Sunday shows: Republicans to reconfigure US budget cuts

[cybrsage]

Not, it is "troops without adequate funding cannot effectively wage war" argument. Seriuosly, if the budget is cut, which do you think will have its funding reduced? High priced weapons system development or repairs to barracks?

 

[zsdersw]

Not, it is "troops without adequate funding cannot effectively wage war" argument.

That doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

Seriuosly, if the budget is cut, which do you think will have its funding reduced? High priced weapons system development or repairs to barracks?

Public pressure will be heavily for cutting the former and totally against cutting the latter.

Even with our current military budget there were problems in the Iraq/Afghanistan wars with troops not having adequate body armor... so your argument that we need current levels of military spending to ensure troop preparedness/effectiveness is, well, totally not supported by facts.

 

[cybrsage]

That doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

Yes, in fact it does.

Public pressure will be heavily for cutting the former and totally against cutting the latter.

You have obviously never been in the military during budget reductions.

Even with our current military budget there were problems in the Iraq/Afghanistan wars with troops not having adequate body armor... so your argument that we need current levels of military spending to ensure troop preparedness/effectiveness is, well, totally not supported by facts.

And yet you want to give them even LESS money.

 

[palehorse]

But won't the needed expense have gone down now that Iraq has been scaled back?

Some of you need to hit Google to study up on "OCO funding"...

Regardless of whether or not the war in Afghanistan itself remains fully funded, the proposed military spending cuts will still harm all of our war efforts. The reason is because cuts will unavoidably affect programs that are the backbone of the contingency ops being run overseas -- servicemember healthcare, training, equipment, education, R&D, etc.

While there are certainly DOD programs that could stand to be canceled and dismantled, that's not how the planned cuts will work. Instead, every commander in the military has been ordered to identify "efficiencies" (the wonderful new pentagon parlance for "cuts"). As a result, every single unit/agency/element in the DOD will feel the impact of the cuts. Subsequently, every soldier -- forward deployed, or not -- will also feel the impact of the cuts.

AFAIC, the entire Government should be using the same process to cut spending: rather than identifying "efficiencies" across the board, they should be taking long/hard looks at disbanding entire programs and eliminating entire agencies/elements.

The DOD should also consider growing our SOF numbers (by a factor of 10, or more), while simultaneously disbanding entire brigades/bases for conventional troops.

/rambling off

 

[zsdersw]

Yes, in fact it does.

No it doesn't. You haven't presented any "facts" to claim anything is "in fact".

And yet you want to give them even LESS money.

They magically got their armor without getting more money... hmm, I wonder how that happened? Probably because someone decided to fix their spending priorities.

The military has plenty of money; they just need to spend it better.

 

[cybrsage]

No it doesn't. You haven't presented any "facts" to claim anything is "in fact".

Yes, it does. And my facts are equal to yours.

They magically got their armor without getting more money... hmm, I wonder how that happened? Probably because someone decided to fix their spending priorities.

And yet people want to reduce the money they have for such things. Brilliant!

The military has plenty of money; they just need to spend it better.

Reality called, they want you to return.

Again, which do you think will see the cuts? Expensive weapons systems or barracks repairs?

 

[cybrsage]

Some of you need to hit Google to study up on "OCO funding"...

Regardless of whether or not the war in Afghanistan itself remains fully funded, the proposed military spending cuts will still harm all of our war efforts. The reason is because cuts will unavoidably affect programs that are the backbone of the contingency ops being run overseas -- servicemember healthcare, training, equipment, education, R&D, etc.

While there are certainly DOD programs that could stand to be canceled and dismantled, that's not how the planned cuts will work. Instead, every commander in the military has been ordered to identify "efficiencies" (the wonderful new pentagon parlance for "cuts"). As a result, every single unit/agency/element in the DOD will feel the impact of the cuts. Subsequently, every soldier -- forward deployed, or not -- will also feel the impact of the cuts.

