quote:

ORIGINAL: hlen5

One - with the economy the way it is and many economists saying another stimulus is in order, where do you suggest they carve out 20%?, Defense budget, unemployment benefits?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

Firm, that would mean they actually have to be accountable...what world are you living in?

quote:

ORIGINAL: pogo4pres

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967


That's an easy one...Stop spending money you don't have to spend...Duh

This country could easily cut 20% of the federal budget.

http://prhome.defense.gov/MPP/ACCESSION%20POLICY/PopRep_FY06/pdf/AppendixD.pdf

According to the chart D4 the total number of enlisted personnel has dropped from 405,650 (1973) people to 167,389 (2006)  or in simpler word - even tho they have been fighting on 2 fronts, they are using only 1/4 of the people to do it.   Pretty significant cut to me.   Also, if we take away their technology I am fairly certain that we will have to add back people. 

Try more like one third, just cut the fucking defense programs designed to fight the Soviet bloc circa 1978.  Do we need a more than 2 million soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen combined?  I'm all for cutting spending if we start with the bloated, fetid, and festering defense budget.




Economically,
Some Knucklehead in NJ

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

lol, there is squinting at a gnat at its finest.   Lets lose the 6000 dollar toilet seats and 15000 dollar hammers. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

I think we'd save a lot of fuckin money if we just brought our soldiers home and stopped paying for the reconstruction of Iraq and stop trying to make the Afghanistan people happy with us.

But then again, we have no business being over there at all so making sense would be a poor choice for either party.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: hlen5

One - with the economy the way it is and many economists saying another stimulus is in order, where do you suggest they carve out 20%?, Defense budget, unemployment benefits?

Run the government on zero-based budgeting, not incremental budgeting.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Run the government on zero-based budgeting, not incremental budgeting.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

I think we'd save a lot of fuckin money if we just brought our soldiers home and stopped paying for the reconstruction of Iraq and stop trying to make the Afghanistan people happy with us.

But then again, we have no business being over there at all so making sense would be a poor choice for either party.

Although in some respects I agree with this   what is the cost benefit   is it cheaper to buy them or walk away from them?   I personally don't know.   I would think it would depend on lots of factors like how pissed they were, willingness to allow the talaban to be incharge, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

I think we'd save a lot of fuckin money if we just brought our soldiers home and stopped paying for the reconstruction of Iraq and stop trying to make the Afghanistan people happy with us.

But then again, we have no business being over there at all so making sense would be a poor choice for either party.

Although in some respects I agree with this   what is the cost benefit   is it cheaper to buy them or walk away from them?   I personally don't know.   I would think it would depend on lots of factors like how pissed they were, willingness to allow the talaban to be incharge, etc.

Here's the deal, good military strategy says that if they're helping the enemy or at least not turning them in to us, then they are part of the enemy strategy and should treated as such. Fire bomb the damned hills, tell them if they start shit again, we'll do it again and again until we're not their targets anymore or none of them are left.

I get the reasons behind humanitarian efforts, I don't understand the logic behind humanitarian efforts that benefit our enemies. If we're gonna do that, why not take the shorter process around this shit and just write the enemy a check for the weapons they're gonna use against us?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

So I'm listening to certain Republican "goals"and some I can really jive with. Balance the budget, limit government power, maintain rights under the Constitution....all of this I can really go for.

What I don't get is how Republicans (because Democrats the I can tolerate listening to don't go spouting this stuff) can say they hope to limit government influence and control by deregulating the business sector but at the same turn scream about limiting individuals' rights by being invasive about people's personal business (who they marry, how they fuck, parental planning, etc). I mean, if governmental involvement is required by a societal situation, would impacting major influencing bodies like businesses take less money and less invasive efforts from the government than trying to control what every individual does in their own lives?

Is this like a big picture problem?

I just don't understand the reasoning behind it. I don't want to debate who's right or wrong, I want insight into the logical process that brings Republicans, as a whole, to this conclusion.

boi

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

Biggest problem I ran into was losing stuff (not physically but on paper)   How do you lose a tank?   sheesh

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

I think we'd save a lot of fuckin money if we just brought our soldiers home and stopped paying for the reconstruction of Iraq and stop trying to make the Afghanistan people happy with us.

But then again, we have no business being over there at all so making sense would be a poor choice for either party.

Although in some respects I agree with this   what is the cost benefit   is it cheaper to buy them or walk away from them?   I personally don't know.   I would think it would depend on lots of factors like how pissed they were, willingness to allow the talaban to be incharge, etc.

Here's the deal, good military strategy says that if they're helping the enemy or at least not turning them in to us, then they are part of the enemy strategy and should treated as such. Fire bomb the damned hills, tell them if they start shit again, we'll do it again and again until we're not their targets anymore or none of them are left.

I get the reasons behind humanitarian efforts, I don't understand the logic behind humanitarian efforts that benefit our enemies. If we're gonna do that, why not take the shorter process around this shit and just write the enemy a check for the weapons they're gonna use against us?

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

lol, there is squinting at a gnat at its finest.   Lets lose the 6000 dollar toilet seats and 15000 dollar hammers. 

I keep hearing about those.   I went thru the AMDEF for years and couldn't find them.   Is more likely a data input error someplace.  I have seen that.   I worked in quality control for the 3rd Corps supply system.   Biggest problem I ran into was losing stuff (not physically but on paper)   How do you lose a tank?   sheesh

Something that happened all the time in Europe when I was there.   The stock number difference between a howitzer and a locomotive was one digit.   We did have a locomotive engine in reserve in Europe.   lol   The cannon cockers maintained it.   Poor attention to detail.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DMFParadox

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

Biggest problem I ran into was losing stuff (not physically but on paper)   How do you lose a tank?   sheesh

wait

wat

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

http://prhome.defense.gov/MPP/ACCESSION%20POLICY/PopRep_FY06/pdf/AppendixD.pdf

According to the chart D4 the total number of enlisted personnel has dropped from 405,650 (1973) people to 167,389 (2006)  or in simpler word - even tho they have been fighting on 2 fronts, they are using only 1/4 of the people to do it.   Pretty significant cut to me.   Also, if we take away their technology I am fairly certain that we will have to add back people.