The problem I see w/ everything involving military budget cuts is that we can cut military spending w/out hurting our readiness. For one, we can cut out unneeded bases in places like Germany, Italy, Spain, and so on. Second, lets cut out the money that's completely being lost, or not even spent at all. On Sept 10th 2001, there was a report regarding millions/billions of dollars that's completely being lost and not spent at all. Third point, lets cut out some of these admin jobs. I forgot the link, but I read a report that stated that nearly a third (if not more) of the military budget goes towards admin.

As for social programs and minimum wage: I'd much prefer to see programs that would get low skilled workers the skill to be become skilled workers IE, provide grants at tech schools to help people become carpenters, plumbers, electricians, and so on. If we're going to invest money into people, you might as well create tax revenue to pay off these debts as opposed to the wealth redistribution we're seeing today. If people that rely on minimum wage jobs don't utilize these benefits that equals 0 social programs for them to fall back on.

(02-25-2015 07:46 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  The problem I see w/ everything involving military budget cuts is that we can cut military spending w/out hurting our readiness. For one, we can cut out unneeded bases in places like Germany, Italy, Spain, and so on. Second, lets cut out the money that's completely being lost, or not even spent at all. On Sept 10th 2001, there was a report regarding millions/billions of dollars that's completely being lost and not spent at all. Third point, lets cut out some of these admin jobs. I forgot the link, but I read a report that stated that nearly a third (if not more) of the military budget goes towards admin.

As for social programs and minimum wage: I'd much prefer to see programs that would get low skilled workers the skill to be become skilled workers IE, provide grants at tech schools to help people become carpenters, plumbers, electricians, and so on. If we're going to invest money into people, you might as well create tax revenue to pay off these debts as opposed to the wealth redistribution we're seeing today. If people that rely on minimum wage jobs don't utilize these benefits that equals 0 social programs for them to fall back on.

I'm not opposed to any of this, though I think raising the minimum wage regionally and tying it to inflation is something that is long overdue, also.

(02-25-2015 08:10 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 07:46 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  The problem I see w/ everything involving military budget cuts is that we can cut military spending w/out hurting our readiness. For one, we can cut out unneeded bases in places like Germany, Italy, Spain, and so on. Second, lets cut out the money that's completely being lost, or not even spent at all. On Sept 10th 2001, there was a report regarding millions/billions of dollars that's completely being lost and not spent at all. Third point, lets cut out some of these admin jobs. I forgot the link, but I read a report that stated that nearly a third (if not more) of the military budget goes towards admin.

As for social programs and minimum wage: I'd much prefer to see programs that would get low skilled workers the skill to be become skilled workers IE, provide grants at tech schools to help people become carpenters, plumbers, electricians, and so on. If we're going to invest money into people, you might as well create tax revenue to pay off these debts as opposed to the wealth redistribution we're seeing today. If people that rely on minimum wage jobs don't utilize these benefits that equals 0 social programs for them to fall back on.

I'm not opposed to any of this, though I think raising the minimum wage regionally and tying it to inflation is something that is long overdue, also.

Yes, tying minimum wage to the regional inflation rate is a far better solution than just raising it to some arbitrary #. Which in turn would eliminate the Federal minimum wage.

McKinsey published a very interesting study a couple of years ago. Don't think it's stored online any more, at least not where it used to be, so don't know any way to link. They broke down military spending between combat, combat support, and other (basically overhead). For the OECD countries as a whole, the breakdown was 14% combat, 23% combat support, 63% overhead. For the US, the breakdown was 9% combat, 14% combat support, 77% overhead. The implication is that we are spending $100 billion a year MORE on overhead than are our peer nations. And of course, that overhead has NOTHING to do with defending this country--or any other country. That suggests that there are places where significant cuts can be made.

(02-25-2015 08:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  McKinsey published a very interesting study a couple of years ago. Don't think it's stored online any more, at least not where it used to be, so don't know any way to link. They broke down military spending between combat, combat support, and other (basically overhead). For the OECD countries as a whole, the breakdown was 14% combat, 23% combat support, 63% overhead. For the US, the breakdown was 9% combat, 14% combat support, 77% overhead. The implication is that we are spending $100 billion a year MORE on overhead than are our peer nations. And of course, that overhead has NOTHING to do with defending this country--or any other country. That suggests that there are places where significant cuts can be made.

