Obama administration asks for 10% military budget cut

[Guest CAVEMAN]

Caveman--- Have you been to Afghanistan? If you have did you open your eyes while over there? I've seen Spain's troops either in Afghanistan, on their way to, or on their way home from Afghanistan as late as October '08, so this is just another reason you can't believe everything you read in the media. I've worked with French and Polish forces as late as October '08 as well. Until you can say things from your personal experience I'd stop posting your opinion as fact.

Easy there Jolly!

I was talking about Iraq not Afghanistan. Thanks for your service to this great nation, we appreciate the work you do.

[Guest Hueypilot812]

Cave-

Read my post above...there are still other players in Iraq besides the Brits. I won't repost them because the Department of Redundancy Department might write me up.

[Guest CAVEMAN]

Troll feeding-

Most unions have out lived their usefulness. They were a necessary evil at one point, now, they kill the very companies they feed off of. As a union matures, it turn malignant.

The problem with unions, is they always have to raise the bar in the employees' contract negotiation. Negotiate better benefits, more money for less work, etc. And as the union matures (i.e. UAW) the cost of the labor they provide is more than the market or the competition will allow, and the company fails. Installing seatbelts in a car is not an $70 an hour job, it might be a $20 an hour job. It probably doesn't warrant a giant pension/medical package either. Sorry, but this is the very reason the big 3 are failing. Near 100% pensions for retirees will kill ANY business over time, it just cannot be sustained. There are enough regulations and regulators in place now, (i.e.OSHA) that the abuses of the past are really not possible.

Caveman- Let me ask you this (although I already know the answer), are you in favor of a minimum wage? Why?

I cannot support minimum wage when I am ALL about FREE market! Everyone thinks I am a socialist because I advocate some form of governmental regulation. Human being are naturally greedy and will fvck over the next man without looking back. So we can continue to shout FREE market and watch CEO's decide the whole mix while they cart away millions. They are just interested in maximizing profit so therefore everyone else underneath them thinks they are just as entitled to the company cake as everyone on top. That is why the workers are demanding high wages.

What you should have asked me is whether I was in favor of maximum wage.

There has to be control somewhere or how do you plan to stop this greed and unnecessary hike in price of services? A worker in the auto industry in Detroit will probably make more than the average college graduate over a 20 year period. What is the benefit of getting an education when you probably have student loans and a blue collar worker is making twice what you make. In 25 years, they will walk away with a full retirement and I could not even get that from the military. Pretty sad.

How do you think airline guys will survive without ALPA? Some of the big ones are still effective because you have former military pilots and other selfless individuals fighting on behalf of everyone else. That is probably what makes the difference between say the ALPA and just any other union out there. Like Huey said, these folks are the ones preventing the man from sticking it without.......I would definitely love to see unions go away but not unless the atmosphere changes.

[Guest CAVEMAN]

Cave-

Read my post above...there are still other players in Iraq besides the Brits. I won't repost them because the Department of Redundancy Department might write me up.

Got you. I hope we can continue to rely on them in Afghanistan.

Edited February 7, 2009 by CAVEMAN

[flyusaf83]

I cannot support minimum wage when I am ALL about FREE market! Everyone thinks I am a socialist because I advocate some form of governmental regulation. Human being are naturally greedy and will fvck over the next man without looking back. So we can continue to shout FREE market and watch CEO's decide the whole mix while they cart away millions. They are just interested in maximizing profit so therefore everyone else underneath them thinks they are just as entitled to the company cake as everyone on top. That is why the workers are demanding high wages.

What you should have asked me is whether I was in favor of maximum wage.

There has to be control somewhere or how do you plan to stop this greed and unnecessary hike in price of services? A worker in the auto industry in Detroit will probably make more than the average college graduate over a 20 year period. What is the benefit of getting an education when you probably have student loans and a blue collar worker is making twice what you make. In 25 years, they will walk away with a full retirement and I could not even get that from the military. Pretty sad.

How do you think airline guys will survive without ALPA? Some of the big ones are still effective because you have former military pilots and other selfless individuals fighting on behalf of everyone else. That is probably what makes the difference between say the ALPA and just any other union out there. Like Huey said, these folks are the ones preventing the man from sticking it without.......I would definitely love to see unions go away but not unless the atmosphere changes.

