expediter
You want federal deficit reduction here is my way shut down all federal agencies/everything except Law enforcement and the military ,CIA and let the states run everything else education, highways, entitlements, etc just cut out the lousy federal govt acting as the middleman
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
as for Rand Paul I dont know where he stands on all the issues so will have to check

Then let me help you out then: Rift looming on the right over need to cut defense budget - CNN.com

Rift looming on the right over need to cut defense budget
By Jennifer Rizzo, CNN National Security ProducerNovember 19, 2010 5:14 p.m. EST

Washington (CNN) -- There is a looming rift on the right as many newly elected Republican congressional members want defense spending on the chopping block as they head to Capitol Hill, a position not shared by some of the old school Republicans in Congress.

Military and foreign policy analysts see the incoming group as game-changers in the Republican party.

"Within the Republican party, with the rising Tea Party caucus, you're going to see, I think, very confusing but interesting politics on this issue over the next couple of years," said Gordon Adams, a professor of foreign policy at American University.

"The reality is if the Republicans want agreement in their caucus and if they want to join with the Democrats in any way in an effort of deficit reduction all of these pieces need to be on the table and that means defense."

Sen.-elect Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican who has been outspoken on the matter, has broken from the traditional Republican party line on the issue of defense spending.

"Republicans traditionally say, oh, we'll cut domestic spending, but we won't touch the military. The liberals, the ones who are good, will say, 'Oh, we'll cut the military, but we won't cut domestic spending," Paul said on ABC's "This Week." "Bottom line is you have to look at everything across the board."

Praising Paul earlier this month for saying he would go after defense waste, Sen. Tom Coburn , R-Oklahoma, called taking defense spending off the table "indefensible."

"We need to protect our nation, not the Pentagon's sacred cows," Coburn wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Examiner.

Paul and Coburn are not alone. Taking aim at programs tacked onto the defense spending bill, that are not requested by the Pentagon, Sen.-elect Pat Toomey, R-Pennsylvania, echoed calls to cut waste.

"There is waste pretty much everywhere in the government, and that includes the Pentagon. Part of the problem is Congress voting on systems the Pentagon doesn't even want," Toomey said in a debate during his campaign.
"Congress has real serious spending problems, and it manifests itself in many ways. Certainly wasteful defense programs are occasionally in that list," Toomey said.

Sen.-elect Mark Kirk, R-Ilinois, also voiced support for cuts during his campaign.

"I back spending restraint across the board at the DOD, like no second engine for the F-35 Fighter, closing down joint forces command, across the board reductions," Kirk said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

But the congressman who will likely take charge of the House committee that oversees the Pentagon has no intention of seeing the defense budget shrink.

"Cutting defense spending amidst two wars, is a red line for me and should be a red line for all Americans. You do not need to be a policy expert to realize that investment is key to maintaining a robust defense," Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-California -- currently the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee -- told an audience at the Foreign Policy Initiative on Monday.

In fact McKeon, who is likely to replace outgoing Missouri Democrat Ike Skelton as Armed Services chairman, is opposed to the slower growth that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates desires in an effort to reduce waste.

"The growth in the department's top line is insufficient to address the future capabilities required by our military. One percent real growth in the defense budget over the next five years is a net cut for investment and procurement accounts. A defense budget in decline portends an America in decline," McKeon said.

McKeon downplays the rift saying the freshman members are more focues on getting the lay of the land first.

"I think it will just take time to see where they really are on all the issues. Right now they're probably trying to learn each other's names and trying to find where they're going to live and what they're going to do with their families and hiring staff and getting an office," McKeon said Monday at the Foreign Policy Initiative.

Rep.-elect Vicky Hartzler, R-Missouri, is in just that predicament, not ready to take a stand on cuts.

"She will bring her practices as a businesswoman to the federal government, wanting to first get a look at the books before making any decisions on cuts or freezes to various departments," said Hartzler's representative.

But defense experts see a struggle between the two camps in the near future.

"The Tea Party movement is going to have more fights with the status quo Republican leadership than it will with the Democrats," said retired Col. Douglas Macgregor. "And what we're going to witness over the next two years is whether or not this political movement, which is quite powerful, will succeed in asserting itself and taking control of the Republican party."

Macgregor and Adams made their comments during a phone briefing Thursday where they released a letter sent to President Obama's deficit reduction commission, urging its members to cut the Pentagon's budget. Fourty-five others signed the letter.

The commission's co-chairmen released a report earlier this month that proposed $100 billion in defense spending cuts in 2015. The full panel will vote on the recommendations by Dec. 1, the date of the commission's last public meeting.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
You want federal deficit reduction here is my way shut down all federal agencies/everything except Law enforcement and the military ,CIA and let the states run everything else education, highways, entitlements, etc just cut out the lousy federal govt acting as the middleman

Here, here! Run for mayor in your town and do just that. Do not take any money from the Government. When you become mayor let me know where your town is and I'll move there.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
But many don't get that the funding of the war(s) were done with additional bills presented in congress and has not been a 'real' part of the overall defense budget. Once the war(s) wind down, the additional funding will cease.