What is the potential impact if that overhead is cut by 1/4 or even 1/2?

(02-25-2015 09:12 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 08:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  McKinsey published a very interesting study a couple of years ago. Don't think it's stored online any more, at least not where it used to be, so don't know any way to link. They broke down military spending between combat, combat support, and other (basically overhead). For the OECD countries as a whole, the breakdown was 14% combat, 23% combat support, 63% overhead. For the US, the breakdown was 9% combat, 14% combat support, 77% overhead. The implication is that we are spending $100 billion a year MORE on overhead than are our peer nations. And of course, that overhead has NOTHING to do with defending this country--or any other country. That suggests that there are places where significant cuts can be made.

What is the potential impact if that overhead is cut by 1/4 or even 1/2?

On defense posture? Probably nothing.
On real estate prices in northern Virginia? Probably devastating.

In that case, cut that sh*t by 50%.

(02-25-2015 08:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  McKinsey published a very interesting study a couple of years ago. Don't think it's stored online any more, at least not where it used to be, so don't know any way to link. They broke down military spending between combat, combat support, and other (basically overhead). For the OECD countries as a whole, the breakdown was 14% combat, 23% combat support, 63% overhead. For the US, the breakdown was 9% combat, 14% combat support, 77% overhead. The implication is that we are spending $100 billion a year MORE on overhead than are our peer nations. And of course, that overhead has NOTHING to do with defending this country--or any other country. That suggests that there are places where significant cuts can be made.

Paying for overhead is the American way. We do the same thing in public schools ... we spend a far higher percentage on school administrators than other countries do. They spend more on teachers. Imagine that.

Our schools are just jobs programs. Educating kids is a lower priority.

(02-25-2015 08:10 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 07:46 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  The problem I see w/ everything involving military budget cuts is that we can cut military spending w/out hurting our readiness. For one, we can cut out unneeded bases in places like Germany, Italy, Spain, and so on. Second, lets cut out the money that's completely being lost, or not even spent at all. On Sept 10th 2001, there was a report regarding millions/billions of dollars that's completely being lost and not spent at all. Third point, lets cut out some of these admin jobs. I forgot the link, but I read a report that stated that nearly a third (if not more) of the military budget goes towards admin.

As for social programs and minimum wage: I'd much prefer to see programs that would get low skilled workers the skill to be become skilled workers IE, provide grants at tech schools to help people become carpenters, plumbers, electricians, and so on. If we're going to invest money into people, you might as well create tax revenue to pay off these debts as opposed to the wealth redistribution we're seeing today. If people that rely on minimum wage jobs don't utilize these benefits that equals 0 social programs for them to fall back on.

I'm not opposed to any of this, though I think raising the minimum wage regionally and tying it to inflation is something that is long overdue, also.

this is where policy has fuxxored the den....

couple this with a consumption tax?

I like the possibilities in totality.....

this is uncharted territory in entirety....and it's exponentially more complicated based on only the development of the last few decades....

there is no easy answer.....I'm not sold it's answerable....

disclai_er: has nothing to do with the thread topic.....

(02-25-2015 09:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 09:12 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 08:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  McKinsey published a very interesting study a couple of years ago. Don't think it's stored online any more, at least not where it used to be, so don't know any way to link. They broke down military spending between combat, combat support, and other (basically overhead). For the OECD countries as a whole, the breakdown was 14% combat, 23% combat support, 63% overhead. For the US, the breakdown was 9% combat, 14% combat support, 77% overhead. The implication is that we are spending $100 billion a year MORE on overhead than are our peer nations. And of course, that overhead has NOTHING to do with defending this country--or any other country. That suggests that there are places where significant cuts can be made.

What is the potential impact if that overhead is cut by 1/4 or even 1/2?