AFAIC, the entire Government should be using the same process to cut spending: rather than identifying "efficiencies" across the board, they should be taking long/hard looks at disbanding entire programs and eliminating entire agencies/elements.

The DOD should also consider growing our SOF numbers (by a factor of 10, or more), while simultaneously disbanding entire brigades/bases for conventional troops.

/rambling off

Agreed.

 

[zsdersw]

Some of you need to hit Google to study up on "OCO funding"...

Regardless of whether or not the war in Afghanistan itself remains fully funded, the proposed military spending cuts will still harm all of our war efforts. The reason is because cuts will unavoidably affect programs that are the backbone of the contingency ops being run overseas -- servicemember healthcare, training, equipment, education, R&D, etc.

While there are certainly DOD programs that could stand to be canceled and dismantled, that's not how the planned cuts will work. Instead, every commander in the military has been ordered to identify "efficiencies" (the wonderful new pentagon parlance for "cuts"). As a result, every single unit/agency/element in the DOD will feel the impact of the cuts. Subsequently, every soldier -- forward deployed, or not -- will also feel the impact of the cuts.

AFAIC, the entire Government should be using the same process to cut spending: rather than identifying "efficiencies" across the board, they should be taking long/hard looks at disbanding entire programs and eliminating entire agencies/elements.

The DOD should also consider growing our SOF numbers (by a factor of 10, or more), while simultaneously disbanding entire brigades/bases for conventional troops.

/rambling off

That's an argument for a better process of cutting (which there's always a better way).

The argument of some in this thread is that there shouldn't be cuts at all until some mythical "when the war is done" date.

 

[WelshBloke]

Some of you need to hit Google to study up on "OCO funding"...

Regardless of whether or not the war in Afghanistan itself remains fully funded, the proposed military spending cuts will still harm all of our war efforts. The reason is because cuts will unavoidably affect programs that are the backbone of the contingency ops being run overseas -- servicemember healthcare, training, equipment, education, R&D, etc.

While there are certainly DOD programs that could stand to be canceled and dismantled, that's not how the planned cuts will work. Instead, every commander in the military has been ordered to identify "efficiencies" (the wonderful new pentagon parlance for "cuts"). As a result, every single unit/agency/element in the DOD will feel the impact of the cuts. Subsequently, every soldier -- forward deployed, or not -- will also feel the impact of the cuts.

AFAIC, the entire Government should be using the same process to cut spending: rather than identifying "efficiencies" across the board, they should be taking long/hard looks at disbanding entire programs and eliminating entire agencies/elements.

The DOD should also consider growing our SOF numbers (by a factor of 10, or more), while simultaneously disbanding entire brigades/bases for conventional troops.

/rambling off

So if there's no reason to cut funding now the two big conflicts/wars/whatever's are winding up what was the reason to increase spending in the first place?

 

[soundforbjt]

Typical repubs, they pretend to care about the troops like they "care" about fetus's.

 

[zsdersw]

Yes, it does. And my facts are equal to yours.

No it doesn't. You haven't presented any facts, yet you asserted things were "in fact".

And yet people want to reduce the money they have for such things. Brilliant!

Not necessarily. All it took was some bad press about the body armor to get them to fix their spending priorities.

Reality called, they want you to return.

They want you to return first.

Again, which do you think will see the cuts? Expensive weapons systems or barracks repairs?

Given the level of cuts, I expect that everything will get some form of cut... but the public won't allow or put up with heavy cuts to things that directly affect the troops' preparedness.

 

[zsdersw]

The argument that we shouldn't cut military funding right now because troops will be sent into battle with nothing but buckskins and bear knives is, and remains, as ridiculous as the argument that we shouldn't cut Medicare because grandma will be kicked out of the nursing home and left in a gutter.

Both arguments are bleeding-heart and, as such, should make any critical thinker very skeptical.

