- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
WASHINGTON – Republican Sen.-elect Rand Paul says GOP lawmakers must be open to cutting military spending as Congress tries to reduce government spending.
The tea party favorite from Kentucky says compromise with Democrats over where to cut spending must include the military as well as social programs. Paul says all government spending must be "on the table."
Not a very popular position to take, but you know what? I completely agree with him. The defense lobby is going to go nuts over this, but Rand Paul knows the obvious - Our defense spending is equal to that of the next 27 nations combined, and that, my friends, is ridiculous.
Yes, put defense spending on the table, and give that group of corporate welfare queens a kick in the nuts too.
Article is here.
and we have many more years of that gift.
After the defense cuts take place, our troops will find themselves embroiled in a protracted conflict and lack equipment. Then what?
The reality of defense cuts, is that the cuts start at the bottom and go up. Which means that Sgt. Joe, his wife and three kids aren't going to be able to get quarters on post, because of the cuts and, because of the cuts, his BAQ (basic allowance for quarters) will get cut. Combat arms troops won't be able to conduct as much live fire training, which will deny them the realistic training they need to be able to transition onto an actual battlefield. Specialized training will be cut back, meaning that fewer soldiers will be qualified outside their primary MOS.
Training, is the first thing that suffers when cuts are made to the defense budget.
Sometimes, but no one is yet suggesting that be the case. I'm talking things like the F-22 program. You don't have to worry about training, the Army is all about modularity these days and soldiers always gets chances for training allowing them to serve outside their primary MOS. Its almost a requirement for promotion beyond SSG now.
It's insane because there are people who think that the ideas proposed by these guys are sensible. I mean the military is probably the 2nd or 3rd biggest social program the United States has. Congress not only signs military paychecks, it signs bills for military housing, financial aid for colleges, food aid for thousands of members.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans can afford to say that they're going to cut any of the benefits to being in the military off. The political backlash would be insane and it's not just from old cats like Navy Pride. It would be from all sides, the millions of families who are dependent on the many benefits members of the military get would go looking to lynch their local representatives.
Yeah Paul, keep this line up. It's sure to make you a one term Senator.
What unit did you serve in?
Oh, for God's sake. Don't gore my ox!!!!!!!!! We're doomed.
I was wondering how far the apple fell from the tree
I expect a massive backlash towards Rand Paul from this statement
There are certainly some areas of military funding that could be cut (weapons modernizaton/development would be a good start), but somehow I get the feeling that Paul is talking about VA benefits and the 20-40 billion spent on foreign aid. Neither of which is a great idea. It would be good to have more transparency regarding the military budget, there is a lot of money floating around under the title of "undisclosed funds" that should be sorted.
After the defense cuts take place, our troops will find themselves embroiled in a protracted conflict and lack equipment. Then what?
The reality of defense cuts, is that the cuts start at the bottom and go up. Which means that Sgt. Joe, his wife and three kids aren't going to be able to get quarters on post, because of the cuts and, because of the cuts, his BAQ (basic allowance for quarters) will get cut. Combat arms troops won't be able to conduct as much live fire training, which will deny them the realistic training they need to be able to transition onto an actual battlefield. Specialized training will be cut back, meaning that fewer soldiers will be qualified outside their primary MOS.
Training, is the first thing that suffers when cuts are made to the defense budget.
So far what I've heard from the Rep. is that nothing is off that table and that includes defense spending. I don't expect much backlash at all. They were all elected to take control of the spending. They better do that or there will
But I can tell you from the NCO talk and instructor talk is that the Army is planning on a serious down-sizing in the next 2-6 years and it plans to be ready by having soldiers prepared to function in multiple fields so it doesn't end up with serious shortages or excesses in one MOS when all the smoke has cleared.
Cutting foreign aid should be the first military spending cut back. Im sick of subsidizing other countries.
In all honesty I just reported for active duty on Oct 5th this year. But I'm scheduled to report to the 46th TC company of the 501st Sustainment Brigade in Camp Stanley Korea in March. Currently I'm at Ft. Lee VA attending Transportation Corp BOLC, Basic officer leadership course, so I'm a logistican.
But I can tell you from the NCO talk and instructor talk is that the Army is planning on a serious down-sizing in the next 2-6 years and it plans to be ready by having soldiers prepared to function in multiple fields so it doesn't end up with serious shortages or excesses in one MOS when all the smoke has cleared.
There has got to be some wasteful spending they could do away with, don't you think? I have faith in our newly elected officials to take care of our military.
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?