On defense posture? Probably nothing.
On real estate prices in northern Virginia? Probably devastating.

starting to begin the digging deep into the 'why'....I like it....regions have to suffer.....this shite is nothing more than 'yanking and crankin' zee chains of ponzi fonzie'

btw....type in your link @ http://archive.org/web/ ...... can surprise at times ...

if you want a deep interwebs tutorial.....that world plays ugly.....I won't visit.....but I know how at times

(02-25-2015 07:27 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  None of that really addresses my overall point though. First of all, no one is arguing for a military unable to assemble tens of thousands of active troops quickly, they're arguing for a military exponentially larger than that, yet smaller than it is currently. So, that right there sort of ruins your entire argument.

Furthermore, any war in which we need to mobilize men fast simply won't occur, because any existential threat will be met with Nuclear force. The reason we needed to mobilize those men during WWI and WWII is because world wars lasted long enough for us to do so. That wouldn't happen now.

I think you are making the assumption that any rational actor, to include Russia and China, would consider using nukes if they find themselves on the losing end of a conventional battle. All of our near peers understand that going nuclear has no net benefits. That's why NK and Iran getting nukes scares people as they are irrational actors with nothing to lose.

You correct on the nature of war in that their is a great deal of reticence to committing massed forces (over 300K) for an overland invasion.

*edit - I thought I would post this link for some context...

Iran conducts mock attack on US Carrier

(02-25-2015 06:25 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 02:58 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  10.10 is the only political plan I've seen outlined...not 15

either way, the MW hasn't moved in 5 years, and 7.25 is too low IMHO.

Minimum wage hasn't moved because of the law of supply and demand. The supply of unskilled minimum wage workers has dramatically increased due to the flood of illegals that "will do the work Americans don't want to do". Fixe the immigration probably by cutting off the flood of ILLEGALS and you'll see MW move up was pool of workers declines.

No, sir. MW hasn't moved because of the gridlock in Washington...same as universal background checks, which enjoy wide popularity.

(02-25-2015 08:10 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 07:46 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  The problem I see w/ everything involving military budget cuts is that we can cut military spending w/out hurting our readiness. For one, we can cut out unneeded bases in places like Germany, Italy, Spain, and so on. Second, lets cut out the money that's completely being lost, or not even spent at all. On Sept 10th 2001, there was a report regarding millions/billions of dollars that's completely being lost and not spent at all. Third point, lets cut out some of these admin jobs. I forgot the link, but I read a report that stated that nearly a third (if not more) of the military budget goes towards admin.

As for social programs and minimum wage: I'd much prefer to see programs that would get low skilled workers the skill to be become skilled workers IE, provide grants at tech schools to help people become carpenters, plumbers, electricians, and so on. If we're going to invest money into people, you might as well create tax revenue to pay off these debts as opposed to the wealth redistribution we're seeing today. If people that rely on minimum wage jobs don't utilize these benefits that equals 0 social programs for them to fall back on.

I'm not opposed to any of this, though I think raising the minimum wage regionally and tying it to inflation is something that is long overdue, also.

It would have to be the same inflation measure used to increase Social Security which typically runs less than 2% per year, and in many years less than 1% which means increases between 7 and 15 cents most years, certainly not enough to lift those trying to live on minimum wage jobs. Bottom line minimum wage isn't intended to be a path to a living wage, it's supposed to protect entry level workers get a fair wage for their first job. America has a bigger problem if we think middle class jobs involve saying you want fries with that, or paper or plastic.

Maybe we can have the Kochs open their checkbook. They can afford it.

This is just one more parallel to the Carter Administration, 1977-81.

(02-26-2015 10:05 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 06:25 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 02:58 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  10.10 is the only political plan I've seen outlined...not 15

either way, the MW hasn't moved in 5 years, and 7.25 is too low IMHO.

Minimum wage hasn't moved because of the law of supply and demand. The supply of unskilled minimum wage workers has dramatically increased due to the flood of illegals that "will do the work Americans don't want to do". Fixe the immigration probably by cutting off the flood of ILLEGALS and you'll see MW move up was pool of workers declines.

No, sir. MW hasn't moved because of the gridlock in Washington...same as universal background checks, which enjoy wide popularity.

How long do you think entry level workers stay at min. wage?