The real problem I see is a political one, who will have the nerve to explain what is needed and why at the same time trying to balance their political position within congress?

I see no one capable or willing to do that, including the number of tea party people.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
let the states run everything else education, highways, entitlements, etc just cut out the lousy federal govt acting as the middleman

Sounds like you might be interested in Glenn Becks newest endeavor.

BECK: Wilmington is a city fighting to be Bedford Falls, not Pottersville.

And I personally plan to roll up my sleeves and help. If they will have us, I'm going to pay a visit next month, and I'm going to do the show from that little street, and I'm going to ask all the folks in nearby Dayton and Columbus and Cincinnati and Cleveland, or wherever else you might be, to join me -- kind of a mini 8.28.

It's not going to be extravagant. It's not going to be big. I'm going to do a show in actually one local theater that last year they did a show in -- because they do it every year. They do a show about the history of their town, and the furnace went out. And people came, but they were sitting in jackets. But they still came.

I'm going to do a show there. I invite you to come. I'll give you more information. [Glenn Beck, 11/19/10]

Because they aren't taking any money from the Government.

BECK: This is such an amazing place. They have - this is, this is what CBS calls ground zero of joblessness, ground zero of the recession.

GRAY: Because DHL was located there, right?

BECK: Yes.

GRAY: And they left.

BECK: And they left. So it's a town of 12,000, and when DHL left they shed 9,500 jobs. A town of 12,000 losing 9,500 jobs. Can you even begin to imagine what that does to this town?

It went from the Number 1 most up and coming city, and a city everybody wants to live in, to ground zero. And this town hasn't taken any money from the government. They don't want any money from the government.

And they are pulling together. Thirty-four churches are all pulling together to help. [The Glenn Beck Program, 11/22/10]
 

bobwg

Expert Expediter
Then let me help you out then: Rift looming on the right over need to cut defense budget - CNN.com

Rift looming on the right over need to cut defense budget
By Jennifer Rizzo, CNN National Security ProducerNovember 19, 2010 5:14 p.m. EST

Washington (CNN) -- There is a looming rift on the right as many newly elected Republican congressional members want defense spending on the chopping block as they head to Capitol Hill, a position not shared by some of the old school Republicans in Congress.

Military and foreign policy analysts see the incoming group as game-changers in the Republican party.

"Within the Republican party, with the rising Tea Party caucus, you're going to see, I think, very confusing but interesting politics on this issue over the next couple of years," said Gordon Adams, a professor of foreign policy at American University.

"The reality is if the Republicans want agreement in their caucus and if they want to join with the Democrats in any way in an effort of deficit reduction all of these pieces need to be on the table and that means defense."

Sen.-elect Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican who has been outspoken on the matter, has broken from the traditional Republican party line on the issue of defense spending.

"Republicans traditionally say, oh, we'll cut domestic spending, but we won't touch the military. The liberals, the ones who are good, will say, 'Oh, we'll cut the military, but we won't cut domestic spending," Paul said on ABC's "This Week." "Bottom line is you have to look at everything across the board."

Praising Paul earlier this month for saying he would go after defense waste, Sen. Tom Coburn , R-Oklahoma, called taking defense spending off the table "indefensible."

"We need to protect our nation, not the Pentagon's sacred cows," Coburn wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Examiner.

Paul and Coburn are not alone. Taking aim at programs tacked onto the defense spending bill, that are not requested by the Pentagon, Sen.-elect Pat Toomey, R-Pennsylvania, echoed calls to cut waste.

"There is waste pretty much everywhere in the government, and that includes the Pentagon. Part of the problem is Congress voting on systems the Pentagon doesn't even want," Toomey said in a debate during his campaign.
"Congress has real serious spending problems, and it manifests itself in many ways. Certainly wasteful defense programs are occasionally in that list," Toomey said.

Sen.-elect Mark Kirk, R-Ilinois, also voiced support for cuts during his campaign.

"I back spending restraint across the board at the DOD, like no second engine for the F-35 Fighter, closing down joint forces command, across the board reductions," Kirk said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

But the congressman who will likely take charge of the House committee that oversees the Pentagon has no intention of seeing the defense budget shrink.

"Cutting defense spending amidst two wars, is a red line for me and should be a red line for all Americans. You do not need to be a policy expert to realize that investment is key to maintaining a robust defense," Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-California -- currently the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee -- told an audience at the Foreign Policy Initiative on Monday.

In fact McKeon, who is likely to replace outgoing Missouri Democrat Ike Skelton as Armed Services chairman, is opposed to the slower growth that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates desires in an effort to reduce waste.

"The growth in the department's top line is insufficient to address the future capabilities required by our military. One percent real growth in the defense budget over the next five years is a net cut for investment and procurement accounts. A defense budget in decline portends an America in decline," McKeon said.

McKeon downplays the rift saying the freshman members are more focues on getting the lay of the land first.

"I think it will just take time to see where they really are on all the issues. Right now they're probably trying to learn each other's names and trying to find where they're going to live and what they're going to do with their families and hiring staff and getting an office," McKeon said Monday at the Foreign Policy Initiative.

