Urgent news for military personnel
wwhwang
Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 2,863
As everyone knows, Obama has demanded that the military take the brunt of cuts to the federal budget. Pensions, benefits, and military medical care may be affected. However, just in time for Independence Day, he's ask for a bigger cut to military spending. This even bigger cut may end up in the termination of 70,000 jobs in the US Army and the Marine Corps.
To all that have served or are still serving, thank you for your service. Keep your PT scores up and stay the hell out of trouble if this enormous cut goes as planned.
Source:
http://m.military.com/news/article/obama-hints-at-deeper-cuts-to-defense-spending.html?ESRC=dod.nl
To all that have served or are still serving, thank you for your service. Keep your PT scores up and stay the hell out of trouble if this enormous cut goes as planned.
Source:
http://m.military.com/news/article/obama-hints-at-deeper-cuts-to-defense-spending.html?ESRC=dod.nl
Comments
Like it or not, troop pay is easy to cut - projections/internal reports say they can retain recruiting even after cutting pay. Between turning over decades-old gear and cutting troop pay, which do you think they're gonna do?
The Pentagon has a budget of $550 billion, give or take; shaving 10% off is only $55 bill - and Obamacare is expected to cost around $2.3 trillion - there are better ways to get the money than cutting right now
I'm not saying there's room to cut, but it always irks me when people say we need to cut NOW. Remember the no-body-armor-for-humvee's fiasco a few years ago? Budget cuts have consequences - we're engaged in 3 wars; the least we can do is wait until we start withdrawing before deciding what needs to be cut. Withdraw first, then decide what to cut.
Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Iraq and Yemen
Nobel Peace Prize winner...
Cutting military pay and the size is ludicrous.
You are talking about people who are doing 7-12+ month tours in a place where people are actively trying to kill them. The deployment tempo is high across the board for operational units and if you cut people away then that tempo increases drastically! I have friends who have done 4 and 5 combat tours in 8 years. That's an insane amount of time spent fighting.
Monetarily and beneficially cutting them is disgraceful. Military pay is very low. You have men and women putting their lives on the line for next to nothing. As a Sgt in the Marines with 4 years of service when I went to Iraq I was making 100 bucks a day. Which is low, break that down to hourly wage that's $4.20 an hour. Junior service members make even less, a lot less. So even based on my pay would you take a job for $4.20 an hour, you are on 24/7 there's no real off time, where you have people trying to kill you and any moment could be your last? I seriously doubt most anybody here would. Any you want these people to take a pay cut and lose benefits? That's downright ridiculous and disrespectful.
Does a HUGE military lead to the need to use it? When your economy is so tied to your military expenditures, it can be argued that you need to keep fighting in order to keep the economy going.
The size of the military and the costs of the personell involved is only one thing in a long list of military spending which could be looked at.
In my personal opinion in times like these when things are as drastic as they are today... EVERYTHING and I mean EVERYTHING should be on the table and cuts should be right across the board. When things improve (if they do) to a point where you can afford to reinstitute these programs then it can be done without harming the economy.
Everything in balance... or eventually everything will fly to pieces... that's a fact.
Not trying to be a dink here but... has there been a time when the US wasn't "at war" with someone in some capacity in the last 100 years? When exactly would be a good time for these fiscal decisions to be made?
Your argument doesn't make any sense; it's the typical liberal boogeyman, the military-industrial complex that's rumored to be at the root of all the worlds wars, right along with the Jews controlling all the worlds banking. It's a conspiracy theory that just never dies. The US maintains a protective umbrella over Western Europe, SE Asia, Canada and Mexico - be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it. Check this out: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/06/ap-nato-at-crossroads-after-gates-speech-061211/
Basically, Defense Secretary Gates is saying that the US has been shouldering the burden for the world's defense for too long - we're bearing all the risk and costs, and the world is enjoying a free ride. It's time to cut back, which means countries are gonna have to start spending money on their own defense - this includes Europe, Asia and Canada. Time other countries start ponying up for their own defense and the US starts look out for itself a bit more
You're kidding, right? Or are you actually suggesting we're always engaged in wars without end? Vietnam ended - military spending was cut. Korean war ended, military spending was cut. Desert Storm ended, military spending was cut.
Wars end, and military spending is cut. We can cut after our troops are home, not when they're out in the field getting shot at by some crazed islamist who think he's doing God's work by killing the infidels.
xmarco how are we on the brink of victory? Spreading civilization to people who want no part of it is a hard fight to win.
I NEVER said...So you're saying the US gets into wars on purpose to justify military expenditures? You're saying we intentionally send our troops to fight and die just so we can keep spending? I asked a question. You never provided a real answer.
you stated ... Your argument doesn't make any sense; it's the typical liberal boogeyman, the military-industrial complex that's rumored to be at the root of all the worlds wars, right along with the Jews controlling all the worlds banking. It's a conspiracy theory that just never dies.
Again...I never made an arguement I asked a question and you turned it into this. I also never labeled you a right wing fanatic or war monger or anything else, yet you come back aqt me with the "Liberal" label again. You don;t know me, and I assure you that is not the case.
Your final statement was again just that a statement... not an answer. You took offense at what I was asking in all sincerity. When in the last 100 years has the US NOT been engaged in some military involvement which would prevent them from making fiscal decisions about the size and scope of the military. It seems that a new war begins before an old war ends and the fighting goes on and on. Please educate me Macro, it was a serious question, as I am not as up on US history as you are but from here I could NOT think of such a period of time.
As far as protecting Canada... from who? Also Canada has been lacking in military equipment and personell for years without a single invasion from anyone. I know you will say that is because of the US, many would say it is because we don't have a lot of enimies around the world. That would be open for debate either way IMO.
It sure plays well in certain circles of discussion I know. Many also believe that we don't need very much defense because we don't have many enemies. You are entitled to your opinion Western... but it is just that... YOUR opinion, doesn't make it fact. We are resource rich, have a relitively small population so those resources go farther, and Canada has not had to go out into the world to find and secure resources for the future which has brought us into far less situations where we would be looked upon as trying to steal resources from poorer third world countries. This has lead to our present security situation far more then relying on the US for defense. What country did you last defend us from?
Enfidl, can you tell me where I said that the cuts to the military have to come from the enlisted ranks? You have put words into my arguement and are now argueing against them. I never said anything like what you seem to think. Where did that come from?
If you guy's want to continue this discussion fine. BUT know right now that this is NOT a personal thing for me and I will not be engaging in name calling or labeling of people. If you want to talk about the topic GREAT I love a good discussion, but let's keep it civil and if you can't don't expect ANY kind of response from me. I am not trying to PISS off anyone, but I am as entitled to my opinion as anyone else around here.
Anyone who believes in Western values has enemies in people who dream of a global caliphate, of the global dominance of militant islam. It might sound cliche, in this day and age, but there are people in the world who still dream of global dictatorships.
And yes it's hard not too....lol
That statement goes for military and non military excercises. We will just have to disagree on wether money can be found without it affecting the troops.
It doesn't take all of a country, or even a majority, to wage a war - it only takes a small number of fanatics who are intent on killing everyone who doesn't follow their way - which is exactly what we have - a minority of arabs who believe in a global caliphate, and are willing to kill anyone and everyone who gets in their way.
These are people who don't care that you never did anything to them; the fact that you exist is enough to hate you. Like I said, it's cliche to think there's still such people in the world, but there are. Just because people like Hitler are dead, doesn't mean that irrational hatred and murderous intent died too.