Obama should focus on the primary needs of each branch of service. Keep funding close to it’s current levels except maybe disbursed differently. And focus on the guys coming back from combat that aren’t right. Because that is a place where Democrats would be completely accepted and would succeed

Obama needs to push the services to figure out what they’re doing and why. Why is the Navy cancelling the DDG1000 and pushing for more DDG51s? Is the Army FCS on track? Etc. etc.

As to focusing on the soldiers, sailors, and marines coming back from the wars (more than guys there), I agree completely.

You have to understand something here:

Democrats can make whatever changes they want to Social Security, Welfare, or any other social program and nobody complains. Look at Clinton with his reforms.

Republicans can make whatever changes they want to the Defense Dept and nobody complains. Look at what Bush I did to reduce the military.

But when Carter cut the B-1 (rightfully so apparently) or when Bush wants Social Security reform (nobody would even listen to him and his request for change) it becomes a really pitched battle where nobody really listens.

Obama could add money to the defense dept and the right wingers would still cry fowl.

Obama should focus on the primary needs of each branch of service. Keep funding close to it’s current levels except maybe disbursed differently. And focus on the guys coming back from combat that aren’t right. Because that is a place where Democrats would be completely accepted and would succeed.

Other than that, if Obama cut the ARH under his administration you guys would be screaming murder. Because Bush/Gates did it then everything is fine. You get my point.

DC2

DC2

What’s really hysterical about this is the site (and the commenters) write gravely thoughtful articles about how the acquisitions system is broken and that cost overruns are terrible, but when somebody wants to actually do something about it (like, say, Barney Frank), the amount of shrieking around here is deafening.

Total spending on programs identified as “welfare” was about $100 billion in the last fiscal year (afdc and food stamps are a part). If 10% of that went to illegal aliens (a massive overestimate), that’s $10 billion we could free up. That’s not even one more new aircraft carrier.

Want to try again?

(The point, for those playing along at home, is that each service *always* asks for more than its share of the goodies in its budget requests and then plays the “America is in danger is you don’t fund this!” card. If you summed up all the requests they made, just weapons acquisitions would be over a trillion. Why? So when the haggling starts, they can be assured of getting *something*. A variation on this trick is to front-load the budget with weapons acquisitions, leaving maintenance and training funds out, and then go back to Congress with the ‘our troops are suffering from lack of maintenance and training…give us more money.’)

I agree that Democrats have screwed things up too. But when someone blantantly shows that they think it is all their fault I have to show that ignorance for what it is.

And no we don’t have the cash either. That is more ignorance. We are dead in the middle of a recession, we are trillions in debt, and every major DOD procurement program is over schedule and over budget.

You are right now welfare to an extent. Maybe we should get rid of the corporate welfare that keeps these defense industry giants (like Bell) on the government teet too. What do you think about that Cold Warrior?

Understand that both sides of the aisle support welfare, it is just how it is distributed that is different.

DC2

Wow, so not only are Republicans bad at actually governing, they’re too cowardly to own up to their own failures.

finest hardware

Would that hardware be the DDG-1000 or the LCS? FCS? Recon helo? F-22 or F-35? How much would it cost to buy every single thing the military wants? $1 trillion? $2?

You got the cash?

We are not a free nation. We are an indebted nation. And we owe China and Saudi Arabia most of it.

It isn’t a matter of leveraging. It is a matter of reality. There is too much money being spent on programs that are over budget and behind schedule. Or the programs are for battles that will never be fought.

It seems you have to be a Republican to be free in this country these days. I bet you are wondering why your political house of cards is crumbling around you too. Geee.

I did provide an idea of what I support. I support not being $10T in debt, a large part of that to China and Saudi Arabia. That was in my first comment.

The fact that weapons programs will be cut or trimmed should come as no surprise to anyone. And we should expect even more if the economy does not improve.

Regardless of what size of military we have or how much money we spend on it, our biggest vulnerability right now is financial. And it starts with our debt. We as a country are spending more than we make and making up the difference using a credit card. What happens when we reach our maximum balance and can’t get a credit increase?

I’m sure the response will be that China would never think of calling back their loans. Really? They would never displace thousands of their people for the Olympics either. And surely they would not send thousands upon thousands of their soldiers across a border to fight and die in a foreign land for no good reason. The Chinese government has no problem letting their people suffer.

DC2

You don’t cut a budget of this size without considering the costs you incure when you don’t program in recapitalization. That was what happened when the budget was cut in the 90’s — and the resulting surge in spending. The old action/reaction effect. The budget deficit is partly a construct of delayed or under-funding too, and all parties involved in the budget process share the blame for the deficit.

What the military needs to reconsider is the requirements side. If you want a platform to be the be all/end all, it’s going to cost a mint. However, if you make a platform that is specialized, you need others and more that have different capabilites. Which is more costly in the long run?

Finally, I think our military, having served 28 years in it, needs to have the finest hardware, training and maintenance on the planet. If our foreign policy objectives demand we play on the int’l scene — a large, and capable military is needed.

Glad to see someone else looking at the pending disaster that Obama or McCain can’t fix and Congress won’t.

You said it yourself, you are sucking on the government teet of corporate welfare. Your company cannot make money on the commercial market so where does it turn?

Your $700 response is just as cliche as mine. But it proves two points, one made by each of us.

So tell me, how many millions of dollars has your company made off of Uncle Sam?

It’s no different than the welfare mom popping kids out to get a bigger check. Your company just wants a bigger piece of the defense pie so that it can suck a little more out of it.

Haliburton ring a bell?

DC2

Oh hey, it’s the “$700 hammer” canard. It’s not a $700 hammer; it’s a $5 hammer with $150 worth of qualification testing, $45 of compliance documentation, and $500 of oversight.

It’s also time for European nations to get more serious about Afghanistan. We can not be the worlds policeman when the other nations are unwilling to significantly defray the cost in terms of treasure and lives.

So the Dow has lost 4,000 points in 4 months and your 401K is doing fine. Government money would be in the form of T Bonds.

I wonder how much money your employer profits from the government. And I wonder if they make higher profits from the government than they do from the business world. Heck maybe you work for a company selling them $700 hammers.

Marshall,

I hope you aren’t the one leading the second revolution. After all, you can’t even use correct spelling or grammar. It’s ironic that as a soldier you were prepared to sacrifice your life for the government you now recommend overthrowing.

DC2