The reality is that cuts to both entitlements and military spending have to be made now. Implementing the cuts in a gradual way (as they're certain to do) will make them nowhere near as painful as the hyperbole from both sides would suggest.

 

[palehorse]

So if there's no reason to cut funding now the two big conflicts/wars/whatever's are winding up what was the reason to increase spending in the first place?

Again, look up "OCO funding." You'll learn that the standard DOD budget has little to do with funding the actual ground combat ops around the world -- those things have been primarily covered via OCO funding for the last decade.

The standard DOD budget itself has been steadily increasing in recent years in order to pay for the entire logistical support train, other bases around the world, costs for re-alignments and transformations, vastly improved training, intensified R&D, etc.

Second, it has been increasing to meet SOME needs of the forward-deployed troops that have not been covered, for one reason or another, by OCO funding (professional development schools, healthcare, housing, etc).

Finally, one major reason that the budget has increased so dramatically in just the last two years is because many elements/programs that are currently dependent on OCO funding for their very existence have been trying to convert to standard funding before Congress cuts off OCO funding (next FY?). They (various training programs, technical equipment units, etc) have been trying to establish their own line items in the next budget process so that they don't cease to exist the moment OCO funding disappears (which would be catestrophic for our war efforts).

So, while I agree that there are many units and programs that can and should be completely dismantled, I do NOT believe the total standard DOD budget should be cut at all. As someone else stated above, they really just need to figure out how to better spend what they already have while also planning for the total loss of OCO funding... but, to give them a smaller standard budget while simultaneously cutting off OCO funding? Not a good idea... not good at all.

 

[cybrsage]

No it doesn't. You haven't presented any facts, yet you asserted things were "in fact".

Which makes them at least equal to your rebuttle. Only my statements are based on historical precident and yours are based on....not sure.

Given the level of cuts, I expect that everything will get some form of cut... but the public won't allow or put up with heavy cuts to things that directly affect the troops' preparedness.

The public won't understand enough to know what does and does not effect preparedness.

 

[cybrsage]

The argument that we shouldn't cut military funding right now because troops will be sent into battle with nothing but buckskins and bear knives is, and remains, as ridiculous as the argument that we shouldn't cut Medicare because grandma will be kicked out of the nursing home and left in a gutter.

Both arguments are bleeding-heart and, as such, should make any critical thinker very skeptical.

No, there will always be grandmas. The US will not always be in a large conflict.

 

[zsdersw]

No, there will always be grandmas. The US will not always be in a large conflict.

There will always be a need, according to people like you, to either be in or prepare for a large conflict.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Typical repubs, they pretend to care about the troops like they "care" about fetus's.

They're just 'pretending' to care? Really?

Do you actually believe what you just wrote...or are you just "pretending" to be an idiot?

 

[zsdersw]

Which makes them at least equal to your rebuttle. Only my statements are based on historical precident and yours are based on....not sure.

My statements are based on the military magically getting more body armor for the troops after public pressure forced them to fix their spending priorities. This demonstrates a priorities problem, and budget-cutting definitely forces an examination of priorities.

The public won't understand enough to know what does and does not effect preparedness.

Worked for the body armor, and worked (somewhat) for VA hospitals.

 

[blankslate]

Cutting the budget of the military while they are fighting Obama's two wars is stupid.

Obama started neither war and when he was campaigning he said something like
I don't agree with the Iraq war, however, we know that when we were attacked on 9/11 the planners of that attack were based in Afghanistan.

It seems like what he is doing; winding down the war in Iraq while trying to ensure Afghanistan remains free from groups like Al-Qaeda is pretty much in line with what he was saying on the campaign.

 

[Genx87]

Nothing will be cut, nothing. Once people get past that they can complain about the orchestrated rage both parties created for their own political gain over a self imposed barrier.

 

[First]

They do not need to. He either DID or he DID NOT say he would remove all the combat troops in 18 months. Since we both know he did, you cannot claim he did not.

