I don't think cutting costs yet maintaining security for the most dangerous spots are mutually exclusive. A 37% cut doesn't mean that it's across the board.

(03-01-2017 11:15 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I don't think cutting costs yet maintaining security for the most dangerous spots are mutually exclusive. A 37% cut doesn't mean that it's across the board.

You DON"T WANT TO understand that simple concept when your pathetic life is based on team over country.

(03-01-2017 11:15 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I don't think cutting costs yet maintaining security for the most dangerous spots are mutually exclusive. A 37% cut doesn't mean that it's across the board.

then how do you fund temporary diplomatic outposts that are almost never used for a level of assualt that is worse than the worst case scenario on a 37% cut?

(03-01-2017 11:03 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 11:01 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  It's a proposed budget. A starting point. I'll wait to see what shakes out during the budget deliberations. Trump might be asking for 37% with expectations of getting 20%.

Zero Hedge has a little bit more of an explination:

Quote:As the WSJ adds, people familiar with the deliberations said the Trump administration is examining the growth in spending by the State Department during the Obama administration, including that caused by the addition of special envoys, though they said that would not cover the proposed cuts. One U.S. official said that the State Department is looking at development assistance to other countries as a significant source for the cuts.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-28...-budget-37

Since 2005 the State Department budget has grown by 92%. I'd say it could be reigned in slightly.

zerohedge really?

yes really, you miserable troll. If you had any common sense or ability to understand things at a middle school level you would see it references the WSJ, which I'm sure you will just as quickly dismiss. Not personally like a source doesn't invalidate it. God how pathetic you have become.

(03-01-2017 11:21 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 11:15 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I don't think cutting costs yet maintaining security for the most dangerous spots are mutually exclusive. A 37% cut doesn't mean that it's across the board.

then how do you fund temporary diplomatic outposts that are almost never used for a level of assualt that is worse than the worst case scenario on a 37% cut?

Proper appropriation of resources. It really isn't that difficult johnny boy.

(03-01-2017 11:57 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 11:03 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 11:01 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  It's a proposed budget. A starting point. I'll wait to see what shakes out during the budget deliberations. Trump might be asking for 37% with expectations of getting 20%.

Zero Hedge has a little bit more of an explination:

Quote:As the WSJ adds, people familiar with the deliberations said the Trump administration is examining the growth in spending by the State Department during the Obama administration, including that caused by the addition of special envoys, though they said that would not cover the proposed cuts. One U.S. official said that the State Department is looking at development assistance to other countries as a significant source for the cuts.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-28...-budget-37

Since 2005 the State Department budget has grown by 92%. I'd say it could be reigned in slightly.

zerohedge really?

yes really, you miserable troll. If you had any common sense or ability to understand things at a middle school level you would see it references the WSJ, which I'm sure you will just as quickly dismiss. Not personally like a source doesn't invalidate it. God how pathetic you have become.

Then why not just post the WSJ?

(03-01-2017 11:59 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 11:21 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 11:15 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I don't think cutting costs yet maintaining security for the most dangerous spots are mutually exclusive. A 37% cut doesn't mean that it's across the board.

then how do you fund temporary diplomatic outposts that are almost never used for a level of assualt that is worse than the worst case scenario on a 37% cut?

Proper appropriation of resources. It really isn't that difficult johnny boy.

Yep 2+2 = 5 doesn't make sense to me

This is the same kind of "we can balance the budget while cutting taxes kinda crap from u guys.

(03-01-2017 11:15 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I don't think cutting costs yet maintaining security for the most dangerous spots are mutually exclusive. A 37% cut doesn't mean that it's across the board.

This. Every damn government function is fat as hell. It ALL needs looking at and cutting out.

(03-01-2017 12:04 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 11:57 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 11:03 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 11:01 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  It's a proposed budget. A starting point. I'll wait to see what shakes out during the budget deliberations. Trump might be asking for 37% with expectations of getting 20%.

