1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

our military may be disbanded

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by slic lee, Aug 5, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. slic lee

    slic lee Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,025
    Location:
    Miami Beach florida
    I heard on Fox news yesterday they were speaking about cuts to the military, Panetta said since 1990 54% of the entire military has been cut, now your going to cut 50% off the budget, how is the military to protect the US in case of a war against us if you keep cutting the budget, a female voice, head of homeland,said, "that is not the military's job, but the job of homeland security".
     
  2. Barrelbulge(Fl)

    Barrelbulge(Fl) Banned User Banned TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2007
    Messages:
    11,666
    Location:
    West Central Florida
    Then what is our militaries function? Bulge.
     
  3. Bill Bauer

    Bill Bauer TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    86
    Sounds fair to me. Bring our troops home and send over Homeland Security and let's see how that goes.
    Bill
     
  4. BT99

    BT99 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    162
    If that is the job of homeland security, you better stockpile ammo to take of yourself. I don't think they could secure the lettuce patch from a rabbit.
     
  5. capulona

    capulona TS Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Messages:
    341
    Stockpiling all the guns and ammo you can find is not gonna help you. The next war will be fought on the economic, cultural and social fronts, where intellect and intelligence matters.
     
  6. dmarbell

    dmarbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,572
    It's kind of hard to understand what Panetta means. The entire military budget in 1990 was $299 billion. In 2010, it was $694 billion and the 2011 estimate is $768. (These numbers are from the OMB web site. www.omb.gov )

    That's an average growth rate of 4.8% since 1990. The average growth rate since 1999 has been 8.9% (I assume the two wars are in these numbers, hard to tell from the OMB spreadsheets.)

    Here is what a cut in the budget is defined as. If you are spending $100, and request an increase to $110, that's an increase of 10%. If the budget actually approved is $105, that's a 5% increase. But, it's a 50% cut to the budget as proposed.

    Those are the kinds of "cuts" the Congress and Obama just passed. Cuts in the future growth of spending.

    Danny
     
  7. mrskeet410

    mrskeet410 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,064
    This is what Fox News wrote
     
  8. mrskeet410

    mrskeet410 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,064
    And this.
     
  9. mrskeet410

    mrskeet410 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,064
    And this.

    I don't see anything of the magnitude that slic claims.
     
  10. g7777777

    g7777777 TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,353
    Do you think the money spent in the military budget just vanishes?

    Even a bomb- which is disposed of in one drop was made somewhere in the US- it employed US workers , was delivered on a US airplane by US Servicemembers

    If the civilian leadership wants to do away with the military they can. That is the way it is here.

    On the other hand, during the interim, you are putting the slimmed down force comprised of our young men and women in harms way.

    Clinton did this in Africa. He cut the force in half and then realized he had no way to project power. Clinton also didnt want to be seen as warlike so wanted to disquise missions as humanitarian in nature.

    Read the book Blackhawk down

    Regards from Iowa

    Gene
     
  11. dmarbell

    dmarbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,572
    Gene,

    It's good to see that someone understands just a bit about macroeconomics. However, what else could the money those bombs cost be spent on? We could reduce it all ad nauseum. Let me reduce it from the ridiculous to the sublime.

    Feed the Children says you can feed a hungry child for $30 a month. A trillion dollars could feed almost 278 million hungry folks for 10 years, at that rate.

    It's enough to make you go insane if you think about it long enough.

    Danny
     
  12. Big Heap

    Big Heap TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,748
    There goes the Boeing Tanker deal. Keep using the 40+ year-old tankers with another rebuild?

    If politics were replaced with practical needs the military will be just fine. We are reminded of the $45,000,000 Coast Guard ship Sen. Patty Murrey slipped through to save the jobs of 90 constituants. The ship is now tied to the dock because none of the services want it - nor maybe never did.
     
  13. davidjayuden

    davidjayuden Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Messages:
    1,016
    Me thinks that Obama has Leon out there railing against any cuts in Gov't. spending, politics pure and simple. If Leon was really concerned, he would have made a peep when his buddy Bill really did cut the military.
    Mention reducing the fed. budget and you see all the alarmists out whipping up the retirees, etc.
    Personally I think that the military could use an across the board 6% cut, just like the rest of the federal govt. Then end base-line budgeting and start fresh each year, adding or subtracting as needed. And if the head of an agancy can't man-up and figure where to trim back 6%, then they ain't much of a manager and need to be replaced.
    Don't even get me started on the EPA...
    dju
     
  14. slic lee

    slic lee Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,025
    Location:
    Miami Beach florida
    marbel and the rest of you libs nice try
    50 % reduction in the MILITARY NOT THE MONEY Il make it easy for you numb nuts, the amount of personnel in the army was cut 50%,
    The amount of ships and personnel in the navy have been cut by 50%, and so on.
    I would rather have more of them, f-22's,aircraft carriers, 100 more tomahawk missles than feed starving anywhere, I dont care who any where else but here, got that, not my money, not my kids money. Donate your money LEE
     
  15. dmarbell

    dmarbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,572
    Lee, screw you. You can't even read your own post. You said cut the budget 50%.

    We have fewer troops, ships and tanks because that is not how we fight wars now. The money is going to increase technology. As I said, the budgets have not been cut, they've gone up steadily since 1990 (on average).

    And yeah, it's easy to tell you don't care about anything but you.

    Danny
     
  16. birdogs

    birdogs TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,775
    The voice was that of Janet Napolitano, head of Homeland Security and one of America's great fools. There are many others and as long as Democrats keep breeding, we will never run out!
     
  17. mrskeet410

    mrskeet410 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,064
    If the Republicans are to be credible, they will need to support a haircut for the military.

    Tea party hasn't seemed to eliminate a haircut for the military as part of a package.

    Too bad Robert Gates has gone. He has demonstrated an ability to give a haircut without cutting off their ears. Panetta may have to give a shorter haircut and I don't know if he can give as good a haircut as Gates.
     
  18. dmarbell

    dmarbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,572
    Lee,

    You said 50% budget in your original post. Make up your mind what you want to discuss.

    From the OMB web site, here is the spending on military personnel from 1990 to the estimate for 2011. It averages an increase of 3.54% per year, even with the declines of the 1990s. It's hard to figure a 50% drop in personnel numbers with this kind of increase in personnel costs. (The amount represents millions of dollars, by the way. 2011 estimate is $157 billion.)

    Danny


    dmarbell_2008_030334.jpg
     
  19. mrskeet410

    mrskeet410 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,064
    Two questions (paraphrased) from Robert Gates in last days as Sec't of Defense -

    Does the USA really need 11 carrier battle groups?

    Should the USA still be paying for the defense of Europe?
     
  20. dmarbell

    dmarbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,572
    Lee said, "I would rather have more of them, f-22's,aircraft carriers, 100 more tomahawk missles than feed starving anywhere, I dont care who any where else but here, got that, not my money, not my kids money. Donate your money LEE"

    And I bet you are a devout Christian, right Lee?

    Danny
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.