Thanks for your sacrifice, for putting your life on hold, for putting your families life on hold, and maybe even losing your life...

COG you have no idea what you're talking about. I was in the last round of military drawdowns and it is not good for the military or our country. They want to save money so who gets kicked out? Not the people who've just started, you have nothing invested yet. No, the people who get the axe are those who've invested 10, 12, 14, and 16 years in the military. You know, the people who can be counted on to get things done and who carry most of the load. People above that generally are untouchable and get to retire. Speaking of retirement, those people being kicked out get no retirement after all those years of service. The last time they got a serverance package worth pennies on the dollar but no compensation for the best years of their lives. In the 1990s the military was hollowed out this way. You had a bunch of young people at the bottom looking for guidance and the ones at the top looking forward to retirement and other endeavors.

This is another thank you from Obama to the United States. He is hollowing out our military when the world is becoming a more dangerous place thanks to his policies. At least in the 1990s the newly minted civilians only had to deal with a real unemployment rate of about 7% instead of over 10%. They will move on with their lives and make new commitments. They will not be available when the shit hits the fan again.

Maybe you don't like the military or think that we spend too much on our military but it is the only government entity that really works. Like any democratic politician, Obama is going to cut from the meat that gives us the most for our money and will cause the most pain. It is their way of blackmailing the country, or in this case paying back the country for budget cuts. Go back and look at what Carter did and what Clinton did to our military when they both did the same things.

COG you have no idea what you're talking about. I was in the last round of military drawdowns and it is not good for the military or our country. They want to save money so who gets kicked out? Not the people who've just started, you have nothing invested yet. No, the people who get the axe are those who've invested 10, 12, 14, and 16 years in the military. You know, the people who can be counted on to get things done and who carry most of the load. People above that generally are untouchable and get to retire. Speaking of retirement, those people being kicked out get no retirement after all those years of service. The last time they got a serverance package worth pennies on the dollar but no compensation for the best years of their lives. In the 1990s the military was hollowed out this way. You had a bunch of young people at the bottom looking for guidance and the ones at the top looking forward to retirement and other endeavors.

This is another thank you from Obama to the United States. He is hollowing out our military when the world is becoming a more dangerous place thanks to his policies. At least in the 1990s the newly minted civilians only had to deal with a real unemployment rate of about 7% instead of over 10%. They will move on with their lives and make new commitments. They will not be available when the shit hits the fan again.

Maybe you don't like the military or think that we spend too much on our military but it is the only government entity that really works. Like any democratic politician, Obama is going to cut from the meat that gives us the most for our money and will cause the most pain. It is their way of blackmailing the country, or in this case paying back the country for budget cuts. Go back and look at what Carter did and what Clinton did to our military when they both did the same things. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Oh JD, you goddamn fool. Where to begin. Firstly, only 17 percent of members ever serve 20 and are even eligible for retirement benefits in the first place. And your statement about those getting kicked out not getting retirement is disingenuous at best. You have to serve 20 years to become eligible for retirement. I've just told you that only 17 percent of members EVER do that anyway, so your contention that we are somehow doing them a disservice is simply not based on factual information or reality. The truth is they probably wouldn't be in the military long enough to qualify for retirement anyway.

https://www.usaa.com/inet/wc/advice-...kredirect=true

Go look at our military spending over the last 30 years and find a point where there was a significant reduction of any kind. You talk about democrats and cutting spending, but the truth is that military spending has not been greatly reduced at any point in that time period. Your entire post is misguided and factually incorrect.

If it's true that vets with "10, 12, 14 and 16" years, and who are planning to put in 20, are a part of the cutback, I have a problem with it. You got a cite for that proposition?

Oh, and something that supports the assertion that Obama directly influenced this action? Wouldn't it be the Department of Defense and, I dunno....Republican Chuck Hagel, who made the decisions about these cutbacks years ago?

COG you have no idea what you're talking about. I was in the last round of military drawdowns and it is not good for the military or our country. They want to save money so who gets kicked out? Not the people who've just started, you have nothing invested yet. No, the people who get the axe are those who've invested 10, 12, 14, and 16 years in the military. You know, the people who can be counted on to get things done and who carry most of the load. People above that generally are untouchable and get to retire. Speaking of retirement, those people being kicked out get no retirement after all those years of service. The last time they got a serverance package worth pennies on the dollar but no compensation for the best years of their lives. In the 1990s the military was hollowed out this way. You had a bunch of young people at the bottom looking for guidance and the ones at the top looking forward to retirement and other endeavors.

This is another thank you from Obama to the United States. He is hollowing out our military when the world is becoming a more dangerous place thanks to his policies. At least in the 1990s the newly minted civilians only had to deal with a real unemployment rate of about 7% instead of over 10%. They will move on with their lives and make new commitments. They will not be available when the shit hits the fan again.

