• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Budget cuts leaving Marine Corps aircraft grounded

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
95,933
Reaction score
33,280
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Budget cuts leaving Marine Corps aircraft grounded | Fox News

EXCLUSIVE: Since 1775, the U.S. Marine Corps has prided itself on being “The Few" and "The Proud." But while the Corps takes pride in doing more with less, senior Marine officers are warning that the Corps' aviation service is being stretched to the breaking point.Today, the vast majority of Marine Corps aircraft can’t fly. The reasons behind the grounding of these aircraft include the toll of long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the fight against ISIS and budget cuts precluding the purchase of the parts needed to fix an aging fleet, according to dozens of Marines interviewed by Fox News at two air stations in the Carolinas this week.
Out of 276 F/A-18 Hornet strike fighters in the Marine Corps inventory, only about 30% are ready to fly, according to statistics provided by the Corps. Similarly, only 42 of 147 heavy-lift CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters are airworthy.
Hey, if you decide to go to war, you have to pay for the reset! You don't cut budgets when your equipment comes back used. This is all known ahead of time, it's no coincidence the budgets were cut when they were cut. Didn't we just have a record year for tax revenue?
 
We seem to be at a crossroad from "15 years of hard service." And I would agree that we have presented ourselves with a real problem that too many have ignored for way too long.

Do we continue to increase our military budget to keep all (or at least the majority) of our equipment and forces in ready-to-use condition? Or, do we accept that we can no longer run a military budget year on year that is more than the next 8-10 nations combined (over half of which are our allies?)

In reality this question and decision has brought down nations.

For 2015 is looks like we will close out the year with something close to $560 billion spent, down from $581 billion spent in 2014. Between the various news sources for 2016 we will end up somewhere in the $580 - $590 billion range. As a share of total Federal Spending it appears that Defense is decreasing, Ryan's deal with Democrats notwithstanding.

Something is missing from the story, would $650 billion solve this problem? $700 billion? (Understanding that without any other budget changes increases our deficit year on year.) Our "record year for tax revenue" is still way below our spending.
 
We seem to be at a crossroad from "15 years of hard service." And I would agree that we have presented ourselves with a real problem that too many have ignored for way too long.

Do we continue to increase our military budget to keep all (or at least the majority) of our equipment and forces in ready-to-use condition? Or, do we accept that we can no longer run a military budget year on year that is more than the next 8-10 nations combined (over half of which are our allies?)

In reality this question and decision has brought down nations.

For 2015 is looks like we will close out the year with something close to $560 billion spent, down from $581 billion spent in 2014. Between the various news sources for 2016 we will end up somewhere in the $580 - $590 billion range. As a share of total Federal Spending it appears that Defense is decreasing, Ryan's deal with Democrats notwithstanding.

Something is missing from the story, would $650 billion solve this problem? $700 billion? (Understanding that without any other budget changes increases our deficit year on year.) Our "record year for tax revenue" is still way below our spending.


Hey the national debt is never getting paid anyway so why worry about how much we're spending?

The point of no return was more than thirty years ago.

It's more important to actually have aircraft which can fly than it is to worry about something which even if cut to zero still wouldn't put much of a dent in the deficit
 
Hey the national debt is never getting paid anyway so why worry about how much we're spending?

The point of no return was more than thirty years ago.

It's more important to actually have aircraft which can fly than it is to worry about something which even if cut to zero still wouldn't put much of a dent in the deficit

I understand the sentiment, but that avoids my questions.
 
We seem to be at a crossroad from "15 years of hard service." And I would agree that we have presented ourselves with a real problem that too many have ignored for way too long.

Do we continue to increase our military budget to keep all (or at least the majority) of our equipment and forces in ready-to-use condition? Or, do we accept that we can no longer run a military budget year on year that is more than the next 8-10 nations combined (over half of which are our allies?)

In reality this question and decision has brought down nations.

For 2015 is looks like we will close out the year with something close to $560 billion spent, down from $581 billion spent in 2014. Between the various news sources for 2016 we will end up somewhere in the $580 - $590 billion range. As a share of total Federal Spending it appears that Defense is decreasing, Ryan's deal with Democrats notwithstanding.

Something is missing from the story, would $650 billion solve this problem? $700 billion? (Understanding that without any other budget changes increases our deficit year on year.) Our "record year for tax revenue" is still way below our spending.

Its not for lack of money. The nation wont be brought down by spending 100bn more on maintaining military spending. We're already down to 3% of GDP. I would like to know if the 600bn the DoD gets is actually being spent wisely, and focused on defense, not politics. For example, do we need the new f-35 which is severely over budget? Are we keeping open bases for political reasons rather than because they are needed? Was getting involved in Libya in our own security interest?

None of these questions will be answered because the President will likely be someone with no military experience, and/or someone who despises the military. And congress sure doesnt care. Which is basically how we got here in the first place.
 
It is not buget cuts to the F-18...it is that the F-35 is not coming on line to replace the F-18 as scheduled. Design and production problems have delayed delivery.

