Quote:For his own military policy, he outlined a number of proposals, including:

Asking military generals to present a plan within 30 days to defeat and destroy ISIS, immediately after taking office

Asking Congress to eliminate the defense sequester

Building an active Army of about 540,000

Building a Marine Corps based on 36 battalions

Building a Navy nearing 350 surface ships and submarines

Building an Air Force of at least 1,200 fighter aircraft

A new "state-of-the-art" missile defense system

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/...itary.html

How are we going to pay for this? Its nice to want, but as a Republican cannot raise taxes. Where are we really going to take money from? Social Security? When the military budget is already huge!

(09-07-2016 12:35 PM)Greenroom Wrote:  How are we going to pay for this? Its nice to want, but as a Republican cannot raise taxes. Where are we really going to take money from? Social Security? When the military budget is already huge!

One, the "huge" defense budget is only about 15-20% of the total budget. A 50% increase in defense spending could be absorbed by simply holding the line on everything else for a year.
Two, there is actually plenty of room in the current military budget to accomplish all of these, if we focus on combat and combat support, cut the fluff, and stop fighting wars that we don't intend to win.
Three, there's plenty of fluff everywhere else, too. When the top three counties in the US in terms of household income, and 7 of the top 12, are all in the DC metro area, there's a lot of waste at the top of every federal program.

(09-07-2016 12:35 PM)Greenroom Wrote:  How are we going to pay for this? Its nice to want, but as a Republican cannot raise taxes. Where are we really going to take money from? Social Security? When the military budget is already huge!

Easy: the Mexicans, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Koreans, European allies that we are currently serving and protecting for free, and through every other trade and defense deal that we are on the ass end of after we renegotiate.

(09-07-2016 12:35 PM)Greenroom Wrote:  How are we going to pay for this?

Its good to see liberals put this phrase back into their vocabulary. You guys had lost it for about a decade it seems.

(09-07-2016 12:35 PM)Greenroom Wrote:  How are we going to pay for this? Its nice to want, but as a Republican cannot raise taxes. Where are we really going to take money from? Social Security? When the military budget is already huge!

easy, dont let Hillary anywhere near close to the state department.

(09-07-2016 12:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-07-2016 12:35 PM)Greenroom Wrote:  How are we going to pay for this? Its nice to want, but as a Republican cannot raise taxes. Where are we really going to take money from? Social Security? When the military budget is already huge!

One, the "huge" defense budget is only about 15-20% of the total budget. A 50% increase in defense spending could be absorbed by simply holding the line on everything else for a year.
Two, there is actually plenty of room in the current military budget to accomplish all of these, if we focus on combat and combat support, cut the fluff, and stop fighting wars that we don't intend to win.
Three, there's plenty of fluff everywhere else, too. When the top three counties in the US in terms of household income, and 7 of the top 12, are all in the DC metro area, there's a lot of waste at the top of every federal program.

As someone that contracts with the government, I will say, that in general, the DoD has much less waste and abuse and much more checks and balances than the other departments I have worked with, Energy being the worst. In fact, the only waste I have seen in the DoD happened at a NATO base, not a US base (different rules and not subject to US labor laws).

(09-07-2016 12:35 PM)Greenroom Wrote:  How are we going to pay for this? Its nice to want, but as a Republican cannot raise taxes. Where are we really going to take money from? Social Security? When the military budget is already huge!

From the linked article:

Quote:Trump said that the increase in spending would come from cuts in waste and streamlining bureaucracy.

Perhaps in the future you should read articles before commenting on them.

(09-07-2016 12:41 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(09-07-2016 12:35 PM)Greenroom Wrote:  How are we going to pay for this?

Its good to see liberals put this phrase back into their vocabulary. You guys had lost it for about a decadecentury it seems.

fify

(09-07-2016 12:43 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(09-07-2016 12:35 PM)Greenroom Wrote:  How are we going to pay for this? Its nice to want, but as a Republican cannot raise taxes. Where are we really going to take money from? Social Security? When the military budget is already huge!

easy, dont let Hillary anywhere near close to the state department.

maybe we can get the money back from the Clinton Foundation for all those US favors she sold to foreign donators.

(09-07-2016 12:58 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(09-07-2016 12:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-07-2016 12:35 PM)Greenroom Wrote:  How are we going to pay for this? Its nice to want, but as a Republican cannot raise taxes. Where are we really going to take money from? Social Security? When the military budget is already huge!