Maybe you don't like the military or think that we spend too much on our military but it is the only government entity that really works. Like any democratic politician, Obama is going to cut from the meat that gives us the most for our money and will cause the most pain. It is their way of blackmailing the country, or in this case paying back the country for budget cuts. Go back and look at what Carter did and what Clinton did to our military when they both did the same things. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I feel sorry for some of the people involved but we just can't afford the huge military expenditures and the overseas adventures. Many of our best countrymen waste their lives killing defenseless camel jockey ragheads, and then their fellow countrymen understandably want to kill us for revenge - and for what?

Just what COG said - to line the pockets of defense contractors - although many good people work for them, also.

All of those people could work in productive civilian industries here in the United States, create wonderful new products, and pay taxes derived from private enterprise, not government bloat.

And, COG is exactly right. The next thing we ought to do is to start trimming fat off of the defense budget. I can't go look right now, but I believe I read the other day that we spend more money on defense than the next ten highest spending countries...combined? It's ridiculous.

I also read the other day that a 40 year old F16 waxed an F35, the new version do-all plane that has cost $1,500,000,000.00 to develop. http://www.cnbc.com/id/ Each copy of that plane costs mind-boggling amounts of money.

>>>>>A single Air Force F-35A costs a whopping $148 million. One Marine Corps F-35B costs an unbelievable $251 million. A lone Navy F-35C costs a mind-boggling $337 million. Average the three models together, and a 'generic' F-35 costs $178 million," <<<<<

This is insane. $337,000,000 for a single aircraft? That apparently is unable to prevail in a dog-fight with a F16....designed in the 1970's? $1.5 trillion dollars later? Insane.

That was my thought. It's just easier for white folks to lump all of something together, so they don't get confused. You know, like the &quot;n&quot; word.

Wouldn't want to acknowledge the individuality of anyone, regardless of culture. Of course this is the very goal of the oligarchs who rule Wall St and somehow avoid incarceration despite their continued criminal activity. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Speaking of the "n" word: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFBtkAqlCFg

I feel sorry for some of the people involved but we just can't afford the huge military expenditures and the overseas adventures. Many of our best countrymen waste their lives killing defenseless camel jockey ragheads, and then their fellow countrymen understandably want to kill us for revenge - and for what?

Just what COG said - to line the pockets of defense contractors - although many good people work for them, also.

All of those people could work in productive civilian industries here in the United States, create wonderful new products, and pay taxes derived from private enterprise, not government bloat. Originally Posted by DSK

And, COG is exactly right. The next thing we ought to do is to start trimming fat off of the defense budget. I can't go look right now, but I believe I read the other day that we spend more money on defense than the next ten highest spending countries...combined? It's ridiculous.

I also read the other day that a 40 year old F16 waxed an F35, the new version do-all plane that has cost $1,500,000,000.00 to develop. http://www.cnbc.com/id/ Each copy of that plane costs mind-boggling amounts of money.

>>>>>A single Air Force F-35A costs a whopping $148 million. One Marine Corps F-35B costs an unbelievable $251 million. A lone Navy F-35C costs a mind-boggling $337 million. Average the three models together, and a 'generic' F-35 costs $178 million," <<<<<

This is insane. $337,000,000 for a single aircraft? That apparently is unable to prevail in a dog-fight with a F16....designed in the 1970's? $1.5 trillion dollars later? Insane. Originally Posted by timpage

The insane amount of waste is fucking infuriating. I saw that article and I don't know what to make of it. Was the F16 well ahead of its time and just that good or is the F35 just a complete waste of money. Probably a bit of both. The fact that over a trillion dollars has been spent and it can't soundly defeat a 40-year old plane is beyond explanation or excuse. It's a failure.

The insane amount of waste is fucking infuriating. I saw that article and I don't know what to make of it. Was the F16 well ahead of its time and just that good or is the F35 just a complete waste of money. Probably a bit of both. The fact that over a trillion dollars has been spent and it can't soundly defeat a 40-year old plane is beyond explanation or excuse. It's a failure. Originally Posted by WombRaider

People like JD are the problem. They want to government spending , just not on their favorite programs! That is the spending problem in a nutshell. Until folks like JD start understanding that Catch 22 nothing will ever change.

And, COG is exactly right. The next thing we ought to do is to start trimming fat off of the defense budget. I can't go look right now, but I believe I read the other day that we spend more money on defense than the next ten highest spending countries...combined? It's ridiculous.

I also read the other day that a 40 year old F16 waxed an F35, the new version do-all plane that has cost $1,500,000,000.00 to develop. http://www.cnbc.com/id/ Each copy of that plane costs mind-boggling amounts of money.

>>>>>A single Air Force F-35A costs a whopping $148 million. One Marine Corps F-35B costs an unbelievable $251 million. A lone Navy F-35C costs a mind-boggling $337 million. Average the three models together, and a 'generic' F-35 costs $178 million," <<<<<

This is insane. $337,000,000 for a single aircraft? That apparently is unable to prevail in a dog-fight with a F16....designed in the 1970's? $1.5 trillion dollars later? Insane. Originally Posted by timpage

You just stepped into some truth. We are spending entirely too much on marginally better equipment but this cut is coming in manpower. It costs more, and takes longer to train a competent soldier than it does to provide new equipment. You need a pilot for an F-16 that is sitting on the tarmac, you'll be waiting for several months to get him or her. Roll out a main battle tank, park it, and wait six months for a crew to man it.

