Sunday shows: Republicans to reconfigure US budget cuts

[Darwin333]

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?

So you are for very high deficits for years, and decades, to come?

And out of curiosity, how would another aircraft carrier or a bunch of fancy new warplanes have prevented 9/11? IMO, It wasn't even a lack of intel it was sheer incompetence throughout a couple of our agencies.

 

[Darwin333]

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

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

He was just incorrect on the "what" that they pretend to care about. What he should have said was:

"Typical repubs, they pretend to care about the deficit"

 

[palehorse]

So you are for very high deficits for years, and decades, to come?

Absolutely not. Did I say that?

And out of curiosity, how would another aircraft carrier or a bunch of fancy new warplanes have prevented 9/11? IMO, It wasn't even a lack of intel it was sheer incompetence throughout a couple of our agencies.

I was referring primarily to our lack of properly trained and equipped ground forces that severely hindered our response options and overall effectiveness once we hit the ground -- a direct result of the infamous Clinton defense cuts in the 90's.

We ended up having to spend A LOT of extra money to spin up and meet the new force requirements, and it has taken years to get back to where we need to be.

First clue: the brutal deployment tempo of our unprepared National Guard troops beginning in 2002...

 

[Matt1970]

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.

I agree 100%.

 

[Darwin333]

Absolutely not. Did I say that?

Well, you don't want to cut one of the 4 largest line items in our budget, you didn't say the words but that is the final outcome.

I was referring primarily to our lack of properly trained and equipped ground forces that severely hindered our response options and overall effectiveness once we hit the ground -- a direct result of the infamous Clinton defense cuts in the 90's.

We ended up having to spend A LOT of extra money to spin up and meet the new force requirements, and it has taken years to get back to where we need to be.

First clue: the brutal deployment tempo of our unprepared National Guard troops beginning in 2002...

So if we would have had better trained troops would we have "defeated" terrorism by now? Of course not because you can't defeat something such as terrorism. The wars have made very little impact on the "safety" of the average American.

The clever use of deadbolts and reinforced doors has done more to prevent another 9/11 than all of our .mil actions (except maybe taking out OBL).

 

[First]

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

I know you've quite adequately speculated on it. I'm curious where these cuts are actually delineated in black and white, though, because speculation means little without evidence, even if it's good speculation based on prior cuts.

And let's be real here, the 90's DoD cuts had nothing to do with 9/11, there's simply no record of that. The record quite clearly showed an inability of different agencies to coordinate their intelligence with each other quickly and efficiently. This is not something that required a doubling of the U.S. DoD budget.

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.

I get your line of reasoning. Let me put it this way; WWII was a War, capital W, and Libya has been some minuscule form of war (if you want to call it that). It's just misleading because the magnitudes are entirely different and the U.S. hasn't deployed any ground troops AFAIK.

 

[Throckmorton]

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.

Huh? So what's going to happen to Grandma? Nursing homes will become free?

 

[Jhhnn]

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?

That's completely inaccurate. We had the largest military machine in the world on 9/11, which did us no good at all, because terrorism is specifically designed to thwart such defenses.

Lack of preparedness? Hell, The US launched attacks on the Taliban military beginning on Oct7, 2001, less than a month after 9/11, and had crushed it in a matter of weeks.

Save the revisionist history.

We still put out ~ half of the world's total military spending, and would remain the world's sole superpower spending half of that with intelligent reductions. Nobody else even comes close.

 

[cybrsage]

I was referring primarily to our lack of properly trained and equipped ground forces that severely hindered our response options and overall effectiveness once we hit the ground -- a direct result of the infamous Clinton defense cuts in the 90's.

We ended up having to spend A LOT of extra money to spin up and meet the new force requirements, and it has taken years to get back to where we need to be.

First clue: the brutal deployment tempo of our unprepared National Guard troops beginning in 2002...

I left the Navy in 1995...so I got to see the drawdowns first hand. Repair parts started getting harder and hard to get. We were told to try and make things work with what we had rather than get the actual part we needed.

Sure, for some things that is fine...for a nuclear submarine, not such a good idea.

 

[cybrsage]

We still put out ~ half of the world's total military spending, and would remain the world's sole superpower spending half of that with intelligent reductions. Nobody else even comes close.

Agreed. Once the war in Afghanistan winds down we can do just that.

 

[palehorse]

Well, you don't want to cut one of the 4 largest line items in our budget, you didn't say the words but that is the final outcome.

So if we would have had better trained troops would we have "defeated" terrorism by now? Of course not because you can't defeat something such as terrorism. The wars have made very little impact on the "safety" of the average American.

The clever use of deadbolts and reinforced doors has done more to prevent another 9/11 than all of our .mil actions (except maybe taking out OBL).

That's just... bullshit.

 

[palehorse]

I know you've quite adequately speculated on it. I'm curious where these cuts are actually delineated in black and white, though, because speculation means little without evidence, even if it's good speculation based on prior cuts.

you'd have to get with the SecDef for the evidence. I spent three months at the Pentagon last year helping one particular Under-Secretary identify "efficiencies" and prepare the FYDP budget; so I, unfortunately, became intimate with the entire high-level budget process. (it was f'n crazy! never again! lol)

Sadly, I cannot (or, "will not") provide you with the specific data you need.

And let's be real here, the 90's DoD cuts had nothing to do with 9/11, there's simply no record of that. The record quite clearly showed an inability of different agencies to coordinate their intelligence with each other quickly and efficiently. This is not something that required a doubling of the U.S. DoD budget.

At no point did I mean to infer/imply that the cuts led to 9/11. I was referring to the repercussions of those cuts that we felt during the first few years of our response.

 

[First]

you'd have to get with the SecDef for the evidence. I spent three months at the Pentagon last year helping one particular Under-Secretary identify "efficiencies" and prepare the FYDP budget; so I, unfortunately, became intimate with the entire high-level budget process. (it was f'n crazy! never again! lol)

Sadly, I cannot (or, "will not") provide you with the specific data you need.

That would be unfortunate if there is direct impact on Afghanistan, unless there's some tweaking of the mission between now and January 2013 that would smooth the transition away from war in that country so as to not harm the troops.

At no point did I mean to infer/imply that the cuts led to 9/11. I was referring to the repercussions of those cuts that we felt during the first few years of our response.

Ah yes you did, my mistake.