Tea Partiers say defense in mix for budget cuts

Discussion in 'Academy/Military News' started by SamAca10, Jan 23, 2011.

  1. SamAca10

    SamAca10 Ensign - DWO

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,019
    Likes Received:
    2
    HTML:
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110123/ap_on_re_us/us_tea_party_defense_cuts#mwpphu-container
     
  2. LineInTheSand

    LineInTheSand USCGA 2006

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    8,749
    Likes Received:
    1,002
    I agree. There is a good deal of wasteful spending in DoD's budget.
     
  3. Christcorp

    Christcorp Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    872
    Of course, they like to compare military spending with hospitals, schools, highways, etc... As though, those are the only things competing for the limited resources. They don't like to talk about the millions upon millions spent on supporting illegal immigrants "IN" our country. Or on welfare programs. But those areas are made up of people that "NEED" the government; and therefor are people that are more important voters.

    Not saying that there isn't waste in the military. ANYTHING government related has a lot more waste than if it was a commercial operation. But politicians politicize these things. The poor and the hispanics are more important towards reelection and maintaining power than senior citizens and the military.

    So I'm sorry if I don't seem to have any compassion. I would be saving money in many other areas if I was in charge. Unfortunately, politicians can't benefit from that. Want to balance the budget; first step: Make our country not attractive to illegal poor immigrants. Make them prefer to stay where they are at. That means no government assistance to ANY illegal immigrant. Next: Welfare. Change it to workfare. Any person receiving government assistance, must contribute to the system. Cleaning highways, parks, rivers, etc... Make them prefer to work than to receive welfare. And for what it's worth, I have/had family members who are/were "Receiving" government assistance. I know exactly the scam that's going on. It pays better to receive government assistance than to pay to get a job, transportation, child care, etc... Why? Because the government WANTS YOU to NEED THEM. Government politicians don't want or need money. They want power. They need the citizens to NEED them.

    Anyway; thanks for letting me vent. Not saying that the military doesn't need to be cost conscious. Just that they at least have a purpose. Cut spending from ALL other areas first; then we'll talk. Make a 25% cut in all assistance to illegal immigrants: This means medical, legal, and education. Make a 25% cut to ALL government assistance to individuals. Make a 25% cut in ALL government subsidies. When I say ALL, I mean ALL. Corporate, international, other countries, etc... Stop giving bailouts to companies. NO COMPANY IS TOO BIG TO FAIL. It would have been cheaper for the FDIC to reimburse individual's bank/savings accounts, and forgive all loans, and let the particular bank go under; than it is/was to Bail them out. It would have been cheaper to let GMC go under and let another company take them over; which would include rehiring the employees at a possibly lower rate; then to bail them out. The bailouts, the unions, the social programs, etc... That's what's costing our country everything. Most people have no concept of how the real political "Game" is played. Take care of these areas, THEN people can come after military spending.
     
  4. kevster

    kevster Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2009
    Messages:
    199
    Likes Received:
    1
    Finally.......this is so refreshing to hear. If you ever need a campaign manager .....sign me up! :shake:
     
  5. hornetguy

    hornetguy USAFA Cadet

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,295
    Likes Received:
    129
    Actually, based on the reports I've read, the government ended up earning a profit on the financial bail-out and was only marginally in the red (so far) with the auto bail-out but looks like it will at least break even there in the future.

    That's not to say I agree with it philosophically, but it's a bad example to use in this case for budget cutting per se.

    I agree with LITS though. Having done a little work on acquisitions for RAND, I was appalled at the defense waste. It was insane, on the order of billions in just a couple programs, let alone all of them.
     
  6. Christcorp

    Christcorp Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    872
    Is that like "Sort of being pregnant"? LOL!!!

    Point is: It is not the government's job to bail out private corporations. What makes capitalism work, is that if a company, private business, etc... can not run their business well enough to make a profit; then they are "SUPPOSE" to go under. There will be someone else there to pick up where they left off. "Assuming there's a demand for the product or service". Tax dollars are not suppose to be risked saving a company. The concept that a company is "Too big to fail" is political speak for: "Us politicians have to protect our lobbyists and special interests; or we can't get reelected and maintain our power".

    I believe in giving all sorts of tax breaks for companies. They provide jobs. They are risking their own money. They are part of the economy that keeps the distribution of wealth moving. However; if their business scheme is bad, and they are going out of business, then so be it. If the product or service is indeed wanted by the consumer, someone else will pick up the slack. Either buying out that business or increasing the size of their similar business. Lost jobs will be picked up. It's the government's job to simply ensure that the playing field stay level. That there's no illegal activities and anti-competition going on. Other than that; they need to back off. Unfortunately, that will not happen, because our politicians have been elected with the money directly from these banks and companies. Including the likes of Goldman Sach.