Rep.-elect Vicky Hartzler, R-Missouri, is in just that predicament, not ready to take a stand on cuts.

"She will bring her practices as a businesswoman to the federal government, wanting to first get a look at the books before making any decisions on cuts or freezes to various departments," said Hartzler's representative.

But defense experts see a struggle between the two camps in the near future.

"The Tea Party movement is going to have more fights with the status quo Republican leadership than it will with the Democrats," said retired Col. Douglas Macgregor. "And what we're going to witness over the next two years is whether or not this political movement, which is quite powerful, will succeed in asserting itself and taking control of the Republican party."

Macgregor and Adams made their comments during a phone briefing Thursday where they released a letter sent to President Obama's deficit reduction commission, urging its members to cut the Pentagon's budget. Fourty-five others signed the letter.

The commission's co-chairmen released a report earlier this month that proposed $100 billion in defense spending cuts in 2015. The full panel will vote on the recommendations by Dec. 1, the date of the commission's last public meeting.

The military is the only area that has seen real cuts since the 1990s no other area of the Fed budget has seen any real cuts in spending The military is smaller than what is was in 1990 while the rest of this lousy bloated govt has grown and grown
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
The military is the only area that has seen real cuts since the 1990s no other area of the Fed budget has seen any real cuts in spending The military is smaller than what is was in 1990 while the rest of this lousy bloated govt has grown and grown

Cuts need to be made in areas domestically and in areas of the military. It is pretty simple. Politics makes it difficult.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
You know in all honesty, we need to cut a few specific areas out of the budget completely - NATO, funding of operations that the EU security forces can handle, the dropping of foreign aid through the military budget and the UN security operations funding which both come out of the defense budget.
 

bobwg

Expert Expediter
Cuts need to be made in areas domestically and in areas of the military. It is pretty simple. Politics makes it difficult.

No it is not that simple when it come to having a military that has the manpower, weapons , and equipment needed for any future conflicts we may have to take on it needs to be ready for any and all types of conflicts small and even large and dont say we will never have a large war again because you cannot guarantee that
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
One of the simple facts with the military budget is that it is not simple. Just reading through it gave me a headache - why are we funding the Haitian military?

Cutting across the board would not work, but doing some specific cuts coupled with the focus on defending the country through better use of the money will.
 

bobwg

Expert Expediter
Better weapons and killing technology you don't need as many active foot soldiers...so downsizing active units makes sense...but a healthy reserve should be maintained for those "just in case" times..

Thats part of the problem they have cut the reserves as well as the active over the years
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
But Killing is not the job of the military any more. Look at Afghanistan and see where the gains are made, it isn't with all the technology but it seems to be with people on the ground.

WW1 is a very bad example, it was a war of attrition and the French more or less caused a lot of deaths which were needless. The English didn't help it by using the same mentality that was used in the war of 1812. Remember that even though many view it as a victory by the allies, it really wasn't and left a wasteland and massive death all around.

Nothing replaces people.
 

jaminjim

Veteran Expediter
But Killing is not the job of the military any more. Look at Afghanistan and see where the gains are made, it isn't with all the technology but it seems to be with people on the ground.
Greg it has always been the infantry man, nothing new.
WW1 is a very bad example, it was a war of attrition and the French more or less caused a lot of deaths which were needless. The English didn't help it by using the same mentality that was used in the war of 1812. Remember that even though many view it as a victory by the allies, it really wasn't
What would you call it?
and left a wasteland and massive death all around.
That's why they call it a World War.

Nothing replaces people.
Nothing news worthy in that statement.
One of the simple facts with the military budget is that it is not simple. Just reading through it gave me a headache - why are we funding the Haitian military?
Are you really going to say that you read the military budget?
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
In another thread Witness said we need to cut the military budget, my question is how much more?
Well ..... cutting it at all would be a good start .....

220px-US_defense_spending_1910_to_2007.png


(Amounts adjusted to 2003 dollars)

We have been cutting down the military budget since the 1990s
Really ?

Is this one of them "'everyone knows' ...... (we've been cutting down the military budget since the 1990's) ....." things ?

The above statement is not unlike ones made by those on the left who scream about "cuts" to the budget (usually in social programs) .... which are usually just a decrease of the amount of increase in spending .....

BTW, do you have anything to support your assertion ?

Look at all the bases that have closed and we have fewer people wearing the uniforms of our military.
Base closures or less personnel in uniform in a standing army are not necessarily evidence of a reduction in defense spending .....

220px-Active_duty_end_strength_graph.png


Funny when people talk about cutting spending the first place they want to go or for those on the left the only place they want to gut is the military
One doesn't necessarily have to be on the Left to desire that budget monies not be wasted and squandered ......

Or to realize that one cannot indefinitely spend more than what you take in ..... without very serious consequences .....

I'm quite happy to have all sorts of other non-defense spending gutted as well ....

BTW ....... it's funny how certain folks have never met an increase in defense spending that they didn't just love ...... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Think I would cut all Federal employees pay long before the military.
But in all fairness, they need to get the spending under control in numerous places.
 
Top