I have never claimed Obama did not say those words, and you couldn't show I did if your life depended on it. Again your reading comprehension is simply holding you back here.

I dismiss it because Obama did not say "brigade", he said "troops". Very clearly so.

Troops is a distinction without a difference in the context Obama spoke the words and, even if it there were a difference (lmao), Obama campaigned on and said brigade, as well:

http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/ObamaIrqWr.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_foreign_policy

CTRL + F the word brigade for more information. Here I'll even quote some of it for you:

"On July 14, 2008, Obama said he would set a goal of having all U.S. combat brigades out of Iraq by summer 2010 and shift more resources to fighting Taliban in Afghanistan.[83] 'We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months' 'That would be the summer of 2010 -- two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began,' Obama said on July 14, 2008.[84]"

You're wrong and can't win, get over it.

Are you claiming he said brigades when he said troops? We both know he said troops.

He said both. Distinction without a difference. Get over it.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/ObamaIrqWr.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_foreign_policy

You should know the drill by now.

He said he would remove all the combat troops within 18 months. You like to pretend he did not say this, but I posted the video of him saying that exact thing. Even posted the timestamp so you could not claim to be unable to find it.

See above, since you're still confused.

So quickly you forget what you said. I will quote you again:

Care to admit you said it is not a war yet, or are you going to do what you are trying to do with Obama and claim it was never said?

Your reading comprehension is horrid. I never said any of the above quoted nonsense. Libya wasn't a war on the scale of those wars you listed, as I quite clearly stated to you in the following sentence: "Nope, not a war on the level of those wars. Sorry." Those wars being Vietnam, Korea, all the ones you listed.

Ask questions since you're still confused, formerly banned member.

You say the Constitution is wrong with what it calls a war, you also say the dictionary is wrong with what it calls a war. Tell me, what does the "First's Idiotic Guide To Word Meanings" say?

I haven't said any of the things you're claiming. Again, your reading comprehension is poor. Or more likely, you're just trolling and know you can't win an argument based on merit so you'll pretend to be a serious poster. Of course I like berating idiots on the Internet, it's a favorite past time of mine so we'll continue this until you wave the white flag.

Nope, but being wrong is something you are good at. We all play to our strengths, so I suppose I should expect it from you.

So you'll continue to punk out of providing your evidence/links to the triggered DoD cuts negatively affecting the funding for the mission in Afghanistan? OK, I got it, wimp.

 

[palehorse]

There will always be a need, according to people like you, to either be in or prepare for a large conflict.

Are you saying that we should NOT remain well manned, trained, equipped, and otherwise prepared for large conflicts?

Did we not learn anything from the drawdown/cuts in the 90's, and the subsequent lack of preparedness after 9/11?

 

[palehorse]

Nothing will be cut, nothing. Once people get past that they can complain about the orchestrated rage both parties created for their own political gain over a self imposed barrier.

That's not true at all. The DOD has already made cuts and is hastily preparing for a very dramatic loss of both OCO and standard funding in the next FYDP.

It's the 90's all over again...

 

[palehorse]

So you'll continue to punk out of providing your evidence/links to the triggered DoD cuts negatively affecting the funding for the mission in Afghanistan? OK, I got it, wimp.

I've already addressed that aspect of the argument for him.

 

[Darwin333]

The definition of war does not stop and start with Congress. I hate to break it to you, but having Congress declare a war or not is simply not germane to a conversation about the definition of war.

Shrug, he has a point on this one (looks like only this one). When you use your .mil equipment to blow up another countries stuff, especially their .mil equipment, you are committing acts of war. Just because they don't have the ability to shoot back (very well at least) doesn't make it any different.

Back on topic, I find it ironically hilarious that Obama has threatened to veto budget cuts that the Republicans are trying to remove. Basically Obama is on the side of reducing the deficit while the Republicans are on the side of increasing it. Golden!