Army to cut more Brigade Combat Teams, reorganization coming as it loses another 40K

#79
#79
YorkVol said:
It's the wrong way to save money, imo. We need to shut down bases, look hard at all procurement programs and cut fat everywhere except the maneuver brigades. We also need to look across the federal budget for spending cuts--too often defense spending is the first to be cut without regard to the effects, while other spending remains untouched.
Click to expand...

Probably a better approach. I think we've past the point of doing what's best and are at the point of doing something...anything.
 
#83
#83
Obsessed said:
I tried to do the math on a Arkansas calculator, it started smoking.
Click to expand...

Colossal error on my part.

Staggering to think of our deficit... if we paid 700 million a month, how many years to pay off 18 trillion?
 
#88
#88
Grand Vol said:
Fine, how about matching cuts in every federal agency and not just the DoD as York stated.

I'm pretty sure cutting the IRS and EPA isn't going to affect our national security unlike what Obama thinks.
Click to expand...


Like Margaret Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people's money. I'm not losing sleep on the budget as much nowadays because I know that we don't have many more opportunities to kick the can down the road. We are going to be forced to limit govt spending one way or the other. And those cuts will be across the board and deep. I've given up on democratic way of turning this thing around. At this point, it just needs to collapse under its own weight. That's why I am all in on Hillary Clinton next year.
 
Last edited:
#90
#90
McDad said:
Colossal error on my part.

Staggering to think of our deficit... if we paid 700 million a month, how many years to pay off 18 trillion?
Click to expand...

That has been my whole point about the student loan debt. We aren't gonna pay back $18 trillion. May as well forgive the kids of their student loan debt and throw that $1.3 trillion on top of that. What... is an $18 trillion debt more manageable than a $19.3 trillion debt? Guess what, $1.3 trillion won't mean diddly-squat when the interests rates eventually go up and we are on the hook for $1 trillion of interest on the debt every month.
 
#91
#91
Grand Vol said:
Not always the case. If the spouses are in governement employ, they go as well. Or in a related business off base that's forced to scale back because of the cuts. You assume that just because they are employed they won't be affected. Which is a nice segue into the infrastructure comment.

The bases aren't just losing the troops. They also lose the local businesses that support those troops. I. E. The McDonald's they eat at for lunch, the Quickie Mart they gas up at, the local bars and taverns they patronize. That kind of infrastructure. And that's going to hit the local economies as well.

Your problem is you don't think on a wide enough scale and think my support is only because I was military. But I tend to have a lot more focus on the big picture than you do with your non-interventionist standpoint on the military.
Click to expand...

LOL. So you are worried about the McDonald's in Fort Campbell, KY? That's why we shouldn't scale back the military? Those are your infrastructural concerns? I thought you were relating it to national security.

How is this for a wide enough scale?...there is absolutely no economic justification for maintaining a bloated military.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#92
#92
McDad said:
I can appreciate the boon to a local economy a military installation, or manufacturer of military goods is. However, uncertainty is inherent in any "business". Plants close down forcing employees and spouses to move. Demographics in communities shift causing people to move. The military family and their local economy cannot be immune to the same realities faced by the private sector. If we make military decisions for the health of local economies, we are failing in our purpose to sustain a military force.
Click to expand...

Good points. Every industry has to deal with layoffs. This is because industries become bloated and they need to trim the fat. It's simply correcting itself.

We need to run government like business. You can't be afraid to trim the fat because of short term economic concerns. That's how government becomes so bloated. We need to be willing to face growing pains so that we can...you know...grow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#93
#93
The military of the future is going to be much smaller, technologically advanced, and specialized. From a budget standpoint, more money will be allocated to R&D and less in overhead (standing armies and foreign bases).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#94
#94
n_huffhines said:
Good points. Every industry has to deal with layoffs. This is because industries become bloated and they need to trim the fat. It's simply correcting itself.

We need to run government like business. You can't be afraid to trim the fat because of short term economic concerns. That's how government becomes so bloated. We need to be willing to face growing pains so that we can...you know...grow.
Click to expand...