One, the "huge" defense budget is only about 15-20% of the total budget. A 50% increase in defense spending could be absorbed by simply holding the line on everything else for a year.
Two, there is actually plenty of room in the current military budget to accomplish all of these, if we focus on combat and combat support, cut the fluff, and stop fighting wars that we don't intend to win.
Three, there's plenty of fluff everywhere else, too. When the top three counties in the US in terms of household income, and 7 of the top 12, are all in the DC metro area, there's a lot of waste at the top of every federal program.

As someone that contracts with the government, I will say, that in general, the DoD has much less waste and abuse and much more checks and balances than the other departments I have worked with, Energy being the worst. In fact, the only waste I have seen in the DoD happened at a NATO base, not a US base (different rules and not subject to US labor laws).

I agree, with one caveat. Most of the waste in the military is self-imposed. They spend money on shiny toys without first figuring out what their mission is or should be.

Plus when McKinsey classifies your spending as 9% combat, 14% combat support, and 77% non-combat-related, there's a bunch of money being spent in the wrong places there.

By comparison, military budgets for the OECD as a whole average 14% combat, 23% combat support, and 63% non-combat-related, which is bad enough, but still better than ours. If we got down to the OECD level, we could maintain the same combat readiness for $150 billion less.

I would say that DoD has less waste at the actual operation and expenditure level, but the strategy and procurement planners sure send them off on some unproductive wild goose chases--the LCSs, the San Antonio class amphibs, the Ford class carriers, the V-22, the retirement of the A-10s and the Ticonderogas, several iterations of an army fighting vehicle, killing the F-22, just a few for starters.

Since I am not voting for HRC.. cannot stand her and she should be in jail..IMO . I see that no one really has anything that they can say on how we are going to actually pay for this.
Just there is already room in the military spending.. yet they are still asking for more.
I do agree cutting back on Wars we are not trying.. but what War would that be? He has stated ISIS we are going to take on. Most TGOP do not want to get out of Iraq or Afghanistan.

(09-07-2016 04:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-07-2016 12:58 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(09-07-2016 12:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-07-2016 12:35 PM)Greenroom Wrote:  How are we going to pay for this? Its nice to want, but as a Republican cannot raise taxes. Where are we really going to take money from? Social Security? When the military budget is already huge!

One, the "huge" defense budget is only about 15-20% of the total budget. A 50% increase in defense spending could be absorbed by simply holding the line on everything else for a year.
Two, there is actually plenty of room in the current military budget to accomplish all of these, if we focus on combat and combat support, cut the fluff, and stop fighting wars that we don't intend to win.
Three, there's plenty of fluff everywhere else, too. When the top three counties in the US in terms of household income, and 7 of the top 12, are all in the DC metro area, there's a lot of waste at the top of every federal program.

As someone that contracts with the government, I will say, that in general, the DoD has much less waste and abuse and much more checks and balances than the other departments I have worked with, Energy being the worst. In fact, the only waste I have seen in the DoD happened at a NATO base, not a US base (different rules and not subject to US labor laws).

I agree, with one caveat. Most of the waste in the military is self-imposed. They spend money on shiny toys without first figuring out what their mission is or should be.

Plus when McKinsey classifies your spending as 9% combat, 14% combat support, and 77% non-combat-related, there's a bunch of money being spent in the wrong places there.

By comparison, military budgets for the OECD as a whole average 14% combat, 23% combat support, and 63% non-combat-related, which is bad enough, but still better than ours. If we got down to the OECD level, we could maintain the same combat readiness for $150 billion less.

I would say that DoD has less waste at the actual operation and expenditure level, but the strategy and procurement planners sure send them off on some unproductive wild goose chases--the LCSs, the San Antonio class amphibs, the Ford class carriers, the V-22, the retirement of the A-10s and the Ticonderogas, several iterations of an army fighting vehicle, killing the F-22, just a few for starters.

Non combat related is IT, Cyber Security, and Intel. I wouldnt cut there. The shiny toys are needed to stay ahead of the game. Where they waste money is protecting the whole world for free.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(09-07-2016 07:19 PM)Greenroom Wrote:  Since I am not voting for HRC.. cannot stand her and she should be in jail..IMO . I see that no one really has anything that they can say on how we are going to actually pay for this.
Just there is already room in the military spending.. yet they are still asking for more.
I do agree cutting back on Wars we are not trying.. but what War would that be? He has stated ISIS we are going to take on. Most TGOP do not want to get out of Iraq or Afghanistan.

ISIS, Iraq, and Afghanistan are three that we aren't trying to win, so they would be three good ones to get out of.

