OUR military is FAT !! What can we trim?

[GoNavy]

https://www.facebook.com/BillGates/...16311481960/10153056365851961/?type=3&theater

Imo - subs are irreplaceable, sats are irreplaceable, logistics (C5 and C17s) are irreplaceable, Special Forces (JSOC, SOCOM, DevGru, SOAR, Delta, Rangers), same as body armor, and Cyber Warfare. I place these in the Tier 1 category. Cannot be trimmed. In fact - expand their capabilities. Everything else (tanks, frigates, F-35s) can be discussed. Free up capital, give it to energy. Green. Clean up the grid.

What do you guys think?

 

[joG]

https://www.facebook.com/BillGates/...16311481960/10153056365851961/?type=3&theater

Imo - subs are irreplaceable, sats are irreplaceable, logistics (C5 and C17s) are irreplaceable, Special Forces (JSOC, SOCOM, DevGru, SOAR, Delta, Rangers), same as body armor, and Cyber Warfare. I place these in the Tier 1 category. Cannot be trimmed. In fact - expand their capabilities. Everything else (tanks, frigates, F-35s) can be discussed. Free up capital, give it to energy. Green. Clean up the grid.

What do you guys think?

That we had better give the global security system a more stable shape pdq.

 

[Viv]

You could give us a sub, instead of making us hire one in perpetuity.

 

[jonny5]

https://www.facebook.com/BillGates/...16311481960/10153056365851961/?type=3&theater

Imo - subs are irreplaceable, sats are irreplaceable, logistics (C5 and C17s) are irreplaceable, Special Forces (JSOC, SOCOM, DevGru, SOAR, Delta, Rangers), same as body armor, and Cyber Warfare. I place these in the Tier 1 category. Cannot be trimmed. In fact - expand their capabilities. Everything else (tanks, frigates, F-35s) can be discussed. Free up capital, give it to energy. Green. Clean up the grid.

What do you guys think?

Focus on homeland defense, not a global presence. That would trim everything. Free up capital. Reduce the deficit. Certainly dont turn around and spend it.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

https://www.facebook.com/BillGates/...16311481960/10153056365851961/?type=3&theater

Imo - subs are irreplaceable, sats are irreplaceable, logistics (C5 and C17s) are irreplaceable, Special Forces (JSOC, SOCOM, DevGru, SOAR, Delta, Rangers), same as body armor, and Cyber Warfare. I place these in the Tier 1 category. Cannot be trimmed. In fact - expand their capabilities. Everything else (tanks, frigates, F-35s) can be discussed. Free up capital, give it to energy. Green. Clean up the grid.

What do you guys think?

I agree with improving the military, and I also agree with improving the grid and investing in green energy. But what have we really gained by trimming?

When you cut government spending, you cut jobs. When you cut down on the size of your military (in people), you cut jobs directly. So the government spends a bit less, and thousands of young men and women are thrown into a job market that already can't supply enough jobs. Unless the government spends enough money investing in infrastructure and other projects to absorb all of that labor, the cuts have just created a bigger problem than they have solved.

Why not just invest more in domestic projects and leave the military alone? The government cannot run out of money, you know.

 

[QuadpolarNutjob]

let's see...Russian aggression, Chinese aggression, both on the rise...nope, not the time to 'trim' the military.

 

[MisterLogical]

let's see...Russian aggression, Chinese aggression, both on the rise...nope, not the time to 'trim' the military.

They are already trimming it becuase of the economic collapse everyone is running to the military for jobs.

 

[dimensionallava]

Focus on homeland defense, not a global presence. That would trim everything. Free up capital. Reduce the deficit. Certainly dont turn around and spend it.

don't worry we will be sure to give it directly to the billionaires

 

[American]

I agree with improving the military, and I also agree with improving the grid and investing in green energy. But what have we really gained by trimming?

When you cut government spending, you cut jobs. When you cut down on the size of your military (in people), you cut jobs directly. So the government spends a bit less, and thousands of young men and women are thrown into a job market that already can't supply enough jobs. Unless the government spends enough money investing in infrastructure and other projects to absorb all of that labor, the cuts have just created a bigger problem than they have solved.

Why not just invest more in domestic projects and leave the military alone? The government cannot run out of money, you know.

So based on your illogic, the government should confiscate all money and spend it, thereby employing everyone. That's the silliest most unsubstantiated notion I've ever heard. It's about spending efficiency, not spending. Private industry is far more efficient, because they live on a profit based incentive. The govt is inefficient, except in a narrow group of areas where everyone agrees they should be........as spelled out in the Constitution.