    But this is about cuts in military spending. My point, which I know is completely true, is that there is a lot more money wasted in government spending, that is outside of the military. The politico will let the ignorant believe that the money has to be chosen between "The Military" and "Schools, education, health care, poverty, etc..." What they don't want the ignorant to know is about the BILLIONS used for foreign aid, illegal immigrants, welfare, subsidies, etc... I challenge voters to contact your legislators and mention these articles; then ask them: "Are you going to vote to reduce spending for foreign aid, to illegal immigrants, to generational welfare recipients, bailing out companies, etc...?" And while you're at it, ask them why they approve a freeze in retired military yearly cost of living increase; yet they approved yearly pay raises for themselves in congress?

    Nope; until the American people hold our government officials accountable, and make them balance the budget in an honest approach, I will never support military funding cuts. The military should be the last place we cut. It definitely needs to be smarter with their money; but until true government waste is addressed, they need to back off of military spending.
     
  7. SteveHolt243

    SteveHolt243 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    226
    Likes Received:
    1
    Congress voted to freeze its pay.

    Go look up how much you'll save by cutting foreign aid, support for immigrants, and bailouts (which as pointed out, were somewhere between profitable and barely in the red depending on which one we speak of).

    I think you'll find that will barely make a dent, and any serious budget solution will require defense cuts.
     
  8. linkgmr

    linkgmr Old Grad

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    176
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good. We spend far too much on far too little anyways.
     
  9. Christcorp

    Christcorp Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    872
    Remember: I never said that there shouldn't be cutbacks in the defense budget. Only that other areas should be cut first. You mention the bailouts, yet the TARP budget is set at $700 BILLION for bailouts. The CBO believes that we won't actually need all that. That TARP will only actually cost $20-$30 BILLION. Sorry; but I'm not going to buy that large of a difference. Maybe not the entire $700 BILLION; but I'll bet a lot more than $20 BILLION. Foreign aid is in the $20+ Billion Area. Welfare and Unemployment is around $320 BILLION. The food stamp and AFDC alone are $30 BILLION. The state of California alone, claim to have spent close to $10 BILLION dollars in a year just on illegal immigrants. The federal government subsidizes $20 BILLION a year currently, JUST ON FARMERS.

    That's the problem with this debate. Too many people think that you take the highest cost expense, and that's where you cut first. Doesn't matter if Defense is a necessity or not. Instead; we need to find the waste in areas like illegal immigration, welfare, bailouts, subsidies, etc... Make a dent??? That's one hell of a dent.

    I've already said that the defense budget needs to be cut. But a president, congress, JCS, and citizenry with balls, should demand that some of these other areas need to be cut first. Some of them totally. "Sorry, but I don't believe in ANY WELFARE for illegal immigrant". Anyway; not arguing that the department of defense doesn't need to be more accountable for their spending, and probably needs some cuts. But some of these other areas need to be looked at first. You don't grab the most expensive area and start cutting. You find the areas that are "Honey Pots" used towards buying votes; e.g. welfare and illegal immigration; and you cut those first. Then come back and talk about military spending.
     
  10. PositiveThinking

    PositiveThinking Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2009
    Messages:
    333
    Likes Received:
    2
    I wasn't able to watch the State of the Union address tonight. Was this subject mentioned?
     
  11. Christcorp

    Christcorp Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    872
    I watched "Meteorite Men" and then the Wyoming vs UNLV basketball game. MUCH MORE INTERESTING!!! :popcorn1:

    In all honesty, you can't expect much from the state of confusion speech. It's like a coach giving a pep talk before a game. It's not actually the game; just a speech intended to motivate. It doesn't matter if it's Obama or Bush or Clinton, etc... You're not going to get real details. There's a lot of "Rodney King - Can't we all just get along" in it. How we all need to work together for our future. How we all need to be willing to sacrifice. How things are on the right track, but not going fast enough. The amount of this type of speech is dependent on whether the congress is of like mind or not with the president. Now that the president doesn't have the house; there will be more "Let's work together". 2 years ago when he took office, it was "This is our plan, and the republicans can ride along if they want". All presidents do this.

    But what wasn't discussed; "Yes, I read the transcripts and some of the replay"; was that since starting the hundreds of billions in stimulus and aid, unemployment has gone up. We are borrowing more. Our debt has increased. And there doesn't seem to be any change in the near future. Also, what wasn't discussed in enough detail, was that except for "Obama-Care"; which hopefully will be retracted; none of his campaign promises have been fulfilled or even advanced on. Guantanamo is still there. We're still in Afghanistan and Iraq. Personally; I never thought these were doable campaign promises, and I don't support them. However; a lot of his supporters from 2008 are very upset with him.

