I've included several options..I think we can easily trim the armed forces in half and still be "safe". Our only threats are at least an ocean away and are not necessarily prominent or technologically advanced.
I say no. A well trained force is much superior than a drafted force.
i must have missed something. has someone advocated a return to the use of a military draft?
I agree some trimmage of some of the excesses could be a good thing, BUT....
I think we need to cut social spending in half before we touch the military budget. It's the social spending that is killing our budget and bankrupting us. A third of our budget is DEBT... and one way or another the bulk of that budget is social spending. (ie wealth redistribution)
If you reduce the military's size then what do you think will happen when a war breaks out? Regardless if there is a draft or they enact bigger cash sign on bonuses or get a duty station in Germany or Japan as a after war sign on Bonus, inexperianced soldiers and marines are not as effective as experienced and well trained soldiers and marines.
Well this is interesting...Pentagon fears healthcare costs will erode readiness - The Boston Globe
Looks like, since I took the time to look up your claim(something you should have done), I can document that...you are wrong, way wrong.
Think of the good we would do if we were to cut spending in half and use that money saved to feed the hungry and supply medicine to the sick all over the world, surely that would do much more good than occupying and liberating middle eastern countries who want nothing to do with us.
Interesting. I would do the exact opposite. I would cut military spending by 1/3 before I even touched social spending. The level of waste in the DoD is huge. I suppose this issue is a matter of perception.
actually, no...that article addresses a portion of exactly what I said. The actual dollars spent on healthcare in the military is higher for the exact reasons I mentioned earlier.
The MHS executes a $42 billion budget and serves approximately 9.5 million beneficiaries, including Active Duty personnel and their families and retirees and their families.The actual cost of having a government run health care system for the military is higher [be]cause the wages and benefits paid for military personnel who work for the MHS and the retirees who formerly worked for it, is not included in the budget. MHS employs more than 137,000 personnel in 65 hospitals, 412 clinics, and 414 dental clinics at facilities across the nation and around the world, as well as in contingency and combat-theater operations worldwide.
And the portion it did address showed that at least one of the numbers you claimed(50b for direct health care costs) is wrong. Considering that you did not source any of the numbers you claimed, and the one I checked is well wrong, I have no reason to believe that your other numbers are even remotely right.
Military Healthcare. Within this request, the department fully funds military healthcare,
which will cost more than $47 billion in fiscal 2010. The Department expects to continue to
work with the Congress to look for ways to slow the growth of medical costs while continuing to
provide high-quality care.
Caring for Our Wounded, Ill, and Injured. The department has no greater priority than
providing the highest quality support to wounded, ill, and injured soldiers, sailors, airmen,
Marines, and their families. The fiscal 2010 budget recognizes this responsibility and provides
$3.3 billion to support injured service members in their recovery, rehabilitation, and
reintegration. This funding provides additional case managers and mental health providers, an
expedited Disability Evaluation System, construction of 12 additional Army Warrior in
Transition complexes, and continued implementation of Walter Reed National Military Medical
Center and Fort Belvoir hospital BRAC projects within the National Capital Region. The budget
also includes $0.4 billion for medical research and development for traumatic brain injury,
psychological health, and other casualty care issues.
SO in what world does 42 = 50?
The actual cost of having a government run health care system for the military is higher [be]cause the wages and benefits paid for military personnel who work for the MHS and the retirees who formerly worked for it, is not included in the budget.
You cannot just up and cut 1/3 from the DoD budget though without slamming readiness. Given time for the pentagon to plan for it, and it might be remotely possible, but to just cut it outright would have a major impact. A very large portion of the DoD budget is locked in for several years.
Interesting. I would do the exact opposite. I would cut military spending by 1/3 before I even touched social spending. The level of waste in the DoD is huge. I suppose this issue is a matter of perception.
It just might have something to do with you being somewhat liberal and me being sorta conservative-ish. :mrgreen:
Military spending is something that you just can't know how much is worth it. Did we not get attacked because of spending? Ya just don't know.
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?