Cut the outside consultant budget by 50%. That would be a place to start.

Don't build any more Fords, don't build any more LCSs, don't build any more F-35s, not until they work properly. Build the next two carriers to the perfectly good Nimitz design at half the cost. Give the LCSs to the coast guard. Stop the early retirement of the Ticonderogas and bring back any Perrys that can be saved. Replace the Ticinderogas in normal sequence with a new enlarged version of the Burkes that have two 8 inch guns, full support for two helos, twice as many VLS slots, and a conventional air search radar in addition to Aegis, for redundancy. Convert the San Antonio amphibs to ABM ships. Build some smaller, cheaper amphibs to European designs so we aren't putting all our amphib eggs in one basket--Spanish Juan Carlos/Aussie Canberra, RN Albion, French Mistral (they have two extras sitting around)/Korean Dokdo. Bring back real LSTs, there are things they can do that no other ship can; take the Newports, put a real T bow on them, and convert the back end the way the Aussies did with the Kanumblas. Restart the F-22 line, they are cheaper and better than the F-35. Look at adapting three European designs for the low end mix to go with the high end F-22 and F-35, if the F-35 ever works--Eurofighter Typhoon (AF), Dassault Rafake (Navy), and SAAB-39 Gripen (Marines). Convert 500,000 active duty slots to a million reserve slots--would cost about half as much.
Those are things that can be done to provide better defense for less money. Those are some of them.

(09-07-2016 07:41 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(09-07-2016 04:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-07-2016 12:58 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(09-07-2016 12:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-07-2016 12:35 PM)Greenroom Wrote:  How are we going to pay for this? Its nice to want, but as a Republican cannot raise taxes. Where are we really going to take money from? Social Security? When the military budget is already huge!

One, the "huge" defense budget is only about 15-20% of the total budget. A 50% increase in defense spending could be absorbed by simply holding the line on everything else for a year.
Two, there is actually plenty of room in the current military budget to accomplish all of these, if we focus on combat and combat support, cut the fluff, and stop fighting wars that we don't intend to win.
Three, there's plenty of fluff everywhere else, too. When the top three counties in the US in terms of household income, and 7 of the top 12, are all in the DC metro area, there's a lot of waste at the top of every federal program.

As someone that contracts with the government, I will say, that in general, the DoD has much less waste and abuse and much more checks and balances than the other departments I have worked with, Energy being the worst. In fact, the only waste I have seen in the DoD happened at a NATO base, not a US base (different rules and not subject to US labor laws).

I agree, with one caveat. Most of the waste in the military is self-imposed. They spend money on shiny toys without first figuring out what their mission is or should be.

Plus when McKinsey classifies your spending as 9% combat, 14% combat support, and 77% non-combat-related, there's a bunch of money being spent in the wrong places there.

By comparison, military budgets for the OECD as a whole average 14% combat, 23% combat support, and 63% non-combat-related, which is bad enough, but still better than ours. If we got down to the OECD level, we could maintain the same combat readiness for $150 billion less.

I would say that DoD has less waste at the actual operation and expenditure level, but the strategy and procurement planners sure send them off on some unproductive wild goose chases--the LCSs, the San Antonio class amphibs, the Ford class carriers, the V-22, the retirement of the A-10s and the Ticonderogas, several iterations of an army fighting vehicle, killing the F-22, just a few for starters.

Non combat related is IT, Cyber Security, and Intel. I wouldnt cut there. The shiny toys are needed to stay ahead of the game. Where they waste money is protecting the whole world for free.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I wouldn't cut IT, cyber, or Intel. I'd beef all three up. What I'd cut is retired generals and admirals going to work for think tanks and billing the Pentagon millions for stupid stuff that will never work. That's how we end up with expensive failures like the Fords and the LCSs and the F-35.

(09-07-2016 08:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-07-2016 07:41 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(09-07-2016 04:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-07-2016 12:58 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(09-07-2016 12:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One, the "huge" defense budget is only about 15-20% of the total budget. A 50% increase in defense spending could be absorbed by simply holding the line on everything else for a year.
Two, there is actually plenty of room in the current military budget to accomplish all of these, if we focus on combat and combat support, cut the fluff, and stop fighting wars that we don't intend to win.
Three, there's plenty of fluff everywhere else, too. When the top three counties in the US in terms of household income, and 7 of the top 12, are all in the DC metro area, there's a lot of waste at the top of every federal program.