 

[countryboy]

https://www.facebook.com/BillGates/...16311481960/10153056365851961/?type=3&theater

Imo - subs are irreplaceable, sats are irreplaceable, logistics (C5 and C17s) are irreplaceable, Special Forces (JSOC, SOCOM, DevGru, SOAR, Delta, Rangers), same as body armor, and Cyber Warfare. I place these in the Tier 1 category. Cannot be trimmed. In fact - expand their capabilities. Everything else (tanks, frigates, F-35s) can be discussed. Free up capital, give it to energy. Green. Clean up the grid.

What do you guys think?

Waste is rampant not just in the military, but throughout government. End the $70 hammer. Too much administration redundancy.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

I say why trim it? LEt's just turn the military into a much larger funded NASA!

 

[cpwill]

https://www.facebook.com/BillGates/...16311481960/10153056365851961/?type=3&theater

Imo - subs are irreplaceable, sats are irreplaceable, logistics (C5 and C17s) are irreplaceable, Special Forces (JSOC, SOCOM, DevGru, SOAR, Delta, Rangers), same as body armor, and Cyber Warfare. I place these in the Tier 1 category. Cannot be trimmed. In fact - expand their capabilities. Everything else (tanks, frigates, F-35s) can be discussed. Free up capital, give it to energy. Green. Clean up the grid.

What do you guys think?

Green energy costs more. Older equipment costs more in maintenance, but less than new F35's, whose costs are also unfortunately baked in the cake. The question becomes, is it more expensive to risk losing more in combat.

A large portion of our costs is in benefits - we pay our people more than most countries, and they get a fairly generous retirement package after 15-30 years (depending).

We need to reform the military pension system to a defined-contribution rather than defined-benefit system by turning the TSP into a true 401(K) with automatic deposit and government match, just like we do for federal employees, but a certain amount of grandfathering would have to occur.

We need to reform the military retirement system to offer only care for those who are disabled by military service and for what they are disabled for rather than making it TRICARE-For-Life for anyone who manages to stick around a minimum of 15 years (Yes. At current there is a 15-Year-Retirement option in the military).

We need to incentivize commanders to come in under budget rather than spend 100% of what they are allocated.

But cutting the Navy? That's abysmally stupid.

 

[jonny5]

don't worry we will be sure to give it directly to the billionaires

There is nothing to give. We are borrowing money. Cutting spending would not free up money to be spent elsewhere.

 

[GoNavy]

Green energy costs more. Older equipment costs more in maintenance, but less than new F35's, whose costs are also unfortunately baked in the cake. The question becomes, is it more expensive to risk losing more in combat.

A large portion of our costs is in benefits - we pay our people more than most countries, and they get a fairly generous retirement package after 15-30 years (depending).

We need to reform the military pension system to a defined-contribution rather than defined-benefit system by turning the TSP into a true 401(K) with automatic deposit and government match, just like we do for federal employees, but a certain amount of grandfathering would have to occur.

We need to reform the military retirement system to offer only care for those who are disabled by military service and for what they are disabled for rather than making it TRICARE-For-Life for anyone who manages to stick around a minimum of 15 years (Yes. At current there is a 15-Year-Retirement option in the military).

We need to incentivize commanders to come in under budget rather than spend 100% of what they are allocated.

But cutting the Navy? That's abysmally stupid.

This is 2015. Not 1940. No one has a fleet of battleships anymore. What purpose does our Amphib fleet REALLY serve - in 2015? Maybe 15 countries have ANY note-worthy surface presence. So long as we have Seawolfs and Virginias - there will never be another Coral Sea, Midway, or Leyte' Gulf. You afraid that Somalian pirates in row boats are going to rule the seas?

 

[cpwill]

This is 2015. Not 1940. No one has a fleet of battleships anymore.

Actually plenty of people have fleets that involve things other than just pure air craft carriers, plenty of people have fleets, and the US Navy has a projection responsibility that is global. We need to increase back to 12 Aircraft Carrier Groups at least, in order to allow for regular rotation with a surge capacity.

What purpose does our Amphib fleet REALLY serve - in 2015?

I know, right? It's not like we've had to do any NEO's, or HADR's lately at all. :lol: No MEU's either.

Maybe 15 countries have ANY note-worthy surface presence.

The US Navy that we have isn't designed to all group up and go head to head with a single nation, but to provide a security guarantee for an open world order by projecting power into unstable or highly contested zones. The biggest threat to the Fleet at current from a single nation state isn't another navy, but rather China's A2AD capability.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

There is nothing to give. We are borrowing money. Cutting spending would not free up money to be spent elsewhere.

