DoD Budget Cuts, an Outsider's Perspective

Status
Not open for further replies.
T&F-I doubt that you will get banned for that- I believe I can find a lot of uses for this clip going forward.:thumb::rolleyes:

Meteor- just so you understand- this is a forum that is not primarily a political one. Your posts seem to be nothing but politics and your "insight" is pretty much political talking points than any teenager watching MSNBC could recite. Either start articulating a position that is based on data and expertise (and that would exclude virtually everything that you have posted so far) or this thread is going to be closed. I have no problem shutting off right wing politically oriented threads and I certainly will do the same for you.

So unless you have something new and of substance to add- shut this down.
 
Clearly the original poster has just escaped from the loony bin and is faking the Dem staff stuff. He/she has no real knowledge of the situation, whatever that is, has no credentials, no military experience, and occasionally spits into the wind. He/she may have been drinking some seriously powerful booze that is only available in the beltway. But I've seen no coherent refutation of his/her central point just blatant ad hominem crap.
 
Meteor,

Why don't you just join the military and find out for yourself. It might even be a pay raise, and you might learn a thing or two about actual service. You hang out on the Hill with the 1%, join the military and become part of this 1%. The Army's IPFU is much more comfortable than a suit anyways.

But honestly you can't expect to be taken seriously, when you refuse to be held accountable. You are a part of the problem. You work for the 535 problems. Every comment that is GOP this, or tea tard that is absurd. The government is singular. You all are responsible for everything you do or fail to do, mostly the fail to do.

I'll just step away and let you continue to step in our lane and tell us how to our jobs, when you (you being the entire government, think singular) can't do yours.

*I post this as a current cadet, not officer or enlisted soldier, unhappy with the climate of the career field I will soon be entering. Please take my post with the appropriate grain of salt.
 
Bull,
Can you give me at least one, maybe two, points that the original poster made?
 
I'm interested in how he/she supposedly knows that "a majority of officers voted for hard right for the Tea Party."
 
This thread should be a sticky.

"Why people have no faith in Congress".... beyond inept congressman, their even more pathetic staffers. :cool:
 
Can we (YES EVERYONE HERE!) please refrain from petty name calling?
It doesn't become military officers or congressional staffers.


meteor said:
Btw, I think the big issue is lost here and why I wanted to post. Let me condense it.

A great majority of officers vote it in the hard-right Tea Party in 2010. >This leads to deficit reduction which inevitably whacks the military hard > Said officers complain about it even though they voted in the Hobbit warriors.

...

As for Bullet's comments, all of this stuff about Congress coming together is a cliche. This isn't the military. Congressmen don't give orders to each other, there isn't some kind of hierarchy, I mean sure there's party leadership, but Ted Cruz doesn't get court-martialed for thumbing his nose at McConnell.
Click to expand...
So, did you come here to vent or have a discussion? If it's the former, "mission accomplished." If it's the latter, we need to step up the maturity of the discussion a bit.

The Tea-Party, if any such loose confederation can be called a party, wants a very different level of federal power from both the "establishment" GOP and the DNC. The Ron Paul side of the group (for lack of a better term) also views American foreign policy as too interventionist, and would happily rewrite our defense strategy to make massive cuts to the DoD.

As to your very hasty generalization about military leadership vs. congress, please look past the cardboard cut-outs of how things work. We aren't a Napoleonic era military.

...also, no "everyone" does not love John McCain. Quite a few do, but again the broad brush doesn't work for everyone.

So, what is it that you would like to see, why is it better, and how do we get there (or at least head that direction)?
 
Does everyone still like congressional nominations now? These are the kinds of staffers you may have to deal with when trying to communicate with your member of congress.
 
What I'd love to hear, before we talk issues is, what Meteor's qualifications are to have this discussion. Is he/she a 30 year veteran staff, a chief of staff with the ear of his member? Or is he/she a relative newbie to the Hill scene, having transitioned recently from intern to junior staffer?

Or maybe he/she is a veteran? How far out of undergrad are you? Do you have a graduate degree of some kind? What did you do before you went to the Hill?

If you want to be taken seriously here, you need to give us a little more to work with. You likely have plenty of material here to determine people's experiences.

And if it makes your partisan feelings hurt any less, I'm not especially impressed with staffers of any party.
 
OK, enough of the accusations, the name calling, the partisan attacks, and all the rest. Let's try to take this back to a serious discussion (if that is even possible at this point). I'll try to bring it back there with some more questions (although my previous attempts were met with partisan responses so far).

Meteor, you have very clearly stated your purpose to come here was to provide some insight into why military members shouldn't really complain about the current budget reduction efforts, mostly because they voted in the very people who have forced these cuts. Do I have that right? If so, here are my questions:

1) How are you so certain that the "majority" of military officers voted for the Tea Party ticket in 2010? We`don't exactly fit the mental picture most Democrats have of the the typical Tea Party supporter (you know, the angry old white guy with a High School level of understanding of History and Politics). In fact, if you looked harder you would see were quite the opposite: highly educated (more so than the vast majority of Congress), EXTREMELY professional, and taught for day one to "think outside of the box" and beyond what the everyone else in the room espouses as "gospel". Besides, your assumption smacks of prejudice, laziness, and a not-so-subtle hint of elitism. In fact, most officers I know find discussions on personal political voting records with your peers repugnant. we prefer to discuss how we would fix the situation instead if we were in charge, and this usually leads to solutions from both sides of the political spectrum.