Zero Hedge has a little bit more of an explination:

Quote:As the WSJ adds, people familiar with the deliberations said the Trump administration is examining the growth in spending by the State Department during the Obama administration, including that caused by the addition of special envoys, though they said that would not cover the proposed cuts. One U.S. official said that the State Department is looking at development assistance to other countries as a significant source for the cuts.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-28...-budget-37

Since 2005 the State Department budget has grown by 92%. I'd say it could be reigned in slightly.

zerohedge really?

yes really, you miserable troll. If you had any common sense or ability to understand things at a middle school level you would see it references the WSJ, which I'm sure you will just as quickly dismiss. Not personally like a source doesn't invalidate it. God how pathetic you have become.

Then why not just post the WSJ?

Subscription only and I'm not a subscriber. How can you be so critical of sources yet know so little about them?

(03-01-2017 10:53 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:50 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:44 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:42 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:39 AM)john01992 Wrote:  so would cutting security costs for a temporary diplomatic outpost that is located on the opposite side of a massive country from where the capitol is and empty 99% of the time count as an "unneeded" and "redundant" post?

IMO, cuts will more than likely come from attrition. That's usually how these things play out. Other "cuts" may merely be a reallocation of resources, which is a good thing. Putting folks where they are needed is the correct thing to do.

and that's fine. but you can't support this while at the same time blame the dems for benghazi.

Sure one can. If the resources had been correctly allocated previously the attack may have been prevented. This is all conjecture though since we don't actually know how the cuts will be made.

oh give me a f***ing break. securing a rarely used location for an attack more severe than a typical worst case scenario is under no circumstances something that is probable with a massive funding cut.

Define massive and please don't say 37%. I just went through this "cut x%" stuff with my employer. We hit the target without letting anyone go. It was all done though attrition and not filling vacant positions. Same thing will more than likely happen with the State Dept. Suggestion one will equal the other just isn't the case, especially when dealing with govt math.

(03-01-2017 10:24 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:19 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:18 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

Quote:In the current fiscal year, the State Department and USAID got $50.1 billion, a little more than 1 percent of the total federal budget. Officials say a 37-percent cut would likely require reductions in staff, including security contractors at diplomatic missions abroad.

are you kidding me? so after running a campaign about how reckless and guilty of murder HRC was for letting four americans die at a diplomatic outpost and making that a cornerstone of their campaign, republicans now want to cut security for diplomatic outposts?

FFS the GOP literally has no shame.

https://apnews.com/fb7a5f0a55154ae69891936ce24979d8

I think the staff in Barbados can do with a bit less, you?

then you have no right to blame HRC for benghazi.

I thought you told us Benghazi was due to a terrible youtube video? You agree its on HRC now?

(03-01-2017 10:50 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:44 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:42 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:39 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:27 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Yep, cuts will more than likely come through attrition and not filing unneeded or redundant posts, etc.

so would cutting security costs for a temporary diplomatic outpost that is located on the opposite side of a massive country from where the capitol is and empty 99% of the time count as an "unneeded" and "redundant" post?

IMO, cuts will more than likely come from attrition. That's usually how these things play out. Other "cuts" may merely be a reallocation of resources, which is a good thing. Putting folks where they are needed is the correct thing to do.

and that's fine. but you can't support this while at the same time blame the dems for benghazi.

Sure one can. If the resources had been correctly allocated previously the attack may have been prevented. This is all conjecture though since we don't actually know how the cuts will be made.

This. at this point, we don't know what the cuts entail.

37% is massive. But not to a foolish con. Y'all have a repeat history of claiming a govt organization can weather that and not skip a beat.

Cut your income by 37%. What happens to you?

(03-01-2017 12:19 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:24 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:19 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:18 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

Quote:In the current fiscal year, the State Department and USAID got $50.1 billion, a little more than 1 percent of the total federal budget. Officials say a 37-percent cut would likely require reductions in staff, including security contractors at diplomatic missions abroad.

are you kidding me? so after running a campaign about how reckless and guilty of murder HRC was for letting four americans die at a diplomatic outpost and making that a cornerstone of their campaign, republicans now want to cut security for diplomatic outposts?

