Panetta weighs military cuts once thought out of bounds

Panetta weighs military cuts once thought out of bounds
Medical and retirement benefit reductions, nuclear arsenal cuts considered

WASHINGTON — Under orders to cut the Pentagon budget by more than $450 billion over the next decade, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is considering reductions in spending categories once thought sacrosanct, especially in medical and retirement benefits, as well as further shrinking the number of troops and reducing new weapons purchases.

Mr. Panetta, a former White House budget chief, acknowledged in an interview that he faced deep political pressures as he weighed cuts to Pentagon spending, which has doubled to $700 billion a year since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He said that meeting deficit-reduction targets might require another round of base closings, which could be highly contentious as members of Congress routinely fight to protect military deployments and jobs in their communities.

Among other steps, Mr. Panetta said, Pentagon strategists were looking at additional cuts in the nuclear arsenal, with an eye toward determining how many warheads the military needed to deter attacks.

Mr. Panetta also held out the possibility of cutting the number of American troops based in Europe, with the United States compensating for any withdrawal by helping NATO allies improve their militaries. That effort would free up money so the United States could maintain or increase its forces in Asia, a high priority for the Obama administration, and sustain a presence in the Persian Gulf after the withdrawal from Iraq this year, he said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45184364/ns ... ork_times/

It's about friggin' time.....

Considering and ACTUALLY doing the cuts are two entirely different tasks......I am in the observation mode.....waiting. The deadline
is looming oh so NEAR and action will have to be quick and decisive.

Dismantling the nuclear arsenal, might that be more expenisve than maintaining it?

Maybe a new lend lease program in Europe and Korea, the US sells military equipment & bases at discounted prices to the Euros & South Koreans as they send US troops home.

How will the Chicoms see this, America pulling back as they expand their military, especially the navy.

LadyJazzer wrote:

Panetta weighs military cuts once thought out of bounds
Medical and retirement benefit reductions, nuclear arsenal cuts considered

WASHINGTON — Under orders to cut the Pentagon budget by more than $450 billion over the next decade, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is considering reductions in spending categories once thought sacrosanct, especially in medical and retirement benefits, as well as further shrinking the number of troops and reducing new weapons purchases.

Mr. Panetta, a former White House budget chief, acknowledged in an interview that he faced deep political pressures as he weighed cuts to Pentagon spending, which has doubled to $700 billion a year since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He said that meeting deficit-reduction targets might require another round of base closings, which could be highly contentious as members of Congress routinely fight to protect military deployments and jobs in their communities.

Among other steps, Mr. Panetta said, Pentagon strategists were looking at additional cuts in the nuclear arsenal, with an eye toward determining how many warheads the military needed to deter attacks.

Mr. Panetta also held out the possibility of cutting the number of American troops based in Europe, with the United States compensating for any withdrawal by helping NATO allies improve their militaries. That effort would free up money so the United States could maintain or increase its forces in Asia, a high priority for the Obama administration, and sustain a presence in the Persian Gulf after the withdrawal from Iraq this year, he said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45184364/ns ... ork_times/

It's about friggin' time.....

Really... you're interested in seeing cuts "especially in medical and retirement benefits"? That's very patriotic of you. I think your hatred for the US military has rotted your brain. If anyone deserves medical and retirement benefits it's the men and women that saved your ass from the folks around the globe that see you as more worthless than a camel.

Dr Philban wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote:

Panetta weighs military cuts once thought out of bounds
Medical and retirement benefit reductions, nuclear arsenal cuts considered

WASHINGTON — Under orders to cut the Pentagon budget by more than $450 billion over the next decade, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is considering reductions in spending categories once thought sacrosanct, especially in medical and retirement benefits, as well as further shrinking the number of troops and reducing new weapons purchases.

Mr. Panetta, a former White House budget chief, acknowledged in an interview that he faced deep political pressures as he weighed cuts to Pentagon spending, which has doubled to $700 billion a year since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He said that meeting deficit-reduction targets might require another round of base closings, which could be highly contentious as members of Congress routinely fight to protect military deployments and jobs in their communities.

Among other steps, Mr. Panetta said, Pentagon strategists were looking at additional cuts in the nuclear arsenal, with an eye toward determining how many warheads the military needed to deter attacks.

Mr. Panetta also held out the possibility of cutting the number of American troops based in Europe, with the United States compensating for any withdrawal by helping NATO allies improve their militaries. That effort would free up money so the United States could maintain or increase its forces in Asia, a high priority for the Obama administration, and sustain a presence in the Persian Gulf after the withdrawal from Iraq this year, he said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45184364/ns ... ork_times/

It's about friggin' time.....

Really... you're interested in seeing cuts "especially in medical and retirement benefits"? That's very patriotic of you. I think your hatred for the US military has rotted your brain. If anyone deserves medical and retirement benefits it's the men and women that saved your ass from the folks around the globe that see you as more worthless than a camel.