As someone that contracts with the government, I will say, that in general, the DoD has much less waste and abuse and much more checks and balances than the other departments I have worked with, Energy being the worst. In fact, the only waste I have seen in the DoD happened at a NATO base, not a US base (different rules and not subject to US labor laws).

I agree, with one caveat. Most of the waste in the military is self-imposed. They spend money on shiny toys without first figuring out what their mission is or should be.

Plus when McKinsey classifies your spending as 9% combat, 14% combat support, and 77% non-combat-related, there's a bunch of money being spent in the wrong places there.

By comparison, military budgets for the OECD as a whole average 14% combat, 23% combat support, and 63% non-combat-related, which is bad enough, but still better than ours. If we got down to the OECD level, we could maintain the same combat readiness for $150 billion less.

I would say that DoD has less waste at the actual operation and expenditure level, but the strategy and procurement planners sure send them off on some unproductive wild goose chases--the LCSs, the San Antonio class amphibs, the Ford class carriers, the V-22, the retirement of the A-10s and the Ticonderogas, several iterations of an army fighting vehicle, killing the F-22, just a few for starters.

Non combat related is IT, Cyber Security, and Intel. I wouldnt cut there. The shiny toys are needed to stay ahead of the game. Where they waste money is protecting the whole world for free.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I wouldn't cut IT, cyber, or Intel. I'd beef all three up. What I'd cut is retired generals and admirals going to work for think tanks and billing the Pentagon millions for stupid stuff that will never work. That's how we end up with expensive failures like the Fords and the LCSs and the F-35.

If there is a scheme, I havent seen it and Ive been around the block. Most retired brass I know struggle to capture business and crooks on both sides get blackballed and lose their security clearance (unless you are Hillary Clinton). Remember, Innovation means failiures.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

We have more people in the Pentagon today that it took to win WWII. And the budget for consultants has more than doubled. We are paying far too many people, in uniform and out, to drive LMDs (large metal desks) around the Beltway.

If you think military funding hasn't suffered in the past few years, then you are not in the military nor do you work for the military. It has suffered and the military is weaker because of it.

(09-08-2016 12:11 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  If you think military funding hasn't suffered in the past few years, then you are not in the military nor do you work for the military. It has suffered and the military is weaker because of it.

Here's the problem. When cuts come, and they do and have, it's the people in the Pentagon who decide where the cuts come. And they're not going to cut themselves, so they grow the bureaucracy and make cuts in the field.

We have more people in the Pentagon today than it took to win WWII. And almost everything that is done in Washington is less labor intensive today than it was in 1945.

We have a large procurement bureaucracy that likes to keep itself employed. So we are spending $24 billion to buy 32 LCSs--that are virtually worthless--and making room for them by prematurely retiring still useful Ticonderoga cruisers and Spruance destroyers and Perry frigates. The Air Force is prematurely retiring the A-10, the best close air support platform ever, with no replacement in sight, in order to make room for F-35s. The Navy retired the S-3 and now has no carrier-borne fixed-wing ASW capability. A Ford aircraft carrier costs $13 billion--twice as much as its predecessors--and the catapult and arresting gear that are used to launch and recover aircraft don't work. And if and when it does ever work, it will carry 30% fewer aircraft than a 1980 vintage carrier. One supposed advantage of the fancy electromagnetic catapults is faster sortie rate. But a lot of that advantage is lost if there are 30% fewer aircraft to sortie. We are building two America class amphibs with no well deck. We built the San Antonio class amphibs with a smaller well deck than their predecessors. As a result, we are hauling Marines around with questionable ability to get them and their equipment ashore. The F-35 has a problem in a dogfight because the pilot's range of vision is hindered by the fuselage, but that was the only place to put the vertical fan which was essential for the STOVL version--but not needed or included in the other versions. No problem, we'll give him this fancy helmet that gives him a computer graphics picture of 360 degrees. Except that so far, the helmet doesn't work.

We don't have the mission well defined, and that leads to getting mesmerized by every shiny object, spending way too much on cute technology that doesn't work, and then trying to redefine mission to fit capability, instead of the other way around. We are growing the Pentagon and shrinking and shortchanging the troops in field, when we should be doing the opposite.

My problem with any plan to increase military spending is that we will waste it on stuff that doesn't work. My problem with cutting the military is that we will cut the field and grow or maintain the Pentagon. I'd cut the Pentagon staff in half, cut outside contractors in half, spend half of the savings in the field and save the other half.

While I am in favor of having the most powerful armed force in the world that we never have to use. Id like to see the details of his plan. I see nothing about getting rid of waste and closing down facilities that serve no real strategic purpose.