Home Non Cigar Related

Urgent news for military personnel

2»

Comments

  • laker1963laker1963 Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 5,046
  • laker1963laker1963 Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 5,046
    mfotis:
    I was trying not to comment on this again to no avail. There are plenty of places to cut the DoD budget that will not affect the troops on the front line, middle line or in the rear. Mil budget cuts are not synomous with the lowly grunt getting the shaft. There is plenty of frivilous spending in the G to include the DoD.
    I agree 100%. Sorry if that goes against the grain of our usual consensus. LMAO
  • xmacroxmacro Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 3,402
  • laker1963laker1963 Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 5,046
    Vulchor:
    Didnt Eisnhower warn us about somthing with money, and military, and -----ehhhh, nevermind-----we have an axis of evil here afterall.
    Sara Palin?
  • laker1963laker1963 Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 5,046
  • ENFIDLENFIDL Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 5,836
    laker1963:
    mfotis:
    I was trying not to comment on this again to no avail. There are plenty of places to cut the DoD budget that will not affect the troops on the front line, middle line or in the rear. Mil budget cuts are not synomous with the lowly grunt getting the shaft. There is plenty of frivilous spending in the G to include the DoD.
    I agree 100%. Sorry if that goes against the grain of our usual consensus. LMAO
    Yes but we have seen before, that taking money from/from things that will impact everybody from support to grunts to the airwing is easy and happens. Getting rid of the frivolous spending won't happen, not a lot of it that is. You're right not just dod but the g-unit as a whole needs to examine their spending and do things to cut back on unnecessary expenditures.
  • mfotismfotis Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 720
    ENFIDL:
    laker1963:
    mfotis:
    I was trying not to comment on this again to no avail. There are plenty of places to cut the DoD budget that will not affect the troops on the front line, middle line or in the rear. Mil budget cuts are not synomous with the lowly grunt getting the shaft. There is plenty of frivilous spending in the G to include the DoD.
    I agree 100%. Sorry if that goes against the grain of our usual consensus. LMAO
    Yes but we have seen before, that taking money from/from things that will impact everybody from support to grunts to the airwing is easy and happens. Getting rid of the frivolous spending won't happen, not a lot of it that is. You're right not just dod but the g-unit as a whole needs to examine their spending and do things to cut back on unnecessary expenditures.
    I agree, but not making cuts just bcuz they usually make bad decisions is not the answer. Take the DoD bands for instance, The DoD has almost as many musicians as my agency has officers. Music Is great, when u can afford it but if its not being operationally useful probably should put it on hold until u can afford it again.
  • roland_7707roland_7707 Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 2,647
    Y does our government have bands?
  • ENFIDLENFIDL Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 5,836
    mfotis:
    ENFIDL:
    laker1963:
    mfotis:
    I was trying not to comment on this again to no avail. There are plenty of places to cut the DoD budget that will not affect the troops on the front line, middle line or in the rear. Mil budget cuts are not synomous with the lowly grunt getting the shaft. There is plenty of frivilous spending in the G to include the DoD.
    I agree 100%. Sorry if that goes against the grain of our usual consensus. LMAO
    Yes but we have seen before, that taking money from/from things that will impact everybody from support to grunts to the airwing is easy and happens. Getting rid of the frivolous spending won't happen, not a lot of it that is. You're right not just dod but the g-unit as a whole needs to examine their spending and do things to cut back on unnecessary expenditures.
    I agree, but not making cuts just bcuz they usually make bad decisions is not the answer. Take the DoD bands for instance, The DoD has almost as many musicians as my agency has officers. Music Is great, when u can afford it but if its not being operationally useful probably should put it on hold until u can afford it again.
    For sure, the ridiculous amount of musicians in the branches is massive! That and deployment dodgers. They need to be kicked out, I understand not everybody gets the chance to but people who go out of their way to not deploy need to go. Unless they are a conscientious objector then that's a different case. If they aren't willing to deploy they need to gtfo and make room for somebody that is.
  • ENFIDLENFIDL Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 5,836
    roland_7707:
    Y does our government have bands?
    All the branches have musicians. They play events on the base, parades, ball games and whatnot. For example the Marine Corps has the Presidents Own Band. They play all the presidential events and other things in the DC area. It's mainly a big pr thing imho, for most of them. Stuff like the Presidents Own, hold a big historical significance.
  • mfotismfotis Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 720
    roland_7707:
    Y does our government have bands?
    military bands are used to boost morale, perform for the public as well as for official events but the problem is that we have alot of them. And right now now I think the guys on the front lines will get a better morale boost from not losing their benies then they would from listening to a good rythem section
  • roland_7707roland_7707 Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 2,647
    Not to be disrespectful, but wouldn't a cd work?
  • mfotismfotis Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 720
    roland_7707:
    Not to be disrespectful, but wouldn't a cd work?
    for the music aspect but not for the parade aspect
  • wwesternwwestern Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 1,386
  • roland_7707roland_7707 Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 2,647
  • wwesternwwestern Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 1,386
    Yeah that one's more of a 2nd amendment quote. Kind of saying the people must be disarmed before complete tyranny can be established.
  • laker1963laker1963 Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 5,046
    I'm betting there are BILLIONS of $$$ that could be saved without touching any money going to the troops or the equipping of them. Like all huge entities, there is waste and inefficiencies in the US military. They may not solve the problem, but these types of things should be taken care of before any talk of impact on the troops should even be discussed. IMO
  • wwhwangwwhwang Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 2,863
  • MTuccelliMTuccelli Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 2,587
  • Knoxca1Knoxca1 Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 147

    There is a lot of saving to be had in the acquisition process.  They can start with programs that will benefit the military as a reason to pursue them and not because that work benefits companies in a specific state.  They should also restructure contracts so the companies are shouldering more of the risk not the government, tie payment to milestone completion. 

  • mfotismfotis Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 720
    Knoxca1:

    There is a lot of saving to be had in the acquisition process.  They can start with programs that will benefit the military as a reason to pursue them and not because that work benefits companies in a specific state.  They should also restructure contracts so the companies are shouldering more of the risk not the government, tie payment to milestone completion. 

    +1
Sign In or Register to comment.