FFS the GOP literally has no shame.

https://apnews.com/fb7a5f0a55154ae69891936ce24979d8

I think the staff in Barbados can do with a bit less, you?

then you have no right to blame HRC for benghazi.

I thought you told us Benghazi was due to a terrible youtube video? You agree its on HRC now?

If you make one more idiotic statement I will put you on ignore like I did with Solohawks.

(03-01-2017 12:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  37% is massive. But not to a foolish con. Y'all have a repeat history of claiming a govt organization can weather that and not skip a beat.

Cut your income by 37%. What happens to you?

So let me get this straight. You think Benghazi isnt Hillarys fault because republicans cut the state department budget 5 years in the future from when the attack happened?

(03-01-2017 12:24 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 12:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  37% is massive. But not to a foolish con. Y'all have a repeat history of claiming a govt organization can weather that and not skip a beat.

Cut your income by 37%. What happens to you?

So let me get this straight. You think Benghazi isnt Hillarys fault because republicans cut the state department budget 5 years in the future from when the attack happened?

That is nothing remotely close to what I said so clearly you are either too stupid or too much of a troll to have a real conversation with. So bye.

Send me to Costa Rica as a security guard and I'll do the job for free. Honest. I can fire an M-16 with the best of them and I'm old so I can be a hero too and not be worried about dying.

(03-01-2017 12:27 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 12:24 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 12:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  37% is massive. But not to a foolish con. Y'all have a repeat history of claiming a govt organization can weather that and not skip a beat.

Cut your income by 37%. What happens to you?

So let me get this straight. You think Benghazi isnt Hillarys fault because republicans cut the state department budget 5 years in the future from when the attack happened?

That is nothing remotely close to what I said so clearly you are either too stupid or too much of a troll to have a real conversation with. So bye.

So explain why then you sid HRC is no longer to blame for Benghazi. What's in today's current budget proposal that makes it no longer her fault 5 years ago?

(03-01-2017 10:18 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

Quote:In the current fiscal year, the State Department and USAID got $50.1 billion, a little more than 1 percent of the total federal budget. Officials say a 37-percent cut would likely require reductions in staff, including security contractors at diplomatic missions abroad.

are you kidding me? so after running a campaign about how reckless and guilty of murder HRC was for letting four americans die at a diplomatic outpost and making that a cornerstone of their campaign, republicans now want to cut security for diplomatic outposts?

FFS the GOP literally has no shame.

https://apnews.com/fb7a5f0a55154ae69891936ce24979d8

Would have cost far less money to evacuate the embassy and/or let the teams already in the area protect them than it did to let those people die.

Trump didn't say 'cut security'. Some nameless 'officials' did... but yes, if you close or consolidate some offices and reduce headcount, you CAN spend less to secure those offices and still be just as effective or even more effective at protecting those who remain. Cameras and walls and 'safe areas' plus a small, but highly armed force are often more effective, secure and less expensive than dozens of people. How about you simply move the offices where people in those countries ask for visas to visit the US out of the embassy (since you're not dealing with Americans, but locals) and even employ locals rather than Americans (which you probably already do a lot anyway and spend a ton to constantly vet them) to collect the applications and answer questions... but since they're natives and not Americans, AND not inside the embassy, it costs far less to secure them?

So while the GOP may literally have no shame, the DNC apparently literally has no sense nor imagination. Unlike the vast majority of Americans, they can't imagine how to reduce costs without putting lives at risk.

(03-01-2017 12:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  37% is massive. But not to a foolish con. Y'all have a repeat history of claiming a govt organization can weather that and not skip a beat.

Cut your income by 37%. What happens to you?

Been there...done that. It is amazing how much fat you can cut out of your budget when necessary. Never missed paying a bill on time either.