Ok, were you joking about being "all about the free market"? Obviously you are far from it. Why do you hate corporations so much? I cannot believe you are in favor of a "maximum wage". Marxism isn't cool man. Ya, let's put a max on how high someone can achieve. That's real American! That will encourage peole to achieve and produce wealth! If you are worried about greedy institutions, your fear is misplaced. It's the damn government you need to be worried about. Corporate executives earn a lot of money by providing goods and services to people that people actually want. Nobody forces you to pay money to a corporation (unless that's bailouts, which is really just government taking control of corporations). Government just takes money, whether you like it or not, and gives much less in return. Their whole purpose in taxing and spending is to gain power and enslave people to social programs. Now who is greedy?

I must admit, I have a difficult time reading your posts, as you consistantly contradict yourself and say things that, even if are meant to be sarcastic, come off as incoherent BS. But thanks for playin.

[Herk Driver]

Here is a BBC link to support the Spanish pull out in 2004: https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3640459.stm

The Georgian pulled out when Russia invaded and they thought they needed to go back to fight. It was just intime for SOFA and I guess it worked out.

Here is a link for the Polish pull out that was slated for 2005: https://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/05/1firstR_9.php

The Brits are probably the only ones left and they are strictly to the South.

"85% of non-US troops". But what percentage of the total troop strength is that? Where is the assurance they will continue to support when we eventually shift base to Afghanistan?

It seems to me that the EU views terrorist very differently from the US. They have very porous borders and have been living with these people for a while. Left to me, they have accepted this and are only supporting the US for strategic reasons.

Caveman,

Slow down and read what I wrote. You said How many EU forces do we have in Afghanistan or Iraq? Spain pulled out its soldiers after the train bombing few years ago. I just said be careful what you put out, since Spain only pulled out of IRQ not AFG. I actually work some of these activities and know that you are wrong in your broad generalizations. Many countries have been pulling out of IRQ because it is politically unsustainable, but they have plused up numbers in AFG all the same. Most of the countries in IRQ would only go there under the NTM-I umbrella anyway. Since they have ISAF in AFG, it makes it much easier to gain approval from their gov'ts for deployment. It doesn't matter what the total numbers are. That wasn't your argument. But, all the same, we will always have bigger numbers because most of these countries don't have militaries any where near the size of ours.

The Brits that you continue to stand up for are actually pulliing out substantially from IRQ. Start taking a look around. BTW, the euros didn't start nor did they want us to start this war. So, who do we have to blame for a lack of support?

Edited February 7, 2009 by Herk Driver

[slacker]

wow, this thread has about eight different sub-threads.

1st- I am not in favor of maximum wages for anyone in the private sector. When you took my tax money into your corporation, you are no longer in a private sector- you asked for it= you got it. As long as I'm (tax payer) paying your salary, Mr. Dumbass CEO, who ran your corporation into the ground, I (tax payer) can set your wages. I say throw them into the same salary structure as an SES employee. No more 100 mil, jackasses, you're on the public dole.

2nd- I do think our CEO's salaries in this country are obscene compared to their performance. Interesting analysis regarding CEO's salaries. Comparing the salaries of starting employees at a corporation to the CEO's - most countries are around 20/1 to 30/1. Our military is around 17/1 from a 4 star to a 1 striper. CEOs in this country are 200/1 to 300/1. Unsustainable in the long term.

3rd- I think airline guys would have survived without ALPA, could they now? Probably, but it would take massive industry-wide reform, that is nearly impossible. I think ALPA and UAW aren't too far apart, both unions continually seek more and more with each contract, eventually, it will be at the company's expense- or (in ALPA's case) at the expense to those more junior. Standing by for the incoming from ALPA guys....

CAVEMAN- you certainly had me fooled about your free-marketness- I guess I had you pegged as a patchouli-wearing, tree hugging, Prius driving, global warming, anti-gun, big government, tax more-spend more, Carter-loving, socialist. Man, I guess I was off a little.

Edited February 8, 2009 by slacker

[flyusaf83]

wow, this thread has about eight different sub-threads.

1st- I am not in favor of maximum wages for anyone in the private sector. When you took my tax money into your corporation, you are no longer in a private sector- you asked for it= you got it. As long as I'm (tax payer) paying your salary, Mr. Dumbass CEO, who ran your corporation into the ground, I (tax payer) can set your wages. I say throw them into the same salary structure as an SES employee. No more 100 mil, jackasses, you're on the public dole.

2nd- I do think our CEO's salaries in this country are obscene compared to their performance. Interesting analysis regarding CEO's salaries. Comparing the salaries of starting employees at a corporation to the CEO's - most countries are around 20/1 to 30/1. Our military is around 17/1 from a 4 star to a 1 striper. CEOs in this country are 200/1 to 300/1. Unsustainable in the long term.