I can understand closing some bases or joining some bases, I could also see pulling some troops back from areas that we do not need to be there. Africa comes to mind real quick. As for Medical and Retirement benefits, they should not be touched. One thing I will say though, LJ and I have talked on numerous occasions about the military. She is a pretty strong supporter of the troops. Not that I have to back her up she can handle it on her own, but she does support the troops. I doubt she included the medical part especially in her comment. She was most likely talking about the troop pull back and base realignment and closure. She'll let me know if I am wrong but I doubt I am knowing what I know

I don't think ANYONE is in favor of cutting benefits for vets....in my minds eye they have NEVER done enough to compensate/restore
a vet's life....didn't happen with Vietnam and it has NOT happened with the two or three most recent wars......I believe LJ was speaking
of OTHER options(base closures,war machines,ect.) so perhaps you are too quick in posting.JMO

navycpo7 wrote:

Dr Philban wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote:

Panetta weighs military cuts once thought out of bounds
Medical and retirement benefit reductions, nuclear arsenal cuts considered

WASHINGTON — Under orders to cut the Pentagon budget by more than $450 billion over the next decade, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is considering reductions in spending categories once thought sacrosanct, especially in medical and retirement benefits, as well as further shrinking the number of troops and reducing new weapons purchases.

Mr. Panetta, a former White House budget chief, acknowledged in an interview that he faced deep political pressures as he weighed cuts to Pentagon spending, which has doubled to $700 billion a year since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He said that meeting deficit-reduction targets might require another round of base closings, which could be highly contentious as members of Congress routinely fight to protect military deployments and jobs in their communities.

Among other steps, Mr. Panetta said, Pentagon strategists were looking at additional cuts in the nuclear arsenal, with an eye toward determining how many warheads the military needed to deter attacks.

Mr. Panetta also held out the possibility of cutting the number of American troops based in Europe, with the United States compensating for any withdrawal by helping NATO allies improve their militaries. That effort would free up money so the United States could maintain or increase its forces in Asia, a high priority for the Obama administration, and sustain a presence in the Persian Gulf after the withdrawal from Iraq this year, he said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45184364/ns ... ork_times/

It's about friggin' time.....

Really... you're interested in seeing cuts "especially in medical and retirement benefits"? That's very patriotic of you. I think your hatred for the US military has rotted your brain. If anyone deserves medical and retirement benefits it's the men and women that saved your ass from the folks around the globe that see you as more worthless than a camel.

I can understand closing some bases or joining some bases, I could also see pulling some troops back from areas that we do not need to be there. Africa comes to mind real quick. As for Medical and Retirement benefits, they should not be touched. One thing I will say though, LJ and I have talked on numerous occasions about the military. She is a pretty strong supporter of the troops. Not that I have to back her up she can handle it on her own, but she does support the troops. I doubt she included the medical part especially in her comment. She was most likely talking about the troop pull back and base realignment and closure. She'll let me know if I am wrong but I doubt I am knowing what I know

I stand by my statement. I'm assuming she is an adult (although some of her comments make that contention on my part suspect), and she can read. If she wasn't in agreement with that part of the proposed reductions, it would have been a simple matter for her to state that point. Weak sauce.

Dr Philban wrote:

navycpo7 wrote:

Dr Philban wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote:

Panetta weighs military cuts once thought out of bounds
Medical and retirement benefit reductions, nuclear arsenal cuts considered

WASHINGTON — Under orders to cut the Pentagon budget by more than $450 billion over the next decade, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is considering reductions in spending categories once thought sacrosanct, especially in medical and retirement benefits, as well as further shrinking the number of troops and reducing new weapons purchases.

Mr. Panetta, a former White House budget chief, acknowledged in an interview that he faced deep political pressures as he weighed cuts to Pentagon spending, which has doubled to $700 billion a year since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He said that meeting deficit-reduction targets might require another round of base closings, which could be highly contentious as members of Congress routinely fight to protect military deployments and jobs in their communities.

Among other steps, Mr. Panetta said, Pentagon strategists were looking at additional cuts in the nuclear arsenal, with an eye toward determining how many warheads the military needed to deter attacks.

Mr. Panetta also held out the possibility of cutting the number of American troops based in Europe, with the United States compensating for any withdrawal by helping NATO allies improve their militaries. That effort would free up money so the United States could maintain or increase its forces in Asia, a high priority for the Obama administration, and sustain a presence in the Persian Gulf after the withdrawal from Iraq this year, he said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45184364/ns ... ork_times/

It's about friggin' time.....

Really... you're interested in seeing cuts "especially in medical and retirement benefits"? That's very patriotic of you. I think your hatred for the US military has rotted your brain. If anyone deserves medical and retirement benefits it's the men and women that saved your ass from the folks around the globe that see you as more worthless than a camel.

I can understand closing some bases or joining some bases, I could also see pulling some troops back from areas that we do not need to be there. Africa comes to mind real quick. As for Medical and Retirement benefits, they should not be touched. One thing I will say though, LJ and I have talked on numerous occasions about the military. She is a pretty strong supporter of the troops. Not that I have to back her up she can handle it on her own, but she does support the troops. I doubt she included the medical part especially in her comment. She was most likely talking about the troop pull back and base realignment and closure. She'll let me know if I am wrong but I doubt I am knowing what I know

I stand by my statement. I'm assuming she is an adult (although some of her comments make that contention on my part suspect), and she can read. If she wasn't in agreement with that part of the proposed reductions, it would have been a simple matter for her to state that point. Weak sauce.