Bottom Line: we are NOT the closeted Right Wing Loons who like to play Army that you obviously think we are. I for one DON'T vote along party lines, but instead weigh the merits and shortcomings of each individual I vote for, regardless of party (my vote in the recent VA Governor's race proved testament to that). Can you say that?

- The military currently makes up approximately 1% of the national population, and the Officer's Corp is less than 20% of that. A mere statistical blip in the electorate from the 2010 election. WE (the military officers corps) did not secure the Tea Party its victory. The large majority of the American population decided to vote them in. Perhaps instead of shaking your head at the "stupidity" of the American electorate, and telling your echo chamber that "they should get what we deserve for voting these idiots into office", the Democratic Party would be better served trying to understand why that happened.

The American public is angry, and currently holds a very low opinion of Congress and the people who work for it (to include you). You're very lucky for now that they seem too disorganized to do anything about it in the polls, and are more than willing want to throw the entire Congress out, but don't for some unexplainable reason feel the same way about their own Congressmen. 2010 seemed the one time this anger led to massive changes in the vote, the Democrats (and the established Republican members) better hope this won't happen again.
 
Here's the point.

There is no serious discussion. And that's the reason things don't get done in Washington. I'm more jaded than most, when it comes to communications. But you watch enough hearings, deal with enough staffers and elected officials, and you begin to realize that nothing you hear matters.

Meteor is rattling off talking points like any junior member of a team is taught to do. He'll hit on the same topics and same themes. He'll call it a "GOP shutdown" and he'll say "the prior administration." I'm surprised he hasn't started rattling off "the well off and the well connected." Honestly, watch Jay Carney, and then keep a list of what becomes the common terminology. And yes, both parties do it. You really see it with political appointees too.

So Meteor is taught to spew the same ole stuff, and you, like any American, expect to have a back-and-forth discussion. But that's not how talking points work. Junior staffers aren't told to think for themselves. The sit in a House or Senate office building at lunch and they discuss the same stuff, and they repeat what they hear. Junior staffers aren't built to discuss. That would be too risky for senior staffers and elected officials. Find someone's comms staff or chief of staff if you want something remotely original (but still based off of the talking points).

So Bullet, don't hope that anything is going to come of the points you raise. Meteor isn't reading your post to digest your thoughts, he's trying to figure out which talking points he wants to queue up next.

You aren't listening on the other end of a phone call, you're listening to a broken record.
 
Since Bruno has asked us to keep this geared to the military and not politics, I will abide by the SAF wishes.

LineInTheSand said:
Does everyone still like congressional nominations now? These are the kinds of staffers you may have to deal with when trying to communicate with your member of congress
Click to expand...

I feel for any parent, cadet and candidate that have been reading this thread because as they anxiously await the moment to interview with their MOC's committee or talk to the staffer of a Dem., they now have an unsettling feeling of how little they are respected by those people that hold their futures in their hands. That although these young amazing kids who apply to and are accepted by the Ivies as their plan B are viewed as anything, but academically gifted, well rounded and leaders in their school.

Here these kids are willing to jump through every hoop just for the chance to attend one of these amazing academies, and are willing to dedicate at least the next 9 yrs., but now they know exactly the depressing fact that respect for them and the sacrifices they are willing to make, including the saddest of all giving their lives to defend this great nation is not there for them if they happen to vote R on election day.

I don't think meteor actually ever placed that thought in his mind. I take back my statement regarding the scenario of his job and talking to his bosses after perusing our web site. I now highly doubt he is ever going to discuss or even show his boss this thread. No matter what his boss may feel about knuckle draggers and hobbit warriors they are not going to be thrilled that he spoke so openly to their constituents. Things like this tend to go viral on social media and take a life on of their own. For all meteor knows is that parents, cadets, military members are now contacting their MOC showing that there is someone on this forum stating they are a staffer and they personally find what they written as offensive. It could be possible that every staffer on the Hill this a.m. is finding out about this site because a constituent emailed them this link.

They may even remind them that as an elected official they do not represent ONLY their party, but ALL of their constituents regardless of what party they voted for in the election.
 
meteor said:
First let me introduce myself. I am a Hill Staffer and have done a lot of work on the Senate Armed Services Committee going back several years. [\QUOTE]You fail right out of the gate. Your perspective is one of a consumate insider, not as you say an "outsider"
Click to expand...
 
Pima said:
I feel for any parent, cadet and candidate that have been reading this thread because as they anxiously await the moment to interview with their MOC's committee or talk to the staffer of a Dem., they now have an unsettling feeling of how little they are respected by those people that hold their futures in their hands. That although these young amazing kids who apply to and are accepted by the Ivies as their plan B are viewed as anything, but academically gifted, well rounded and leaders in their school.
Click to expand...