I agree with your 1st point. CEO's that have sucked to the point where they get bailed out by the government should be shit-canned. Although, this is a mute point in my view. I don't think the government should ever bail out a company.

I somewhat disagree with your second point. It may be that American CEO's are grossly overpaid. However, if that is true, their companies will suffer and fail. Take away the government bailouts, and the excess salaries will go away. CEO's will get paid based on the performance of their corporation. This should NOT be regulated by the government. It's not within the proper role of government to regulate wages or bail out bad corporations.

Edited February 8, 2009 by flyusaf83

[slacker]

I somewhat disagree with your second point. It may be that American CEO's are grossly overpaid. However, if that is true, their companies will suffer and fail. Take away the government bailouts, and the excess salaries will go away. CEO's will get paid based on the performance of their corporation. This should NOT be regulated by the government. It's not within the proper role of government to regulate wages or bail out bad corporations.

I never said they should be regulated in the private sector (only if they suck from the gov't teet). I said they were obscene and grossly inflated in comparison to other westernized countries. They don't have to worry about their company failing, they'll get theirs regardless of what happens to the company. I think that is wrong.

[Guest CAVEMAN]

CAVEMAN- you certainly had me fooled about your free-marketness- I guess I had you pegged as a patchouli-wearing, tree hugging, Prius driving, global warming, anti-gun, big government, tax more-spend more, Carter-loving, socialist. Man, I guess I was off a little.

Don't be quick to put me in that mix because I have a few liberal views.

Everyone needs love. Give Carter some love.....

[Guest jaybird85]

I agree with HueyPilot812's posts. I don't see how taking money out of the defense budget, and putting it into social welfare programs is going to help anything. Lazy people are lazy because they choose to be; giving them free money (or healthcare, or foodstamps) is NEVER going to change that. Obama has stated he needs to earn the trust of America's military forces, and then he goes and takes money away from the budget?! So was he lying the first time, or did he just decide to change his mind?

"Stimulation" packages don't stimulate anything. They encourage slackers to sit on their a$$es, and throw money into places that do not yield any sort of return. How is providing health care for everybody going to improve our failing economy? It won't. The way the US has bailed itself out of financial disasters in the past, has been by creating domestic jobs that are filled by Americans. There has NEVER been a successful financial redemption in which money was simply given out to people for nothing. That doesn't make any sense- especially considering how Americans feel so entitled to things as it is.

Military budgets are already below where they need to be. Give the military the funds it needs, and push Americans to get off the couch and work.

[Guest CAVEMAN]

Reductions in the Defense budget do not necessarily mean a reduction in the size of the force.

The Defense budget has several distinct components. (1) One very large component pays retired personnel; this is non-discretionary, it is an entitlement. (2) Another is the cost of personnel salaries, food, housing, and benefits; this is discretionary and is a function of the size of the force. (3) Another very large component is for acquisition that includes R&D as well as procurement of weapon systems and such; this is discretionary. (4) Another--usually handled as a supplementary bill--is for ongoing operations; this is discretionary.

From what I can tell, the reductions in the defense budget currently discussed are planned for items 3 and 4. Specifically, weapon systems whose acquisition were initiated to meet the long-term technological competition of the Cold War are still in the pipeline and are the targets of cuts. They were unsuccessfully targeted in the Clinton administration. They were the targets of cuts by the Bush Jr. administration when Secretary Rumsfeld had the primary mission of "transformation" prior to 9/11. Those acquisition programs escaped the axe then and they are again under examination now.

Again, the popular news media has no credibility in reporting this material. The GAO does a good job of tracking these budget trends over time, as does the CRS. There are other credible sources. What is now called "advocacy journalism" is not a credible source. Their purpose is to mislead.

[Ill Destructor]

Military budgets are already below where they need to be. Give the military the funds it needs, and push Americans to get off the couch and work.

Dude, are you serious?! The military budget is WAY too big. I briefly commented on this in another thread...

Our military spending is more than five times that of China, ten times that of Russia and almost fifty percent of global military spending. WOW! If the rest of the world can get by without spending forty-three percent of their revenue on the military, I think we could too.

https://www.globalissues.org/article/75/wor...litary-spending

[ClearedHot]

Funny...of all the countries you mention with smaller defense budgets....they are ALL against us, they ALL seek to undermine our influence, and they ALL work together to disrupt our forces, networks, technology.

[Vertigo]

I love how people distort the facts; the fact is defense spending is UP for FY 2010. The 10% cut was a reduction in the planned budget which was slated for a higher increase. IT'S STILL AN INCREASE OVER FY09 NOT A DECREASE!

