How our military has already been cut since 1990

Science Chic wrote: What? Avoiding my questions Viking?

Oh he'll answer them SC....as soon as he finds out what Rick Perry's answers are..

LadyJazzer wrote:

navycpo7 wrote: Interesting, everytime there is a Democratic President, our military gets cut, and reduced. As I do believe there is alot of waste in the DOD that can be stopped. Duplication of jobs that could be done away with, etc. Drastic cuts in the military thru history have proven to be a bad thing. I believe the Navy for one should be a 350 ship Navy. The projects that Presence of sea power that is being challenged almost daily anymore. The Carrier Battlegroups are the most sought after by field commanders due to what it brings to the table and how quick that can happen.

Should we be spending more on the AMERICAN citizens, yes. Places I think alot of this money can come from. Other that what I mentioned above, stopped all the pork crap that the congress idiots throw into everybill. Hell that is billions right there. Then lets start cutting funding to some of these foreign countries, more billions. Start a pullout of Iraq. Even bigger savings. Throw the UN out of the US, let other countries deal with the stupidity. And we can even (which has actually started), reduce the number of flag rank officers in the military, which is at its highest of all time since WWII, and save more millions.

As for what happened last night, the Republicans that voted for it without getting a real reduction are cowards, the Democrats, hell they are doing nothing more than trying to just spend spend spend. They haven't figured out how to balance a check book. Its a lose lose situation no matter what.

Interesting when you consider that George H. W. Bush cut the military by 25%... And factchecker bears it out:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-c ... udget.html

And LBJ & FDR increased the defense budget. It used to be that all wars were started by Dems, FDR, Wilson, LBJ & Kennedy. Reagan and "W" changed that.

It is frustrating for me to keep hearing over and over again that people think the military's mission is war. Yes...it is a main part of what they do; however, there is A LOT of humanitarian missions they perform.
* Haiti...who were the first in there and opened the airport so other aid could get in there after the earthquake. The Air Force. I think the Navy were the first into the country...
* Katrina...who guarded the roads into and out of the hurricane ravaged area, keeping looters at bay and homes relatively safe until their owners could get back to them? The Guard.
* When the Air Traffic Controllers went on strike for an extended period of time in the '80's, who filled in? Air Force Air Traffic Controllers.
* Who takes some supplies and personnel to Antarctica in support of the research going on down there? The Air Force.
* Who helped in the recovery from the Big Thompson Flood in the '70's? Yep...the military.
* When during Gulf War I, a lot of Iraqi Kurds were streaming across the Turkish border to keep themselves alive, who provided some of the necessities (tents, laundry facilities, and security)? The American military along with a coalition of other countries.
* Who do you think trains some of the dogs working with the TSA in airports across America? Civilians that belong to the Military Working Dog squadron at Lackland AFB.

Fires, earthquakes, hurricanes, typhoons, floods, terrorist attacks, blizzards, and numerous other natural disasters...a lot of the time the military is called in because they can and do get the job done...and they do it well, on little sleep and pay, without complaining.

Yes, maybe there are programs that can be done away with...and there is a dearth of higher level officers...and possibly too much materiel handling equipment, but Navy is right on this one...a huge cut of equipment will mean a big cut of personnel (and most of the time that happens, it is the younger-ranking or middle-ranking troops
that end up picking of the slack). For a long time the Air Force was "doing more with less", which means fewer pilots getting less sleep...fewer ground crew getting less sleep...fewer security policemen (carrying weapons) getting less sleep.

And if you look at the Air Force's fleet of aircraft, in 2007, the average age of an Air Force aircraft was 24 years old (see the link). That means that the ground crew and depots are doing a bang-up job keeping the fleet alive. What civilian company can say the same thing?

http://integrator.hanscom.af.mil/2007/m ... 007-14.htm

Those that haven't lived the life of a military member don't see the way the troops are and what they do.

There's a huge difference in cutting an acquisition program and cutting a troop's pay.

ComputerBreath wrote: There's a huge difference in cutting an acquisition program and cutting a troop's pay.

I haven't seen anyone suggest cutting the troops pay, in fact just the opposite.......they and their family should also have the very best benefits/medical attention this nation can provide.

I have seen suggestions to cut their budget... If someone in the Pentagon extrapolates that to: "cutting the troops pay", then maybe they need someone in the Pentagon who is better qualified to do military budgets.

LadyJazzer wrote: I have seen suggestions to cut their budget... If someone in the Pentagon extrapolates that to: "cutting the troops pay", then maybe they need someone in the Pentagon who is better qualified to do military budgets.

What about not giving raises every year? Or giving very minimal raises? I've always had a problem with congress giving the troops a 1 or 2 percent pay raise and then giving themselves a much bigger raise.

I don't personally care how they do it, as long as they cut the budget. But it seems as unfair to do it on the backs of the personnel as it does to balance the rest of the economy on the backs of the middle class.

archer wrote:

WayneH wrote: We're not the envy of the world. We're the laughing stock because we spend so much on our military and so little on our citizens.

So true Wayne........why American citizens seem to be so unimportant to many of our elected officials has always baffled me....until this message board, then I saw that same thinking among our neighbors and decided that the government is just a reflection of our own citizen's priorities. People are at the bottom of the list.....defense & corporations .....are at the top. How warped is that?

Not nearly as warped as believing that the federal government's main responsibility in a land founded upon self government and individual liberty is to collect and distribute the nation's charity, which is the only conceivable conclusion one could reach by looking at the DC budget.

Yes, it's called "promote the General Welfare"... And it's a long way from "dead"... Thank god....