(08-10-2013 01:29 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  If we want to cut spending then we have to cut defense spending. It's where we spend most of our money.

That second sentence which I put in bold is a perfect example of the Bizarro-world, alternate-reality that liberals have created and choose to inhabit. It's why I almost never discuss politics with liberals.

(08-10-2013 01:29 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  If we want to cut spending then we have to cut defense spending. It's where we spend most of our money.

No, it isn't. Look at the numbers.

You could take an across the board 10% budget cut in every federal agency, and if managed by folks without political points to make, would be completely transparent on the "services" our government provides.

And I spent over ten years in the Navy, and while I strongly value National Defense, the DoD spends too much money, as does every other government beurocracy that has a goal of self-perpetuation and increasing budgetary funding.

(08-10-2013 10:59 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  You could take an across the board 10% budget cut in every federal agency, and if managed by folks without political points to make, would be completely transparent on the "services" our government provides.
And I spent over ten years in the Navy, and while I strongly value National Defense, the DoD spends too much money, as does every other government beurocracy that has a goal of self-perpetuation and increasing budgetary funding.

There are something like 400,000 federal employees making $100,000 or more. The vast, vast majority of them are not in service delivery positions but are administrative overhead. Cutting that number in half would save $20 billion, and would probably make most agencies more efficient because eliminating that administrative overhead would eliminate a lot of red tape.

Of course, if you come up with across the board cuts, guess who gets to decide what to cut? Those six-figure administrators. So what's the LAST thing that would get cut?

If the Army & Marine cuts deal w/ closing bases in places like Italy, Germany, and Japan I'm all for these cuts. I'd instantly deploy these troops to our southern border. Air and Sea power is different and needs to be maintained to protect our trade routes.

Sending Billions upon Billions of dollars to places like Egypt and staying in Afghanistan and Iraq makes little sense to me. Placing troops in Syria makes even less sense to me.

(08-10-2013 04:24 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-10-2013 01:29 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  If we want to cut spending then we have to cut defense spending. It's where we spend most of our money.

That second sentence which I put in bold is a perfect example of the Bizarro-world, alternate-reality that liberals have created and choose to inhabit. It's why I almost never discuss politics with liberals.

Defense spending is 20% of our federal income tax spending.

Nothing else even comes close.

I believe the correct figure is below 20%, but just for now I'll accept that at face value.

That still leaves us with the weird calculation that "20%" = "most". Can anyone explain that?

(08-10-2013 10:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-10-2013 01:29 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  If we want to cut spending then we have to cut defense spending. It's where we spend most of our money.

No, it isn't. Look at the numbers.

Agreed. I have said for a long time that when the Democrats cut entitlements and the GOP goes after defense...then I know things are really bad. I believe sensible cuts in both MUST happen combined with a major emphasis on simply not wasting revenues. Government by its nature is extremely inefficient. It needs to be more businesslike in its approach to giving its investors a solid ROI.

(08-11-2013 11:04 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I have said for a long time that when the Democrats cut entitlements and the GOP goes after defense...then I know things are really bad.

So far, Democrats have not even lifted a finger to cut entitlements, and show no sign of doing so anytime soon.

Quote:Government by its nature is extremely inefficient. It needs to be more businesslike in its approach to giving its investors a solid ROI.

How do you get government to be more "businesslike" when there is no competition for its "business"?

Part of the reason you need to forward deploy in the Pacific is simple geography. By the time you brought everything from Hawaii the fight could be over. Thus the buildup in Guam, Australia and the discussions of permanent basing again in the Phillipines.

If its any consolation to those against forward deployment, at least in most cases the US is minimizing its presence in Japan & Okinawa

(08-11-2013 10:23 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-10-2013 04:24 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-10-2013 01:29 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  If we want to cut spending then we have to cut defense spending. It's where we spend most of our money.

That second sentence which I put in bold is a perfect example of the Bizarro-world, alternate-reality that liberals have created and choose to inhabit. It's why I almost never discuss politics with liberals.