Again - and I know you aren't going to accept this - governments sovereign in their own currency do not borrow that currency, they create it. (Ask yourself - who does the U.S. Government borrow dollars from? And where do those people/countries get all of those dollars?) Given this, the whole premise of not having enough dollars becomes ridiculous. We have plenty of resources to have a huge army, plus supply medical care for all, feed everybody, house everybody, etc. The resources just need to be mobilized. If you don't like doing this with paper, you could always do it like rulers have for millennia, at the point of a weapon. If they had the resources, they could do it.

 

[jonny5]

Again - and I know you aren't going to accept this - governments sovereign in their own currency do not borrow that currency, they create it. (Ask yourself - who does the U.S. Government borrow dollars from? And where do those people/countries get all of those dollars?) Given this, the whole premise of not having enough dollars becomes ridiculous. We have plenty of resources to have a huge army, plus supply medical care for all, feed everybody, house everybody, etc. The resources just need to be mobilized. If you don't like doing this with paper, you could always do it like rulers have for millennia, at the point of a weapon. If they had the resources, they could do it.

That doesnt really change anything. If we spend less on defense, we just need to borrow less. We arent freeing up cash to be spent elsewhere.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

That doesnt really change anything. If we spend less on defense, we just need to borrow less. We arent freeing up cash to be spent elsewhere.

Yes it does, because it means that the government is not constrained by how many dollars they can create. They aren't deciding what programs to fund based on a limited pile of dollars. They can make and spend as many dollars as they see fit.

Follow where the dollars come from. The govt. doesn't borrow from banks or anything like that. The government creates dollars and bonds out of thin air. For real debt, you need a creditor that is the source of funds. But in the case of government "borrowing," the source of funds is the government itself.

 

[jonny5]

Yes it does, because it means that the government is not constrained by how many dollars they can create. They aren't deciding what programs to fund based on a limited pile of dollars. They can make and spend as many dollars as they see fit.

Follow where the dollars come from. The govt. doesn't borrow from banks or anything like that. The government creates dollars and bonds out of thin air. For real debt, you need a creditor that is the source of funds. But in the case of government "borrowing," the source of funds is the government itself.

If its out of thin air, then we dont even need to cut defense to pay for something else. Just create some more dollars. But since we're talking about actual numbers, reducing outlays when your borrowing to pay for them at a credit limit, will not result in spare dollars.

 

[rhinefire]

$50,000,000 for a gas station in Pakistan and $540,000,000 to train 5 Syrian fighters.

 

[OrphanSlug]

let's see...Russian aggression, Chinese aggression, both on the rise...nope, not the time to 'trim' the military.

That right there is the prevailing argument that has lead to the US spending more on its military than the next 9-10 nations (depending on source) combined. Even with Russia and Chinese "aggression" and their moderate spending increases recently, they both are still wildly behind what the US spends.

 

[American]

$50,000,000 for a gas station in Pakistan and $540,000,000 to train 5 Syrian fighters.

Thanks, Obama :lol:

Report: Afghanistan gas station cost $43 million - CNNPolitics.com

 

[OrphanSlug]

Thanks, Obama :lol:

Report: Afghanistan gas station cost $43 million - CNNPolitics.com

Another example of absolutely ridiculous spending by our government, and a clear example of why we should be more critical of everywhere government funds end up.

 

[jonny5]

That right there is the prevailing argument that has lead to the US spending more on its military than the next 9-10 nations (depending on source) combined. Even with Russia and Chinese "aggression" and their moderate spending increases recently, they both are still wildly behind what the US spends.

But is that what keeps us out of major conflicts and in control of global policy? If we scale down our presence what effect will it have on the world, and our own security and ability to respond?

 

[countryboy]

I agree with improving the military, and I also agree with improving the grid and investing in green energy. But what have we really gained by trimming?

When you cut government spending, you cut jobs. When you cut down on the size of your military (in people), you cut jobs directly. So the government spends a bit less, and thousands of young men and women are thrown into a job market that already can't supply enough jobs. Unless the government spends enough money investing in infrastructure and other projects to absorb all of that labor, the cuts have just created a bigger problem than they have solved.

Why not just invest more in domestic projects and leave the military alone? The government cannot run out of money, you know.

Have you ever heard of deficit spending? The government IS out of money. It's this mindset that got us into this mess. :roll: Good ****ing grief.