What, because one ideologically pure purported staffer made an anonymous account on SAF to tell everyone talking points? I would hope parents and candidates would not assume the congressional committees are composed of such people from a shadow of a source. Especially when so many committees for Congressional noms are composed of veterans.
 
Pima said:
. . . I feel for any parent, cadet and candidate that have been reading this thread because as they anxiously await the moment to interview with their MOC's committee or talk to the staffer of a Dem., they now have an unsettling feeling of how little they are respected by those people that hold their futures in their hands. . . .
Click to expand...

Nominations are usually handled by local congressional staffers, not ones at the Hill
 
Clarification.

I know for a fact that the nom committee is filled with respected people across the community in their state/district. It is not a one on one with the Sen. or even anyone on their staff.
~~~ If our DS's experience is the norm, the staff just collates the list and send the letters out to those nominated which the MOC placed on the slate.

My bad for the post. Remember I am Polish, and old now...yes, 48 is old to me!:shake:

My point was/is can you imagine that the person sending you that Congrats letter has this opinion about the military.
~ I.E. The need to dumb it down so low to explain the budget, when in fact to make O5 (35 yos) they must have a grad degree, and needed no APGov lesson.
~~~ I.E. Someone like you Hornet that received a paid fellowship for 3 yrs. to obtain a doctorate.
~~~ I.E. Not understanding that Rhodes Scholarship every yr includes SA grads.
~~~ I.E. Not understanding that the military sends officers to Yale, Harvard, PME, etc. I wondered if he ever researched Gen. Welsh.
1995 Fellow, Seminar XXI, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
1998 Fellow, National Security Studies Program, Syracuse University and John Hopkins University, Syracuse, N.Y.
1999 Fellow, Ukrainian Security Studies, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
2002 The General Manager Program, Harvard Business School, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
Click to expand...
I feel as if they are just spewing what they are told from the DNC.

The MOC signs off on the nom., but I am a believer that the culture comes from leadership.

Sorry, but I can't believe that meteor's opinion is not in part what the atmosphere at work feels/talks about in the office. I believe in it is acceptable to openly think this way, and openly say as much behind closed doors. I don't believe their boss, the MOC, says KNOCK IT OFF, we represent EVERYONE in our state. If I am wrong, meteor is walking a very fine line.

That is the cynic in me.
meteor said:
I am a Hill Staffer and have done a lot of work on the Senate Armed Services Committee going back several years. Not surprisingly, I've seen a lot of complaints about budget cuts on this site and other sites I peruse as part of my work to monitor the pulse of individuals involved in the military.
Click to expand...

That is my point. Parents, cadets, candidates are reading not only that someone on staff is being big brother, but also can figure out who they are from perusing social media.
~ Think about it there are posters that place their full name, and state because they don't think that this is wrong, but now they know any and all info can be tracked back through info they have given.
~~I.E. the state champ thread.
~~~ How many do you think have the exact same stats when posters say I have 2130 SAT, 3.86 cgoa, 14 APs, 228 volunteer hrs, Eagle Scout, Xcountry, etc., asking chances for any SA and ROTC.
~~~~ They than state on another thread, such as noms, that they are applying for certain SAs.

In a state like VA where they spread the wealth, and have hundreds of applicants for a handful of interviews, I have to ask one question:

Are you so sure that the staffers in the office, like meteor, has no impact on which candidate gets the interview and which candidate does not get that opportunity?
~~~ Remember meteor stated it is his job to peruse these websites. The same guy that said republicans are tea tards.

Are you willing to say that the Sen. or Congressman goes through every single application, and tells the staff that these are my 20, 30, etc. choices?
~ I am not willing to say that. I am willing to say that there is a staff, typically at their state office and not in DC, that goes through the list, and whittles it down. However, I am willing to bet there are staff members like meteor.

I am willing to say that the staffers talk in the office, and if someone is on the cusp, the person like meteor that peruses social media to get the pulse will put 2 +2 together and give it to someone else if it doesn't match up to their (meteor) opinion.

Just the cynic in me.

I agree if stats are out the door they will support no matter what, but I am wondering if they are on the cusp and they use social media sites, will the staffers have an impact when it comes to interviews?

I just resent the OP, their insults and assumptions. Heck, we don't know the background of the OP. kinnem believes they are an intern, I don't. I trust that they are not lying when they stated yrs on staff. However, I am someone that believes they are young, and have yet to get a Grad degree.
~~~ Hornet, look at how you post now after 3 yrs at Rand on the AF dime. Tea tards, hobbits? I doubt that you would use those words to fight your battle, especially if one of your jobs for the AF is to peruse/monitor websites.

Someone said they were a troll, and part of me believes they are. Nobody with a career at stake would openly go down this path.
 
Last edited:
scoutpilot said:
I have never met any group of people who were more self-absorbed, out-of-touch, and blind to their own incompetence and the limits of their power than capitol hill staffers. The icing on the cake is that each one, to a man, believes he's toiling away doing the Lord's work for knuckle-dragging "American public."
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure Meteor would never, in a billion years, consider his work to be "The Lord's." Ever.
 
Meteor, I would love for you to meet PIMA's son, and my sons, and see what Honest-to-God heroes these young people are!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top