We have already spent billions on the F-35...makes no sense to patch the F-18s.
 
Its not for lack of money. The nation wont be brought down by spending 100bn more on maintaining military spending. We're already down to 3% of GDP. I would like to know if the 600bn the DoD gets is actually being spent wisely, and focused on defense, not politics. For example, do we need the new f-35 which is severely over budget? Are we keeping open bases for political reasons rather than because they are needed? Was getting involved in Libya in our own security interest?

None of these questions will be answered because the President will likely be someone with no military experience, and/or someone who despises the military. And congress sure doesnt care. Which is basically how we got here in the first place.

Everyone is avoiding my question. I'll ask again...

"Do we continue to increase our military budget to keep all (or at least the majority) of our equipment and forces in ready-to-use condition? Or, do we accept that we can no longer run a military budget year on year that is more than the next 8-10 nations combined (over half of which are our allies?)

In reality this question and decision has brought down nations."

Technically it is for a lack of money, but perhaps better said allocated funds while running in deficit condition. Now I am not saying our military budget is the sole reason for our deficit, the honest truth is we simply spend more than tax revenues generate just about all the time. But I am saying we have a choice to make, and either way there will be consequences.

You do ask reasonable questions on *how* we will end up spending close to $600 billion this year. Would several less new advanced fighter jets allow us to get more aged "15 years of hard service" marine corps aircraft back to ready status? And even if so, where are we sending them this time and should we bother doing so? Libya is a good example of what we should not be doing, look at the nation today.

The reason for my original questions though speak directly to what we intend going forward. Continuance with being the worlds de facto police department has the consequence of running a large military budget that dwarfs all other nations (even though by percentage of GDP we are behind nations like Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Russia.) Slowing down our attitude of running around the planet telling everyone what to do would put us on another course with other consequences.

My questions come down to what people want now. Another $200 billion or more spent on the military year on year? Would that be enough? If not, what?
 
I understand the sentiment, but that avoids my questions.

Well, what I hope will happen and what the administration will likely do are two different things entirely.

Cutting defense spending is all well and good, until there's a war we aren't prepared for and people start complaining about how the government wasn't prepared
 
something which even if cut to zero still wouldn't put much of a dent in the deficit

The Navy spends several billion dollars a year on air operations, with about one billion going to aircraft maintenance. Fwiw, I agree that it doesn't make sense to spend as much as we do on the military budget if we're not wiling to put another hundred million or so into the funding required to keep these planes ready to fly.

It is not budget cuts to the F-18...it is that the F-35 is not coming on line to replace the F-18 as scheduled. Design and production problems have delayed delivery.

We have already spent billions on the F-35...makes no sense to patch the F-18s.

It does appear that we've sort of painted ourselves into a corner with the F-35 program. It's easy to say that's been mishandled, and I suppose it has, but it's no doubt difficult to get something like that to proceed smoothly. Bad timing with the events in the Middle East. That unwarranted invasion of Iraq sure has created all sorts of problems.

I don't think all this crap about the president "hating the military" serves any good purpose. No one doubts that Bush43 loved the services, but it can be argued that he allowed them to be abused by assholes like Chaingang and Donnie Dumbsfeld.
 
Everyone is avoiding my question. I'll ask again...

"Do we continue to increase our military budget to keep all (or at least the majority) of our equipment and forces in ready-to-use condition? Or, do we accept that we can no longer run a military budget year on year that is more than the next 8-10 nations combined (over half of which are our allies?)

In reality this question and decision has brought down nations."

Technically it is for a lack of money, but perhaps better said allocated funds while running in deficit condition. Now I am not saying our military budget is the sole reason for our deficit, the honest truth is we simply spend more than tax revenues generate just about all the time. But I am saying we have a choice to make, and either way there will be consequences.

You do ask reasonable questions on *how* we will end up spending close to $600 billion this year. Would several less new advanced fighter jets allow us to get more aged "15 years of hard service" marine corps aircraft back to ready status? And even if so, where are we sending them this time and should we bother doing so? Libya is a good example of what we should not be doing, look at the nation today.

The reason for my original questions though speak directly to what we intend going forward. Continuance with being the worlds de facto police department has the consequence of running a large military budget that dwarfs all other nations (even though by percentage of GDP we are behind nations like Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Russia.) Slowing down our attitude of running around the planet telling everyone what to do would put us on another course with other consequences.

My questions come down to what people want now. Another $200 billion or more spent on the military year on year? Would that be enough? If not, what?

"do we accept that we can no longer run a military budget year on year that is more than the next 8-10 nations combined (over half of which are our allies?)"

If its not for lack of money, then why cant we? I think your premise is false. We CAN run a military budget year on year that is more than the next 8-10 nations combined. We may not WANT to, but thats a whole different issue.
 
It is not buget cuts to the F-18...it is that the F-35 is not coming on line to replace the F-18 as scheduled. Design and production problems have delayed delivery.