The budget request includes 533.7 billion dollars for the main defense budget, which marks an increase of four percent over the main budget for fiscal 2009.

Obama seeks 663.7 bln for 2010 defense spending

2 days ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — President Barack Obama Thursday unveiled a 663.7 billion dollar defense budget, up a modest 1.5 percent on 2009, but projected a sharp decline in spending on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the coming years.

The new administration has signalled it hopes to make savings through a planned withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and from cuts in expensive weapons programs -- though Obama's budget request did not specify what new weaponry might be scrapped.

The president's proposed budget for the fiscal year 2010 unveiled Thursday seeks 130 billion dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, down from 141.4 billion for operations in the current fiscal year.

The proposed budget offered a rough forecast that the cost of the war efforts would drop to about 50 billion dollars annually in the next several years.

The monthly cost of the war in Iraq has already declined from about 10 billion dollars to eight billion in recent months, officials said.

The budget request includes 533.7 billion dollars for the main defense budget, which marks an increase of four percent over the main budget for fiscal 2009, excluding most of the costs of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Some war costs were shifted to the main defense budget, Pentagon officials said, but did not offer further details.

The proposed military spending will "meet the national security needs of this country," a Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told reporters.

The president also requested an additional 75.5 billion dollars to cover war costs for the rest of the current fiscal year, after Congress approved 65.9 billion for fiscal 2009 before Obama took office.

The vast US defense budget represents more than 40 percent of the world's total military spending and US spending will continue to grow under Obama's budget, albeit at a slower pace than under former president George W. Bush.

"It looks like the pattern of overall growth in Pentagon spending will continue in President Obama?s first budget," said Travis Sharp, military policy analyst at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

"The annual growth rate, however, appears to be lower than was typical during the Bush years."

Bush's annual defense budget requests called for increases of about four to five percent in military spending, according to Sharp.

Under Obama, the projected war costs were now being presented at the same time as the rest of the federal budget to show "greater transparency," said the defense official, instead of past practice when proposed war budgets were presented piecemeal over time.

The war costs would also be included when the government calculates the overall budget deficit, in a break with previous policy, the official said.

"What the administration is trying to do is they're trying to bring visibility to the entire war cost estimate at the time of the submission of the budget," the official said.

The president and his Democratic allies have criticized the previous administration's controversial method of accounting for the cost of the wars through a series of "supplemental" funding requests outside of the main defense budget.

In Obama's proposed budget, his administration vowed to impose strict scrutiny over spending on weapons programs but shed no light on which aircraft, ships, vehicles or other sophisticated weaponry might be dumped.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, placing a top priority on fighting insurgents rather than conventional warfare, has warned that big weapons projects plagued by delays and cost overruns could face cutbacks.

A list of candidates for possible cutbacks drawn up by the Pentagon includes more Navy destroyers built by General Dynamics, fighter jets including Lockheed Martin and Boeing's F-22 Raptors and carrier-based Super Hornets, a digital radio system for all the armed services and missile defense weaponry for Poland and the Czech Republic.

Gates has already singled out the F-22 Raptor fighters, which cost about 350 million dollars each, for potential cutbacks.

Military analysts have also questioned the need for more Navy aircraft carriers and a computer-linked network of Army vehicles, known as Future Combat Systems.

[ClearedHot]

Everyone needs love. Give Carter some love.....

Please tell me this is rhetoric... Carter????

He nearly destroyed the U.S. Military and he knew it. Carter himself discovered the consequences of those military cutbacks during the defining moment of his term--the Iran Hostage Crisis. When he asked how many B-52s the Air Force could muster for a strike against Iranian targets, Carter was told "four," and only if the necessary number of KC-135 tankers (for in-flight refueling) were available. Needless to say plans for a long-range strike against Iran were quickly scrubbed.

Recent Democratic Presidents have an abysmal record with the military and national security. Both parties can certainly share blame for the 911 attacks, but under Clinton our national intelligence system was gutted, just like Carter did to the military.

Carter and Clinton will not get love from me.

I love how people distort the facts; the fact is defense spending is UP for FY 2010. The 10% cut was a reduction in the planned budget which was slated for a higher increase. IT'S STILL AN INCREASE OVER FY09 NOT A DECREASE!

The budget request includes 533.7 billion dollars for the main defense budget, which marks an increase of four percent over the main budget for fiscal 2009.

You mean like how you are distorting the facts???

You mysteriously left out the next line in your quote, so met me help you give a truthful answer...