Understand your statement and like you I will stand by mine also, so I will agree to disagree,

navycpo7 wrote:

Dr Philban wrote:

navycpo7 wrote:

Dr Philban wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote:

Panetta weighs military cuts once thought out of bounds
Medical and retirement benefit reductions, nuclear arsenal cuts considered

WASHINGTON — Under orders to cut the Pentagon budget by more than $450 billion over the next decade, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is considering reductions in spending categories once thought sacrosanct, especially in medical and retirement benefits, as well as further shrinking the number of troops and reducing new weapons purchases.

Mr. Panetta, a former White House budget chief, acknowledged in an interview that he faced deep political pressures as he weighed cuts to Pentagon spending, which has doubled to $700 billion a year since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He said that meeting deficit-reduction targets might require another round of base closings, which could be highly contentious as members of Congress routinely fight to protect military deployments and jobs in their communities.

Among other steps, Mr. Panetta said, Pentagon strategists were looking at additional cuts in the nuclear arsenal, with an eye toward determining how many warheads the military needed to deter attacks.

Mr. Panetta also held out the possibility of cutting the number of American troops based in Europe, with the United States compensating for any withdrawal by helping NATO allies improve their militaries. That effort would free up money so the United States could maintain or increase its forces in Asia, a high priority for the Obama administration, and sustain a presence in the Persian Gulf after the withdrawal from Iraq this year, he said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45184364/ns ... ork_times/

It's about friggin' time.....

Really... you're interested in seeing cuts "especially in medical and retirement benefits"? That's very patriotic of you. I think your hatred for the US military has rotted your brain. If anyone deserves medical and retirement benefits it's the men and women that saved your ass from the folks around the globe that see you as more worthless than a camel.

I can understand closing some bases or joining some bases, I could also see pulling some troops back from areas that we do not need to be there. Africa comes to mind real quick. As for Medical and Retirement benefits, they should not be touched. One thing I will say though, LJ and I have talked on numerous occasions about the military. She is a pretty strong supporter of the troops. Not that I have to back her up she can handle it on her own, but she does support the troops. I doubt she included the medical part especially in her comment. She was most likely talking about the troop pull back and base realignment and closure. She'll let me know if I am wrong but I doubt I am knowing what I know

I stand by my statement. I'm assuming she is an adult (although some of her comments make that contention on my part suspect), and she can read. If she wasn't in agreement with that part of the proposed reductions, it would have been a simple matter for her to state that point. Weak sauce.

Understand your statement and like you I will stand by mine also, so I will agree to disagree,

Agreed. Let's see if Lady Jazzer comes along and clarifies her stance.

navycpo7 wrote:

Dr Philban wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote:

Panetta weighs military cuts once thought out of bounds
Medical and retirement benefit reductions, nuclear arsenal cuts considered

WASHINGTON — Under orders to cut the Pentagon budget by more than $450 billion over the next decade, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is considering reductions in spending categories once thought sacrosanct, especially in medical and retirement benefits, as well as further shrinking the number of troops and reducing new weapons purchases.

Mr. Panetta, a former White House budget chief, acknowledged in an interview that he faced deep political pressures as he weighed cuts to Pentagon spending, which has doubled to $700 billion a year since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He said that meeting deficit-reduction targets might require another round of base closings, which could be highly contentious as members of Congress routinely fight to protect military deployments and jobs in their communities.

Among other steps, Mr. Panetta said, Pentagon strategists were looking at additional cuts in the nuclear arsenal, with an eye toward determining how many warheads the military needed to deter attacks.

Mr. Panetta also held out the possibility of cutting the number of American troops based in Europe, with the United States compensating for any withdrawal by helping NATO allies improve their militaries. That effort would free up money so the United States could maintain or increase its forces in Asia, a high priority for the Obama administration, and sustain a presence in the Persian Gulf after the withdrawal from Iraq this year, he said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45184364/ns ... ork_times/

It's about friggin' time.....

Really... you're interested in seeing cuts "especially in medical and retirement benefits"? That's very patriotic of you. I think your hatred for the US military has rotted your brain. If anyone deserves medical and retirement benefits it's the men and women that saved your ass from the folks around the globe that see you as more worthless than a camel.

I can understand closing some bases or joining some bases, I could also see pulling some troops back from areas that we do not need to be there. Africa comes to mind real quick. As for Medical and Retirement benefits, they should not be touched. One thing I will say though, LJ and I have talked on numerous occasions about the military. She is a pretty strong supporter of the troops. Not that I have to back her up she can handle it on her own, but she does support the troops. I doubt she included the medical part especially in her comment. She was most likely talking about the troop pull back and base realignment and closure. She'll let me know if I am wrong but I doubt I am knowing what I know

Of course, you are correct. I would NOT be in favor of cuts to medical benefits. But as for the rest of it, "You betcha."