We have already spent billions on the F-35...makes no sense to patch the F-18s.

Unless they end up costing more with marginal benefit. Look at the b52 or a10.
 
...it's no coincidence the budgets were cut when they were cut.

Leftists gutting the military is one of their specialties.
 
Leftists gutting the military is one of their specialties.

Reactionaries lying to lead us into misadventures like the 2003 invasion of Iraq that filled up military cemeteries and hospitals and wore down our forces is one of their specialties.
 
Reactionaries lying to lead us into misadventures like the 2003 invasion of Iraq that filled up military cemeteries and hospitals and wore down our forces is one of their specialties.

We lost more people under BO than Bush, so if anything leftists have proven they are inept at leading this country in any military "misadventure," or anything else. Vietnam for one.
 
We lost more people under BO than Bush, so if anything leftists have proven they are inept at leading this country in any military "misadventure," or anything else. Vietnam for one.

this liberal disdain for the military is well known and accounted for. they do everything they can to undermine and cut our troop funding.
 
Good, we should cut more.
 
I was referring to Afghanistan.
BS, the context was :

Reactionaries lying to lead us into misadventures like the 2003 invasion of Iraq that filled up military cemeteries and hospitals and wore down our forces is one of their specialties.


Yer just moving yer goalpost to not look really dumb.




However in Iraq, war deaths under BO were significant. BO and Bush have a lot of blood on their hands. Leftist tend to forget BO though. LOL imagine that.
I just posted both POTUS's military death counts, so again, yer argument holds no water, it is full of holes.
 
It does appear that we've sort of painted ourselves into a corner with the F-35 program. It's easy to say that's been mishandled, and I suppose it has, but it's no doubt difficult to get something like that to proceed smoothly. Bad timing with the events in the Middle East. That unwarranted invasion of Iraq sure has created all sorts of problems.

I don't think all this crap about the president "hating the military" serves any good purpose. No one doubts that Bush43 loved the services, but it can be argued that he allowed them to be abused by assholes like Chaingang and Donnie Dumbsfeld.

Yes, we painted ourselves in a corner because we have a habit of always wanting the latest and greatest toys for our military. The F-35 program is 7 years behind schedule and it has been 20 years when the JSF program started. This failure has nothing to with Middle East operations. Rather if Lockheed Martin had it's **** together every single one of the F/A 18s would be mothballed by now, war or not, these services would have had to be done as the F/A 18s are getting old.

Same with the CH-53E Stallions which have been planned to replace since 2006 and where suppose to be retired by 2012 (due to structural life limits) with the CH-53K King Stallion.
 
I was referring to Afghanistan.

No you weren't. You were either lying and hoping you could get away with it, or more likely just don't know the facts.

>>In Iraq, war deaths under BO were significant.

US military killed in Iraq (source)

under Bush — 4237 (94.2%)

under Obummer — 263 (5.8%), almost all of them before the withdrawal in 2011 mandated by the Bush-signed SOFA.

And then there are the more than a million Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the invasion.

DOD says about 32K US service personnel have been wounded in Iraq. But that leaves out many thousands more who suffer from hearing loss, PTSD, depression, and breathing disorders, as well as diseases like hepatitis, malaria, tuberculosis, and leishmaniasis.

The important issue is that ALL the casualties suffered in Iraq were unnecessary, and if we hadn't shifted our focus away from Afghanistan, allowing the Taliban and Al Qaeda to recover from the setbacks they suffered Oct 2001 - Mar 2003, the outcome there would likely have been much better.

this liberal disdain for the military is well known and accounted for. they do everything they can to undermine and cut our troop funding.

"Liberal disdain for the military" is yet another filthy, stinking pile of reactionary BS. I'm a liberal, and I have no "disdain" for the military. Reactionaries do everything they can to spread obnoxious lies about anyone who doesn't agree with their destructive attitudes.

This failure has nothing to with Middle East operations.


I didn't say the problems with that program were the result of our misadventure in Iraq, merely that the timing was bad.
 
I didn't say the problems with that program were the result of our misadventure in Iraq, merely that the timing was bad.

Except timing or not.. Middle East operations have **** all to do with this issue. US military equipment is reaching it's age. Just like the Humvees aren't being bought anymore and being phased out in most active duty units.
 
No you weren't. You were either lying and hoping you could get away with it, or more likely just don't know the facts.

Yes, I was. Deal with it, pal.
 
Except timing or not.. Middle East operations have **** all to do with this issue.

What does "except timing or not" mean?

Let me spell this out very clearly for you: We have spent TWO TRILLION DOLLARS on the war in Iraq and another four trillion will likely be spent over the years dealing with its consequences. (source). Some of that money could have been spent to upgrade our equipment. See how that works?

Yes, I was. Deal with it, pal.

OK, "pal," I'll take yer word for it and go with a third option that makes even more sense — yer not capable of communicating coherently.

Yer just moving yer goalpost to not look really dumb.

In this case, mission (not) accomplished.
 
Back
Top Bottom