The budget request includes 533.7 billion dollars for the main defense budget, which marks an increase of four percent over the main budget for fiscal 2009. Some war costs were shifted to the main defense budget, Pentagon officials said, but did not offer further details.

The defense budget will grow at 4.0%, however, some of the war costs are now rolled into the budget (funny the transparency doctrine does not apply to how much is rolled into)....meaning goodbye supplementals. Take out the war costs and the military is in serious trouble...our equipment is worn out...and we will get less to replace it.

Edited March 1, 2009 by ClearedHot

[Vertigo]

Read the first line of the article- even adding in the war costs to the main defense budget the overall budget (including the war funds) increased 1.9%; an increase is an increase is an increase. It is NOT a decrease no matter how much you want it to be.

Edited March 1, 2009 by Vertigo

[ClearedHot]

Read the first line of the article- even adding in the war costs to the main defense budget the overall budget (including the war funds) increased 1.9%; an increase is an increase is an increase. It is NOT a decrease no matter how much you want it to be.

An increase less than inflation = a decrease.

[Vertigo]

An increase less than inflation = a decrease.

You got a crystal ball that tells what the inflation rate is going to be next FY?

[ClearedHot]

You got a crystal ball that tells what the inflation rate is going to be next FY?

Just 46 years of history...

Edited March 1, 2009 by ClearedHot

[Vertigo]

Just 46 years of history...

Prediction doesn't make it fact.

Fact: Defense spending for FY10 is up over FY09 despite a drawdown in the war on terror funds. $553B > $515B

If the argument is that weapons programs like the F-22 should not be cut; I agee. I would, however, like to see SOME oversight so that we don't keep getting by the weapon makers in terms of cost overruns.

[ClearedHot]

Prediction doesn't make it fact.

Fact: Defense spending for FY10 is up over FY09 despite a drawdown in the war on terror funds. $553B > $515B

If the argument is that weapons programs like the F-22 should not be cut; I agee. I would, however, like to see SOME oversight so that we don't keep getting by the weapon makers in terms of cost overruns.

Again slight of hand and typical of your nonsense...war costs are rolled in and they refuse toe tell us the amounts...real transparent.

Make you a deal, when the FY10 inflation numbers post, you come back and eat crow followed by a life-time ban.

[Vertigo]

Again slight of hand and typical of your nonsense...

As opposed to saying 2 is less than 1? ;)

Thanks for the debate CH- I get what you're driving at with the inflation. My argument is against those who use the fear mongering tactics while hiding the real figures. I too would be interested in seeing what part of the GWOT funds went into the main budget. Having said that I think with the drawdown in Iraq (meaning less $ spent there) to have us still come out with an increase in total spending over FY09 isn't something to be crying about. Hell he could have chopped us off at the knees- but he didn't.

[ClearedHot]

As opposed to saying 2 is less than 1? ;)

Thanks for the debate CH- I get what you're driving at with the inflation. My argument is against those who use the fear mongering tactics while hiding the real figures. I too would be interested in seeing what part of the GWOT funds went into the main budget. Having said that I think with the drawdown in Iraq (meaning less $ spent there) to have us still come out with an increase in total spending over FY09 isn't something to be crying about. Hell he could have chopped us off at the knees- but he didn't.

The "goal" is to have all "combat" forces out of Iraq by the third quarter of 2010...Anything strike you as funny about that statement?

Assuming it to be fact, who do you think is going to stay behind and provide the fires portion.

The USAF was raped by Clinton and Bush I gets a lot of the blame for creating the scenario. We flew OSW and ONW for 12 years...while the other services enjoyed the peace. Those operations used up 30-40 years of service life on our F-15's, F-16's, Tankers...etc.

My prediction is another period of the Air Force carrying the load, without the credit, or more importantly, the funding.

Edited March 1, 2009 by ClearedHot

[Vertigo]

We flew OSW and ONW for 12 years...while the other services enjoyed the peace. Those operations used up 30-40 years of service life on our F-15's, F-16's, Tankers...etc.

My prediction is another period of the Air Force carrying the load, without the credit, or more importantly, the funding.

This we agree on- as I stated earlier I don't think we should be cutting the F-22 program.

I entered in '93 so I had no comparison to what it was like prior to Clinton- to me that was just the norm. Plus I was young and ill-informed on politics and diplomacy. I'll have to take your word that the AF was raped by Clinton- but that doesn't mean Obama is bound to do the same does it? We do still have a conservative SECDEF and I'm willing to bet Obama kept him for a reason.