- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 56,981
- Reaction score
- 27,029
- Location
- Chicago Illinois
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
Heya FMW. :2wave: The Start of What?
cutting personel is the dumbest idea practiced.
every time we have reductions in force,we have another war,which requires buying new gear to replace all the gear we auctioned off forsoldiers we booted out,and retraining new soldiers at a high expense.
it would be better fiscally to try and keep long term soldiers and current force levels,but instead cutting down on wastefull spending and not buying new unessecary gear to fuel contractors.heck the military in the last few years has bought numerous uparmored trucks,problem is no unit needs them stateside,and they ditch them when they deploy for trucks already in country,yet these trucks aremore important than personel numbers.
Getting spending under control?
List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Looks like the US accounts for over 1/3 of the world's military spending. Might be overkill.
I mean, you did it! You spent the USSR into oblivion in the arms race, brought down the 'Evil Empire'. You could knock it back a notch or two, now.
Heya FMW. :2wave: The Start of What?
We need to reduce the size and cost of government. This action is a start.
How about we start with the Politicians? Depts of the Federal Government that are not needed. Then efficient handling of resources. Entitlements. All before reducing that which is needed to protect the interests, security, and the Sovereignty of the country.
Which this is not to say that sending the Guard back to their Normal status shouldn't be done. As the same with those in the Reserves.
Another angle is to look at who comes to our assistance when it concerns those other Countries.
I agree. We have an education department that doesn't educate anybody. We have an agriculture department that doesn't engage in agriculture. We have too much government everywhere. No argument at all.
Getting spending under control?
List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Looks like the US accounts for over 1/3 of the world's military spending. Might be overkill.
I mean, you did it! You spent the USSR into oblivion in the arms race, brought down the 'Evil Empire'. You could knock it back a notch or two, now.
Yeah, and two others would be the Dept of Homeland Security and the US Marshals Office. We don't need US Marshals to transport Federal Criminals nor hunt down escapees.
The only four cabinet departments we need are Defense, State, Treasury and Justice. All the others engage in activities that I view as being outside the role of government. If there are critical activites they can be put in one of those departments. For instance, I like the concept of the CDC. While it isn't really a role of government, its value is enough that we should make an exception. We don't need to be a memeber of the UN which is a fairly anti American organization. We could cut the government in half and not miss anything for very long. Even if we organized the government as it was in 1955 we would be miles ahead of what we have now. Understand that I'm not suggesting that society should get rid of all this overhead. I'm suggesting that the parts of it we need should go to state government and the private sector for the most part.
A good start would be halting green energy subsidies and put an end to government waste, like what we're seeing in the IRS.
A strong, professional military is far more important than a $4 million dollar IRS convention.
A strong, professional military is far more important than a $4 million dollar IRS convention.
A good start would be halting green energy subsidies and put an end to government waste, like what we're seeing in the IRS.
A strong, professional military is far more important than a $4 million dollar IRS convention.
And each of those additional M1A1 tanks that Congress insisted that the Army buy even though the Army doesn't want and doesn't need them...they each cost more than that IRS convention.
Now.....how does that compare to Federal Government Union Employees and their benefits? Who did you say was responsible for that cost that doubles or even triples any order for tanks?
They already do that, its called Army Prepositioned Stock, the other services do it as well. Basically the theory came out of the Cold War where it was recognized that if war were to occur in Europe that it would be far easier and cheaper to move just Soldiers from the US instead of both Soldiers and their equipment, so massive stockyards were established that could provide equipment for entire division and could be maintained by a much smaller amount of Soldiers. Now instead of moving Soldiers and equipment, Soldiers could be flown to Europe, fall in on their equipment and go to war.
The concept has been updated since then and made global, although now the stockyards are much smaller than they used to be in the past.
Here's the Field Manual on the subject
http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/fm3_35x1.pdf
Chief - assuming that's what you're referring to - I think you need to take a deeper look. The cost all too often comes from shareholders demanding higher profits, and from subcontractors jacking up their prices too.
Think about it - if unions were so bad for the economy, why is it that non-union states are among the poorest, least educated states? I'm a retired flangehead up here in Washington, and this is a pretty heavily unionized state - but we're doing quite nicely compared to most "right-to-work" states. Scott Walker took over as Wisconsin's governor a few years back - the state's economy wasn't that bad off, but he went and attacked the unions, and now they're 47th in the nation in job growth.
If you'll think about it, the only - the only - tax dollars that are truly wasted...are those that are sent outside our nation's borders or - to a lesser extent - those that sit in bank accounts doing nothing. Tax dollars that are spent within our borders are not wasted - even those spent in the form of food stamps go towards a store's income, which goes towards the owner's and the workers' incomes, and to utilities and suppliers...and to taxes. If higher taxes and unions were always bad, and if lower taxes and "right to work" were always good, then blue states wouldn't generally be better off economically than red states.
I think you need to take a look at the stats on Red states vs Blue States. Moreover.....doesn't seem to be working out so well for Chicago and Illinois, nor California and L.A. Not so great for NY either.
Hm. I know that red states generally (but not always) have:
- lower average incomes
- lower average levels of education
- higher homicide rates
- higher divorce rates
- higher teen pregnancy rates
- lower rates of health insurance, and
- lower life expectancies
And you know what? NONE of the above are because of conservative governance or the lack thereof. I'll leave it up to you to figure out why I said that.
And speaking of California, if you'll check, now that they've got a Democratic governor and Democratic supermajorities in California, they've finally balanced the budget. It wasn't painless, but now that they were able to deep-six that hideous Prop. 13 that did so much damage to their economy over almost 30 years, they're finally on the way to real economic recovery.
And if you really want to speak about New York, go look up any of the above stats and compare them to your Southern states, then get back to me.
Not even close.....the only thing Blue states have is they are holding 42% of the Nations Income. Due to more population. That's is all. Perhaps you should revisit that history. As it isn't panning out like you say. Homicides, Suicides, Higher Teen Pregnancies, Lower life expectancies. Lower average levels of education. Are all part of the Blue State Failed Ideology and Concept.
Growth higher in red states than blue, swing states.....
Red states' income growing faster than blue states'
Key swing state findings:
•Declines. Four of the 10 slowest growing are swing states: New Hampshire, Michigan, Florida and Nevada. The Silver State's income plunge is in a class of its own, down 10.8% because of its real estate collapse.
•Gains. Eight of the top 10 states in income growth lean Republican.
•Working. Compensation has fallen 2.1% in swing states and 1.8% in blue states since December 2007. It's up 1.7% in red states. Keeping income afloat everywhere: a 25%
Red states' income growing faster than blue states'
Illinois is ready to file bankruptcy and has the Lowest Credit rating in the Country. That's with Chicago Leading the Way. California if failing economically as is NY and Most other Blue States with their Major Cities.
Which none from the Right has ever controlled those failing cities and states. All of these are because of Liberal/Progressive governance. 75 years of failed leadership Speaks in volumes. After you revisit that History. Then get back to me on those so called successes of the alleged Blue states.
Okay, chief, I got something going on today, but I'll get back to you late tonight. But just to let you know - I can back up all my claims with hard-and-fast numbers...
...and I'll leave you with this one really troubling fact: Texas is one of the few Southern states that seems to be doing really well, but 41% of teachers in Texas have second jobs just to make ends meet (and yes, I can back up that one, too). Instead of going the extra mile to teach kids, instead of working on lesson plans and grading tests and homework, they're off to their second job. Welcome to life in the Republican paradise!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?