• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Pentagon looks for $100B in cost savings

tacomancer

Big Scary Liberal
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
39,778
Reaction score
20,611
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Pentagon looks for $100B in cost savings

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday he wants to trim some of the billions of dollars the Pentagon spends on weapons systems and contractor services, part of a Pentagon-wide effort to find $100 billion in savings in the next five years


Gates, who already plans to pare down the Pentagon's huge bureaucracy to save money, said that the Defense Department will focus on unnecessary spending by defense contractors that provide the military with everything from fighter jets to janitors.
To me, this seems to be the right way to cut the defense budget. While I don't fully agree with our current excursions in the middle east (one of them specifically), reducing troop readiness at this time would be a huge mistake.
 

Opteron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
629
Reaction score
136
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yeah, that seems to be the best way to go about cutting costs. Gates seems to be a pretty competent Secretary of Def.
 

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
38,279
Reaction score
11,306
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Too bad Barney Frank has his hatchet at the ready, poised to slash our defense to pieces.

j-mac
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
74,304
Reaction score
42,415
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Pentagon looks for $100B in cost savings



To me, this seems to be the right way to cut the defense budget. While I don't fully agree with our current excursions in the middle east (one of them specifically), reducing troop readiness at this time would be a huge mistake.
100 Billion eh? How many trillions are we in the hole? We're a few orders of magnitude off.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
74,304
Reaction score
42,415
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
WE could start by pulling our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. ^.^
Well if we wanted to really address the issue, then yes; we could pull out of our occupational wars which have produced nothing other than debt and will produce nothing other than debt.
 

Catz Part Deux

DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
28,728
Reaction score
6,742
Location
Redneck Riviera
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
It amazes me how people scratch their heads and act like this is rocket science, Ikari. It ain't that hard, if you have an average level of intelligence.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
34,894
Reaction score
11,910
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Dissolve the Marines.
 

Taylor

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
14,172
Reaction score
5,629
Location
US
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
When it's billions on weapons systems and contractor services we need to "cut costs"

When it's billions on high speed rail projects we're "stimulating the economy" and "creating jobs"

Gotcha.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,197
Reaction score
32,358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
When it's billions on weapons systems and contractor services we need to "cut costs"

When it's billions on high speed rail projects we're "stimulating the economy" and "creating jobs"

Gotcha.
Weapons do not serve a useful economic function. A billion spent on infrastructure is better for the economy than a billion spent on bombs.
 

joergan

Banned
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
241
Reaction score
82
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Dissolve the Marines.
Who would defend the europeans and their pacifistic ideologies? Would france and spain actually start spending money on their military, instead of 50-year-old retirees?
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
34,894
Reaction score
11,910
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Who would defend the europeans and their pacifistic ideologies? Would france and spain actually start spending money on their military, instead of 50-year-old retirees?
The Army maybe?

There is no reason in today's word to have the Marines. At the moment you have the airforce, navy, army and marines, all with their own administrative systems for the most part. You could save tons of money by dumping the marines and letting the army do their job instead. The Brits did it long ago for example. It saved a ton of money.

Like it or not, the US military could use a good old fashion cost benefit analysis with no strings attached. The problem is often there are historical reasons or "feelings" when it comes to various military units.. no we cant dissolve that unit.. it goes back to the civil war or revolutionary war bla bla .. Well do you really want to keep military units in service because of that or cut the waste?
 

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
30,284
Reaction score
33,011
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Like it or not, the US military could use a good old fashion cost benefit analysis with no strings attached. The problem is often there are historical reasons or "feelings" when it comes to various military units.. no we cant dissolve that unit.. it goes back to the civil war or revolutionary war bla bla .. Well do you really want to keep military units in service because of that or cut the waste?
Hmm... that's a good point Pete but I feel it's more then that...

The military of the United States is used as a political tool by both parties in the way that, if funding were cut to the military, or units disbanded or cut back, that party would be charged with weakening the defences of the United States and it would be a good bullet for the opposing party come election time...
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
34,894
Reaction score
11,910
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Hmm... that's a good point Pete but I feel it's more then that...

The military of the United States is used as a political tool by both parties in the way that, if funding were cut to the military, or units disbanded or cut back, that party would be charged with weakening the defences of the United States and it would be a good bullet for the opposing party come election time...
Oh I know, that is why I am saying a good old fashion cost benefit analysis that is fully independent.

There are many military bases in the US and abroad that are not really needed but are kept alive for political reasons. The same goes for weapons systems and even units... I mean lets say they find out the 101st Airborne needs to be cut.. ya think that would happen any time soon with its history behind it? And that is often the problem. Look at the last time they wanted to close bases.. what a political mudball that was.

But that does not change the fact that the US military is bloated as hell with 1.5 million men and women and only 200ishk of those involved in combat... You aint telling me that it takes 1.2 million troops to defend the US against Canada and Mexico?
 

Taylor

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
14,172
Reaction score
5,629
Location
US
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Weapons do not serve a useful economic function. A billion spent on infrastructure is better for the economy than a billion spent on bombs.
Oh, I see. Billions on antiquated technology requiring massive subsidies to move small numbers of people across a handful of unconnected networks -- is an example of something that serves a useful economic function.