    So, what i saw on the replay and in the transcript, was typical political B.S. Same happens from both sides. Usually however, there are some points throughout the speech that are key to the nation. I didn't see that tonight. I'm all for the across the board spending freeze, but that isn't even a band-aid. Spending freeze means that you are still spending. There are at least a dozen programs that I know of personally, that I would totally cut off. And yes, these deal with subsidies, welfare, illegal immigrants, bailouts, etc... Spending freezes isn't what's needed. Spending CUTS are what's needed. I don't mean $70 Billion from the military. I mean "PROGRAMS" need to be cut. Unfortunately, most politician's "Voting Base" is in programs that need to be cut. So those areas won't be touched.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2011
  12. SteveHolt243

    SteveHolt243 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    226
    Likes Received:
    1
    Just off the top of my head:

    Credit Card Reform
    DADT
    START
    College Loan Reform

    And those are just some of the big ones.
     
  13. Christcorp

    Christcorp Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    872
    Sorry; but except for DADT, I don't remember those others as big "Campaign Promises" during the election and primaries. I remember gitmo, iraq, afghan, heathcare, and balancing the budget. Except for the heathcare, none of the others have been touched. The budget is worse, gitmo is still gitmo, we're still in irag and afghanistan, etc... Has some things been accomplished? Yes. But remember; the president doesn't present bills or make laws. Congress does. All the president can do is approve or disapprove. Then again; during the SOTU address, he mentioned again how he would veto bills/laws that had pork in them. He promised that too during the campaign and hasn't lived up to that promise either.

    But this thread is about military spending cuts. And the truth is: military spending cuts is a smoke screen. Not that there shouldn't be some cuts. Definitely should. Better management of existing funds is even more important. However; the smoke screen is that the politicians can spout the large sum of money used by the department of defense, attack them, and keep people's attention off of areas that need to be cut, but won't be, because they provide votes. Doesn't matter if it deserves to be cut or eliminated; if there are a lot of voters with interests in those areas, then they won't be as eager to cut from there.

    EXAMPLE: Budgeting your household income. You pay $1200 a month towards rent/mortgage. There's all these programs, incentives, stimulus, etc... to help you refinance and lower your payments. Other programs and companies out there to help you to refinance your debt to lower your payments. They concentrate on these, because they are your largest debt. However; a "REAL FINANCIAL ADVISER" and someone who actually cared about your financial position and future, might mention and bring up that you and your wife, with no kids, own 3 cars. 2 have payments. That you have maxed/high credit card balances because you're buying crap you don't "Need", but rather "WANT". That you're eating out 4 days a week. That you're spending $100 a week on cigarettes. That you go out for drinks, movies, etc... twice a week. Etc...

    Not saying that maybe it would be nice to refinance and get a lower mortgage rate, and thus lower monthly payments on your house. But why in the hell would you go after the one area you NEED MOST, without totally eliminating debt in other areas that are strictly luxuries first? Matter of fact; I personally chose to eliminate LUXURY debt first, and apply those monthly payments towards my mortgage, which actually will net less interest and total cost of my house, than if I refinanced the house. Even the bank, who was trying to get me to refinance, when pressed, said: The amount I payed at the time; including the additional principle I used from eliminating the other debt, towards my mortgage will pay off the house sooner and result in less overall cost, than ANY refinancing. Of course, they didn't WANT this. It didn't make them more money. But they couldn't argue it.

    Point is: The government wants it's citizens in a certain level of debt. Businesses NEED consumers to be in a certain level of debt. Government WANTS you to NEED THEM help you with debt. However; the government and businesses don't want to help you totally eliminate debt. If you have no debt, then you are not in need of anyone else. The government will not cut foodstamps, welfare, aid to illegal immigrants, unemployment, etc... If you become independent from the government, you won't need them. They will no longer have power over you. Same with the credit card companies and banks, and mortgage companies. And certain politician in the government will convince you that defense is the first thing that needs to be cut. Why? Because that doesn't promote "Dependency" by the citizens on the government. Even though the military; like your house; is one your most important expenses, and can be trimmed, but it's one of your MOST IMPORTANT EXPENSES. Our military is what ALLOWS US everything else. But instead of looking at the Luxury expenses, the government will tell you instead that they'll have "Spending Freezes" instead of CUTS. Which they'll reserve for things like the military. So, while you're lowering your mortgage payments and pushing out the loan further; you're still spending too much on luxuries.You will never gain in your financial future. Neither will our country. Credit card companies and banks only give people high interest rates and sell you homes that you can't afford, because are ignorant and have no idea. Personally; most times, if a person's house is going to be foreclosed on, IT SHOULD BE!!! I say most times. As with everything, there are exceptions. But MOST TIMES, they should lose their house. The banks SHOULD go under. Companies SHOULD NOT BE BAILED OUT. And while the military needs to be smarter with their money; they shouldn't be the first place looked at for spending CUTS. They should be one of the last.
     

Share This Page