My place was the navy, we're spending so much money on just a few ships that offensively really great...on paper but are really weak on defense. A ship should be able to take a hit and come back to fight. We are so undermanned on ships today that one good hit (missile, gun, mine, or torpedo) will take them out of a fighting force.

The personnel is NOT the place to make cuts. You ask a veteran how long it takes to take a civilian and turn them into a competent infantryman. We're talking six months after you include basic, AIT, and their speciality training. Infantryman is about as basic as you can get. A navy electrician's mate requires basic (8 weeks), BE/E (4-8 weeks, self paced), "A" school (8 weeks) and when they arrive on the ship another 4-8 weeks to qualify and they are still green. That is 8 months before you have an electrician who can do some things but who still hasn't learned any advanced first aid, advanced fire fighting, advanced flooding, or NBC warfare.

Unlike the most of you I have been there. I was there in 1992 when we had our earlier military cutback. You want a citation? I stood there and listened to man after man telling the personnelman that they had 12 years, 14 years, 10 years, 16 years in the service. I don't think I heard one single person say anything under 10 years.

Face it shitheads, I'm the expert here on this topic.

Face it shitheads, I'm the expert here on this topic. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You just stepped into some truth. We are spending entirely too much on marginally better equipment but this cut is coming in manpower. It costs more, and takes longer to train a competent soldier than it does to provide new equipment. You need a pilot for an F-16 that is sitting on the tarmac, you'll be waiting for several months to get him or her. Roll out a main battle tank, park it, and wait six months for a crew to man it.

My place was the navy, we're spending so much money on just a few ships that offensively really great...on paper but are really weak on defense. A ship should be able to take a hit and come back to fight. We are so undermanned on ships today that one good hit (missile, gun, mine, or torpedo) will take them out of a fighting force.

The personnel is NOT the place to make cuts. You ask a veteran how long it takes to take a civilian and turn them into a competent infantryman. We're talking six months after you include basic, AIT, and their speciality training. Infantryman is about as basic as you can get. A navy electrician's mate requires basic (8 weeks), BE/E (4-8 weeks, self paced), "A" school (8 weeks) and when they arrive on the ship another 4-8 weeks to qualify and they are still green. That is 8 months before you have an electrician who can do some things but who still hasn't learned any advanced first aid, advanced fire fighting, advanced flooding, or NBC warfare.

Unlike the most of you I have been there. I was there in 1992 when we had our earlier military cutback. You want a citation? I stood there and listened to man after man telling the personnelman that they had 12 years, 14 years, 10 years, 16 years in the service. I don't think I heard one single person say anything under 10 years.

Face it shitheads, I'm the expert here on this topic. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You are the expert at other guys' JUNK!

That is the only claim of yours I believe, JDrunk!

And, COG is exactly right. The next thing we ought to do is to start trimming fat off of the defense budget. I can't go look right now, but I believe I read the other day that we spend more money on defense than the next ten highest spending countries...combined? It's ridiculous.

None of the countries advertise their REAL defense spending, including the US. But we come a lot closer. For example, look at the Chinese buildup for the past decade, and look at their advertised numbers. They are not even close to reality.

I also read the other day that a 40 year old F16 waxed an F35, the new version do-all plane that has cost $1,500,000,000.00 to develop. http://www.cnbc.com/id/ Each copy of that plane costs mind-boggling amounts of money.

Let me set the rules and I can make any fighter the champ. The F-35 is not a dogfight airplane. The entire premise of 5th gen fighters is to not be seen, find the target, and kill the target before it knows you are there. A F-16/F-35 dogfight "test" is equivalent to asking a sumo wrestler to run a sprint against a 10 year old and then say it proves that the 10 year old would win a real fight between the two of them.

>>>>>A single Air Force F-35A costs a whopping $148 million. One Marine Corps F-35B costs an unbelievable $251 million. A lone Navy F-35C costs a mind-boggling $337 million. Average the three models together, and a 'generic' F-35 costs $178 million," <<<<<

This is insane. $337,000,000 for a single aircraft? That apparently is unable to prevail in a dog-fight with a F16....designed in the 1970's? $1.5 trillion dollars later? Insane. Originally Posted by timpage

The F-35 per unit cost is in a death spiral: approve the specs before there is real consensus on what the required capabilities are, decree it will do all things for all Services (and NATO partners) then go on contract for a certain number at a certain price before the technology challenges are worked out. Assume away the really hard stuff (how I am going to get the data to feed this insatiable flying computer), then change the required performance (multiple times--sometimes by the services, sometimes by congress, sometimes by the SECDEF). Watch the cost go up because of the changes, then cut the budget resulting in fewer purchased, which drives the per unit cost up, which drives the buy down, which drives the per unit cost up, which drives the buy down, .....

ANYONE who objectively watched what was going on 20 years ago could have told you where this was going to end. Dems and Reps are both guilty. And it will get worse.