A Defense Budget Cut We Can All Agree On

Ok, here's the deal. We can't afford the tanks. The Army doesn't want the tanks. Why are we forcing them to take the tanks?

http://www.businessinsider.com/congr...#ixzz1vuSVxVbV

33 is ok .

What do they want instead?

We need to be cutting everywhere.
It is way past time to bring our troops home.

Here's another one. It's pretty transparent that this sort of aircraft's primary mission is:
1. One we shouldn't be doing.
2. Could easily be re-tasked against us.
3. Would be given like party favors to "friends" like that POS Karzi.

http://defensetech.org/2012/05/07/us...ttack-contest/

How much of the military budget is spent on "humanitarian" missions outside the US? That should all be cut, the Navy for instance isn't supposed to be a "World Force for Good", it's a naval force for US defense, end of story.

The brass has to know in their hearts and minds that aircraft carriers' days of setting off the coast untouchable are pretty much at an end. A carrier task force is an expensive item to build and maintain when it's primary purpose is "showing the flag".

Offshore military bases are an expense with little payback. They represent targets, targets that we lack the naval logistics assets to keep re-supplied in a conflict against a modern foe like the PRC.

I suppose it's a case of our bloated government bureaucracy.

We have too many lobbyists sucking on the government teat.

. . . Maybe we could aim those tanks at the lobbyists and just for good measure take out the old coot while we're at it!

Since when does the military know how better to fight a war than congress.

Fuck it. Shut them down. If we need anything we can get it from China.

I suppose it's a case of our bloated government bureaucracy.

We have too many lobbyists sucking on the government teat.

. . . Maybe we could aim those tanks at the lobbyists and just for good measure take out the old coot while we're at it!



Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

+1

FastGoon, I knew you had an intelligent thought in there somewhere. It must have gotten lonely. Thanks for letting it out!

There should be no increased spending period. If the army doesn't want the tanks, we shouldn't build them. Kind of like when the military said they didn't want to be in the law enforcement business and congress passed and Obama singed NDAA 2012 giving them Marshall law type authority.

It's the economy stupid; it's the economy.

There should be no increased spending period. If the army doesn't want the tanks, we shouldn't build them. Kind of like when the military said they didn't want to be in the law enforcement business and congress passed and Obama singed NDAA 2012 giving them Marshall law type authority.

It's the economy stupid; it's the economy. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

In martial law, the military assumes the roll of the civilian government for a number of reasons. Hence the term "martial" meaning military as opposed to "civil" law meaning civilian.



Here is that power grab that cog is worried about. It already came and went and he didn't even notice.

The National Guard is an exception, since unless federalized, they are under the control of state governors.[14] This was changed briefly: Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122), was signed by President Bush on October 17, 2006, and allowed the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities. Title V, Subtitle B, Part II, Section 525(a) of the JWDAA of 2007 reads "The [military] Secretary [of the Army, Navy or Air Force] concerned may order a member of a reserve component under the Secretary's jurisdiction to active duty...The training or duty ordered to be performed...may include...support of operations or missions undertaken by the member's unit at the request of the President or Secretary of Defense."[15] The President signed the Defense Authorization Act of 2008 on January 13, 2008. However, Section 1068 in the enacted 2008 defense authorization bill (H.R. 4986: "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008") repealed this section of PL 109-364.[16]

Wrong, Munchie. It was the NDAA of 2011, Section 1021, that gave the President the authority to indefinitely detain anyone he wants to with no judicial review. That section has since been found unconstitutional by a clear thinking federal judge, coincidentally, appointed by President Obama. Since that time, Congress has re-authorized the offending section yet again, in the NDAA of 2012. Their bi-partisan attempts at tyranny are truly disturbing.

God Bless Reps. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and Justin Amash (R-Mich.) for their attempt to thwart tyranny and stand for freedom.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1525659.html

Wrong, Munchie. It was the NDAA of 2011, Section 1021, that gave the President the authority to indefinitely detain anyone he wants to with no judicial review. That section has since been found unconstitutional by a clear thinking federal judge, coincidentally, appointed by President Obama. Since that time, Congress has re-authorized the offending section yet again, in the NDAA of 2012. Their bi-partisan attempts at tyranny are truly disturbing.

God Bless Reps. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and Justin Amash (R-Mich.) for their attempt to thwart tyranny and stand for freedom.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1525659.html Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Thanks for saving me the trouble.

Iaintlion - +1

Great!

Hold that thought and . . .

. . . Stand real still while that nice tank driver takes aim and lets something else out!

+1

FastGoon, I knew you had an intelligent thought in there somewhere. It must have gotten lonely. Thanks for letting it out!

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Wrong, Munchie. It was the NDAA of 2011, Section 1021, that gave the President the authority to indefinitely detain anyone he wants to with no judicial review. That section has since been found unconstitutional by a clear thinking federal judge, coincidentally, appointed by President Obama. Since that time, Congress has re-authorized the offending section yet again, in the NDAA of 2012. Their bi-partisan attempts at tyranny are truly disturbing.

God Bless Reps. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and Justin Amash (R-Mich.) for their attempt to thwart tyranny and stand for freedom.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1525659.html Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

wtf does any of that have to do with wasteful spending?

I don't believe much in the media when it comes to defence spending.

As an example, we see headlines that such and such a war is costing the US x billions per day.

My question is: where is this money going? Is it to accommodate, and arm the troops? In which case will they be dismissed and arms destroyed when the war is over? If not, then what is the incremental cost of the war, and where is it going?

My second question is: money goes around in circles, so if the defence budget is xx billion, this goes to (a) troops who buy stuff and pay taxes (b) contractors who employ people who buy stuff and pay taxes. So if the defence budget is cut, what is the collateral damage?

Now, if a significant percentage of the defence budget is spent on purchasing arms from abroad, then that is 'lost money', or is it? Surely encouraging good industry and relationships with foreign powers is to be commended? So the money is not lost, it is an investment into a political future.

So when I look into the story, the defence don;t want it, but congress has bigger concerns, they are worried about shutting down a factory, loosing jobs, and all the damage caused by it, of which the military do not give a damn (they probably do, but it is not in their remit).

It's like any big company, the troops can;t always see the bigger picture.

Now, having said all that, I am a strong believer in providing goods and services that people want, and not supporting a dead duck.

So in conclusion, I wouldn't cut the defence budget, but I would reorganise it so that new investments are made, new innovative companies encouraged, and dead wood burnt. Plus make a few ginormous contracts with UK suppliers!

p.s. I drove with my family past Fort Hood ? (just past Waco), my son saw the helicopters, and said his friend's dad was CEO of the British company which makes them (which paid for his son's school fees). Same way, when I go to Dharhan I see all the US fighters being used to train Saudi pilots (am I out of date on this one?, not sure how much military equipment Saudi buys from US, I know France and UK fights like cats and dogs over contracts, and nobody plays clean).

Now here's a thought - why doesn't that nice company making these tanks which the US army says they don;t want, export them to some foreign friendly power, like Pakistan, keep the employees happy and provide some export revenue?