Should defense cuts equally be on the table as we approach t

Thoughts on why they should or should not be.

Defense outlays amounted to $651 billion, 18 percent of total federal spending, which was a decline of about 3 percent from the prior fiscal year. There are proposed Defense Department spending cuts that could save taxpayers nearly $68 billion over 10 years. Proposed cuts is personnel. Example: There are too many admirals and other high-ranking officers for the size of the military. “We almost now have an admiral for every ship in the Navy,”. Despite much dire talk about the impeding spending cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act – which is part of the “fiscal cliff” at year’s end – there have been “no real cuts yet to the Pentagon." Another proposed bill is to audit the Defense Department. “One of the biggest problems in the Pentagon is that they have no idea where they’re spending their money – and if you can’t account for it, you can’t measure it and you can’t manage it.”

i think everyone is going to have to take a bite of the sh!t sandwich in order for everything to keep going. i wrote a lengthy rant then deleted the whole thing, im sure theres plenty of fat to trim in other areas as well. everyone needs to tighten the belt, and STICK TOGETHER. wether it will happen or not is another question

Personally I hate lenghty rants Your summary is outstanding & covers it all camaro. Nice

Lets see if I recall this right, we had a bi-partisan group of Honorable men that worked on this problem & came up with a solution which was rejected by most of all the other Honorable men. Then as we came closer the Honorable men agreed to form another group of bi-partisan men & agreed to Honor that decision but then the Honorable men didn't want to so we lost our credit rating. So now as we are coming to a cliff all the Honorable men are pointing fingers at one another & probably else where all refusing to Honor the first & second Honorable results. I say there is still time to form another group of Honorable men so while they are meeting the rest of us can go & they can continue to point & decide on how much of a raise they all seem to always be able to agree on, give more to all the employers that create jobs for lobbyists that the Honorable men decide that they should not only have to pay any tax but be paid for creating even more jobs for those less fortunate off shore tax havens that are owned by those that own the lobbyists that own the Honorable men. I may have missed a few there but I was getting dizzy.

freetown fred wrote:Personally I hate lenghty rants Your summary is outstanding & covers it all camaro. Nice

I'm with ya Fred! Sorry...I should have summarized!

I think we could pretty massively cut defense spending and the size of our military without any real ill effects to our overall national security.

Who has the largest Air Force in the world? We do.
Who has the 2nd largest Air Force in the world? We do (we call it Naval Aviation)

One of our carriers is superior to every single non-US carrier in the world...and we have 11 of them not counting our 9 helicopter carriers.

Another note, how about for starts stop forcing weapons and military equipment on the Pentagon that they arent even asking for.

We dont need to be the world's policeman anymore.

Yep, just like in Ohio for a pork barrel thing they are refurbishing tanks that the Army doesn't need or want (don't even have the manpower for), it supplies jobs but so would rebuilding bridges before they fall or replacing all the old water, gas & sewer lines & the power grid that all those dividend paying power Co.s should be fixing & maybe not profiting quite as much. Stiffer penalties for welfare, medicare & any other type of fraud along with gouging on all the Gov. contracts. A thousand small fixes add up to billions of dollars in no time.

Oh but now as I understand it we're going to improve the shield for Israel. Yep lets bump it up now that we have an excuse after the little war this week. Get the last pieces in place before war with Iran. Am I wrong, somebody please tell me I am..

Like most things government, they can be fixed with a little bit of COMMON SENSE - something that seems to be lacking there, AND in society at-large today. No need to dismantle our military - which is the ONLY thing standing between the life we have now .... and full blown JIHAD on your own front lawn. No joke there.

They could start by ... NOT dumping millions of dollars of helicopters at sea at the end of a conflict ... or burying planes in the sand ... or dumping 100 tons of food overboard because it wasn't grown in the USA ... or owning/maintaining millions of dollars in braiders just to make their own rope .... and I'm sure there's a million more things that people who have served could tell us about - that's just SOME of what I've heard over the decades.

Just like SS, Medicare, the Post Office, Amtrak, etc etc etc - a little common sense with money would go a LOOOOOOOOOOONG, long way. Maybe they could start by treating it as if it were their OWN money ...

And for the record .... cutting the military now is about the dumbest thing you could do, in light of the world climate. Be smart about it. RESTRUCTURE - DON'T CUT!!!

COMMON SENSE !! where, where, I want to see it, where...

Certainly NOT in ANY part of our government today ....

Is someone confusing defense with having the largest and most obtrusive and offensive military in the world? Yes, I believe they are.

Northern Maine wrote:Defense outlays amounted to $651 billion, 18 percent of total federal spending, which was a decline of about 3 percent from the prior fiscal year. There are proposed Defense Department spending cuts that could save taxpayers nearly $68 billion over 10 years. Proposed cuts is personnel. Example: There are too many admirals and other high-ranking officers for the size of the military. “We almost now have an admiral for every ship in the Navy,”. Despite much dire talk about the impeding spending cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act – which is part of the “fiscal cliff” at year’s end – there have been “no real cuts yet to the Pentagon." Another proposed bill is to audit the Defense Department. “One of the biggest problems in the Pentagon is that they have no idea where they’re spending their money – and if you can’t account for it, you can’t measure it and you can’t manage it.”

The defense budget in 1990 was just under $500 billion.

Can we really say we were "less safe" in 1990 than we are today?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/dow ... =c&local=s

Well, the Soviet Union existed in 1990 so there was probably more chance of an accidental nuclear war back then...but I'd say we're probably safer now but it has nothing to do with our current defense budget.

Also, $500 billion in 1990 is the same as about $850 billion today. There was a far more plausible reason for a massive military in 1990 than there is today.

cutting the military now is about the dumbest thing you could do, in light of the world climate. Be smart about it. RESTRUCTURE - DON'T CUT!!!

Why do you think cutting back or cutting down the size of our military a bad idea?