Check.

(if you really believe that I've got a Bridge to Nowhere *cough* another infrastructure-related economic opportunity to sell you)
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
34,894
Reaction score
11,910
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Oh, I see. Billions on antiquated technology requiring massive subsidies to move small numbers of people across a handful of unconnected networks -- is an example of something that serves a useful economic function.

Check.

(if you really believe that I've got a Bridge to Nowhere *cough* another infrastructure-related economic opportunity to sell you)
Guessing you never been to France or Spain and been on their high speed rail system.. or Germany, Japan, China.. and a few other places that have high speed rail.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,197
Reaction score
32,358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Oh, I see. Billions on antiquated technology requiring massive subsidies to move small numbers of people across a handful of unconnected networks -- is an example of something that serves a useful economic function.
High-speed rail is not an antiquated technology, and the ability to move people faster than a car and cheaper than an airplane is pretty useful.

Certainly far more economically useful than a bomb.
 

Taylor

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
14,172
Reaction score
5,629
Location
US
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Guessing you never been to France or Spain and been on their high speed rail system.. or Germany, Japan, China.. and a few other places that have high speed rail.
These are countries that have much higher population densities, much faster trains than those we're spending money on, much higher fuel costs, much lower rate of car ownership, etc. In the US, it's a simple truth that it's faster and more convienent for people to drive short distances and fly long distances. Public rail, for the most part, requires massive subsidies to stay afloat. The ridership just isn't there.

But not to deflect the debate. Was just rolling my eyes at the politicians who manage to continually propel us into debt all while proclaiming how they're doing such great things for the economy. It's great that they want to trim the defense budget, but it's kind of meaningless when they're simultaneously spending massive amounts on crap like high speed trains.
 

Taylor

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
14,172
Reaction score
5,629
Location
US
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Certainly far more economically useful than a bomb.
It's not about choosing one or the other, it's about trimming waste. Choosing neither when neither makes sense. Money on high speed rail is money wasted. Period.
 
Last edited:

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
74,304
Reaction score
42,415
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
When it's billions on weapons systems and contractor services we need to "cut costs"

When it's billions on high speed rail projects we're "stimulating the economy" and "creating jobs"

Gotcha.
Well it all depends. In normal economic times you may not need to put in any of those projects. However, in times like now which deregulation and improper banking practices have driven the economy to break, it's better to spend the money on temporary job creation till the economy is strong enough to take back over. If you're going to ask what's best to spend the money on; occupational wars which do nothing for our "safety" and sovereignty or public work projects such as true high speed rail or a high speed internet backbone, I'd rather we spend the money on ourselves. In fact, for our current economic woes, having spent the money on public works projects instead of billions in bailouts to the people who caused the problems would have been well more helpful. But the goal wasn't to alleviate the stress on the working class, but rather to make sure the politician's rich buddies staid rich, even at the expense of everyone else.
 

ric27

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
7,541
Reaction score
3,195
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Too bad Barney Frank has his hatchet at the ready, poised to slash our defense to pieces.

j-mac
Hey, I have a beauty....What hits more balls than Serena Williams's racket?

||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||


Barney Frank's chin.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,197
Reaction score
32,358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hey, I have a beauty....What hits more balls than Serena Williams's racket?

||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||
||


Barney Frank's chin.
Kinda weird to have people on a political discussion forum who aren't old enough to vote.
 

ric27

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
7,541
Reaction score
3,195
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Kinda weird to have people on a political discussion forum who aren't old enough to vote.
I hope you are grotesquely distorting the truth.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,197
Reaction score
32,358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

ric27

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
7,541
Reaction score
3,195
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It was a crack about the maturity level of your "joke."
The crack about the maturity level will be on this admins if this **** gets through....

www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/1006SDTFreport.pdf


• Reducing the US nuclear arsenal to 1000 warheads deployed on 160 Minuteman missiles and seven nuclear submarines,
• Curtailing nuclear weapons research and the
planned modernization of the nuclear weapons
infrastructure,
• Curtailing national missile defense efforts,
• A reduction of approximately 200,000 military personnel, yielding a peacetime US military active-duty end-strength of approximately 1.3 million,
• Capping routine peacetime US military presence in Europe at 35,000 and in Asia at 65,000, including afloat,
• Reducing the size of the US Navy from its current strength of 287 battle force ships and 10 naval air wings to a future posture of 230 ships and 8 air wings,
• Rolling back the number of US Army active-component brigade combat teams from the current 45 to between 39 and 41,
• Retiring four of the 27 US Marine Corps infantry battalions along with a portion of the additional units that the Corps employs to constitute air-land task forces,
• Retiring three US Air Force tactical fighter wings,
• Ending or delaying procurement of a number of
military systems – the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, MV-22 Osprey, KC-X Aerial Refueling Tanker, and the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle – and fielding less expensive alternatives,
• Reducing base budget spending on R&D by $5 billion annually,
• Resetting the calculation of military compensation and reforming the provision of military health care,
• Implementing a variety of measures aiming to
achieve new efficiencies in DoD’s supply and equipment maintenance systems, and
• Setting a cost reduction imperative for command, support, and infrastructure expenditures.
 
Top Bottom