I agree on the need to run the government like a business. The governments first priority is to protect its citizens.

That said, the military should be the most well funded part of the government.
 
#95
#95
PKT_VOL said:
The military of the future is going to be much smaller, technologically advanced, and specialized. From a budget standpoint, more money will be allocated to R&D and less in overhead (standing armies and foreign bases).
Click to expand...

If only it would work this way.
 
#96
#96
VolStrom said:
I agree on the need to run the government like a business. The governments first priority is to protect its citizens.

That said, the military should be the most well funded part of the government.
Click to expand...

Agree with you on the priority.

Don't necessarily agree that is should be the most well funded. To me, funding is based on need. Need, in terms of military, is determined by threat. The threat to America is minimal based largely on our place on the globe and our bordering countries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#97
#97
McDad said:
Agree with you on the priority.

Don't necessarily agree that is should be the most well funded. To me, funding is based on need. Need, in terms of military, is determined by threat. The threat to America is minimal based largely on our place on the globe and our bordering countries.
Click to expand...

We have vital interests all over the world. We can't sit around waiting until there is a threat to mobilize, training must be constant.
 
#98
#98
n_huffhines said:
LOL. So you are worried about the McDonald's in Fort Campbell, KY? That's why we shouldn't scale back the military? Those are your infrastructural concerns? I thought you were relating it to national security.

How is this for a wide enough scale?...there is absolutely no economic justification for maintaining a bloated military.
Click to expand...

Coming from someone who hasn't served a day in his life, you wouldn't know WTF a bloated military is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#99
#99
n_huffhines said:
LOL. So you are worried about the McDonald's in Fort Campbell, KY? That's why we shouldn't scale back the military? Those are your infrastructural concerns? I thought you were relating it to national security.
Click to expand...

And let me go ahead and address this as well. You made a judgment that military spouses would be perfectly fine in the aftermath of major troop cuts. Not knowing WTF you are talking about, so I attempted to explain it.

You asked about the infrastructure that goes along with troop cuts, so I explained the community economic impacts these things have and have been reported on before. So don't act all douchy when I tried to help you see that 80,000 isn't the accurate number and it's likely four times that. And if over a quarter million additional people out of work and on the ****ing public dole isn't an issue, I don't know what is. You do the math. Either reform the DoD budgets to keep the troops we have and rightly need or accept the fact quite a few will end up going on public assistance.

Having said that to say this, you have no idea what size of a force we need because you haven't seen just how bad it can get. I know you're a pacifist and don't want to see us engaged anywhere, but you should damn well know if I get involved in an economic debate, I have my ducks in a row. Because you should damn well know I don't get involved in said economic debates ever.

The military cannot tolerate more draw downs and still be effective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#100
#100
Grand Vol said:
And let me go ahead and address this as well. You made a judgment that military spouses would be perfectly fine in the aftermath of major troop cuts. Not knowing WTF you are talking about, so I attempted to explain it.

You asked about the infrastructure that goes along with troop cuts, so I explained the community economic impacts these things have and have been reported on before. So don't act all douchy when I tried to help you see that 80,000 isn't the accurate number and it's likely four times that. And if over a quarter million additional people out of work and on the ****ing public dole isn't an issue, I don't know what is. You do the math. Either reform the DoD budgets to keep the troops we have and rightly need or accept the fact quite a few will end up going on public assistance.

Having said that to say this, you have no idea what size of a force we need because you haven't seen just how bad it can get. I know you're a pacifist and don't want to see us engaged anywhere, but you should damn well know if I get involved in an economic debate, I have my ducks in a row. Because you should damn well know I don't get involved in said economic debates ever.

The military cannot tolerate more draw downs and still be effective.
Click to expand...

Based on..? Can we get some evidence? I understand you have experience in the military but I'm not sure you're so qualified to make that truth claim and we should just shut up and take your word for it.

If we can't be effective after cutting back but still spending way more than everyone else, then fire everybody because that reeks of incompetence. Being Team America World Police is far too expensive and simultaneously ineffective to continue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top