Defense spending is 20% of our federal income tax spending.
Nothing else even comes close.

So you agree that the bolded statement is a lie?

I have seen proposals that we don't base any troops on soil that we don't own. I think that's not a bad concept. This would commit us to a sea-based maneuver strategy rather than boots on the ground, but I think that idea has merit. Had an interesting discussion of this issue with Allen West the other day.

In the Pacific, pull troops out of Japan and Korea (one possible exception to this strategy), bring them back to Guam. Guam is 1500-2000 NM from most of eastern Asia, 3-4 days' sail at 20 knots. And, of course, we would have ships deployed from there closer to Asia at any time, and would probably have some informational head start on moving additional forces up if needed.

In Europe, bring them home. It's time--no, well past time--for Europe to defend itself. Convert those slots to reserve slots. Perhaps keep bases in Europe with prepositioned logistics and a cadre for security purposes. We have gone the other way--troops forward without logistics. It's actually quicker to haul in the troops than to haul in the tanks and howitzers. At one time, we had 100,000+ troops ion western Europe--with less than one clip of ammo per soldier. I'm sure that had Ivan quaking in his boots. Of course, after the fall of communism we realized that their logistics supply line was even worse than ours.

The other exception (besides possibly Korea) would be the IO, since we have economic interests there but no territory. I would consider converting the long-term lease at Diego Garcia to a purchase. Or maybe it's not inconsistent with this strategy to treat long term leases as owned. It's a bit far from the critical theaters, but again we would deploy forward from there.

Owl, I do disagree in part with this theory:

Quote:I have seen proposals that we don't base any troops on soil that we don't own. I think that's not a bad concept.

Again, not as though the State dept would have sent anyone into Benghazi to start with, but you have to have "jump points" for other conflicts when needed around the world.

It's a case of finding the right balance though.

As someone who is has been a contractor for the military, I'm all for cutting spending. They need to do a LOT of belt tightening as they are completely out of control on their wasteful spending. Get rid of the "old boy network" they have and you'd get better products for 75% of the cost as far as I'm concerned. If you don't employ a retired general you don't have a shot at winning contracts, even when all the evidence points to your company being MUCH better (and cheaper) than the company that wins the contract.

It is embarrassing how poor the contracting is through the Pentagon.

(08-12-2013 08:59 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Owl, I do disagree in part with this theory:

Quote:I have seen proposals that we don't base any troops on soil that we don't own. I think that's not a bad concept.

Again, not as though the State dept would have sent anyone into Benghazi to start with, but you have to have "jump points" for other conflicts when needed around the world.

It's a case of finding the right balance though.

And I would distinguish between stationing and basing. We station Marines at all embassies for security. Those detachments would remain in all cases.

What I'm talking about here is bases with significant numbers of troops, such as we have in Germany and Japan and Okinawa. I'm not sure about Korea, we might still need to leave some there, but not at the others. Let them defend themselves. They're not going to be threats to us, so we don't mind if they build up their military forces.

(08-12-2013 10:17 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-12-2013 08:59 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Owl, I do disagree in part with this theory:

Quote:I have seen proposals that we don't base any troops on soil that we don't own. I think that's not a bad concept.

Again, not as though the State dept would have sent anyone into Benghazi to start with, but you have to have "jump points" for other conflicts when needed around the world.

It's a case of finding the right balance though.

And I would distinguish between stationing and basing. We station Marines at all embassies for security. Those detachments would remain in all cases.

What I'm talking about here is bases with significant numbers of troops, such as we have in Germany and Japan and Okinawa. I'm not sure about Korea, we might still need to leave some there, but not at the others. Let them defend themselves. They're not going to be threats to us, so we don't mind if they build up their military forces.

I agree. Germany and Japan would be a good start. It would cut our presence by almost 100k. As long as we are there...these countries do not have to budget for their own defense. It is time they defend themselves IMO.