Cut Defense Spending 40%

[Cabin4]

Think for a moment how much of our techonolgy that we enjoy everyday was developed for the military or by the military industrial complex. Medicine alone was one of the biggest benefactors of all that defense spending.

Bringing home lets say 500,000 troops and discharging them into the States with no jobs available, is this really what is needed right now? 

Is the DOD a work fair program or a military operation? We cannot make decisions like this. We have a constitution in this country and the People's money is suppose to be managed correctly and ethically. Our constitution provides no provision for these foriegn deployments nor work fair programs.

[SHOOTALL]

Cabin I think the troops could be used to our benifit on our southern border . There would likely be alot of ordance replacement at first to keep the factories open at night also.

[Shu]

Cabin,
In no way is the military a work fair program. The question is simply put 500,000 out of work tommorow what do they do? It takes a huge industry base to feed and cloth them etc.  All are volunteers and they are not 3rd or 4th welfare generation recipients by any means. Please don't misconstrue that comment about unemployment either.
Since you seem to have much more wisdom what would you do with 500,000 troops and the industrial base that supports them shutdown over night. I would estimate that would now be 1 million unemployed people or more. What do you do with empty factories etc and raw materials that are not used becuase no one is buying them?

The ambulance and flight for life helicopter came from military technology. Computers came from military technology. GPS navigation came from military technology. The first truly accurate measurement of lightspeed came from military technology.

My point being is reducing defense spending while it sounds great is not as easy as it seems.

[us920669]

That's why it has to be done gradually and intelligently, but the sooner we start the better.  Defense spending has to be measured against the threat level, not any imagined economic gains.  Even the technology adapted to civilian needs could have been developed more efficiently by private enterprise.  Wars basically take some of our best people, ship them overseas so they can't do us any good and put them to work wearing out some of the most expensive gear on earth.  Some are killed and some require medical assistance for the rest of their lives.  Again, if they are protecting us from foreign conquest, it's worth it, but there is a real chance they are merely providing our enemies with a target rich environment.  In any case, the "War Keynesian" economic model is simply defective, and it stands to damage this country worse than all the camel jockeys and goat herders you can shake a stick at.

I don't claim to be qualified to evaluate today's threat level, and despite all the opinions being given, I doubt if anyone else here is either.  When Bush said "Afghanistan", I said "Gee, I never thought of that, but I guess it makes sense".  Then came Iraq, and I though, "Well, it's probably just the oil, but they know what they're doing, it will be over soon".  WRONG!  Now it sounds like we are flying close air support for a bunch of no-names in Libya, and I'm getting a bad feeling.  The colonel cited above seems to know his stuff.  He may not have all the answers, but this is a discussion we really need to have.

[jlwilliams]

  Well, I can't imagine that if they did cut the defense spending by 40% that they would do it in a sane way.  There may well be billions spent foolishly that could be saved.  They won't touch that.  They'll cut the important stuff.  Because we are being led by morons.  The political system we have elevates fools like the 'Peter Principal" run amok.

  On a point of principal, we do need to look at our budget as a threat to our national security.  This debt weakens us and our over extended assets open our vulnerabilities.  We're fighting in how many places right now?  How many more fronts can we open up on?  Does anybody believe that our enemies aren't looking at us and wondering..."Is this the time to sucker punch them? Maybe....." 

  I would agree that we should start the budget cutting process with Congressional blubber.  Their salaries, benefits and staff costs are out of balance with what American citizens and American businesses are experiencing.  The Congress needs to lead by example here and stop giving themselves lavish raises every year.  Tighten the belt and show the Nation you are in the fight.  No doubt we need to start looking at entitlement reform on a meaningful level.  Tough things need to be done, because if we don't do some tough things we will have tough things done to us.  This deficit spending is a threat to our economic and in fact our physical well being.  It's a clear and present danger.  It must be addressed.

  Count on Washington DC to handle this poorly.

[Cabin4]

Cabin,
In no way is the military a work fair program. The question is simply put 500,000 out of work tommorow what do they do? It takes a huge industry base to feed and cloth them etc.  All are volunteers and they are not 3rd or 4th welfare generation recipients by any means. Please don't misconstrue that comment about unemployment either.
Since you seem to have much more wisdom what would you do with 500,000 troops and the industrial base that supports them shutdown over night. I would estimate that would now be 1 million unemployed people or more. What do you do with empty factories etc and raw materials that are not used becuase no one is buying them?

The ambulance and flight for life helicopter came from military technology. Computers came from military technology. GPS navigation came from military technology. The first truly accurate measurement of lightspeed came from military technology.

My point being is reducing defense spending while it sounds great is not as easy as it seems.

You injected the decision point concerning economic impacts it would have if we brought all our troops home/reduced our military. Not me. My point is very simple. Decisions in Congress or at the DOD concerning troop levels and deployment should never be based on economic impacts. We either need X number of a force or we need something less. Those that are currently serving have a term to serve and that would/should continue to completion on our shore.

This countries decisions on the size of our military should not be so politicized. Our politicians have done an excellent job of screwing this up. We have no constitutional authority for what we use our military for today. Sizing it to match what we "need" would save this country billions and force us out of being the world’s police force business. I claim no unique wisdom here, just some common sense, follow the constitution and stop the practice of sending our kids off to serve and die for foreign interests. Work with the states and put some on our southern border. There is a real threat to this country.

[Spirithawk]

Makes perfect sense. 

Read as written, it does indeed

Cut the budget for the military while spreading them thinly across the world.

Did you read the article? Part of the idea is to STOP spreading them thin (or otherwise) across the world.

Gee, why not just disolve the military completely and put out the doormat welcoming our enemies.

My bad, I am first to admit when I'm wrong. I just skimmed the article as I was too tired to read. My daughter and son-in-law are both career Navy. I've seen the harm many cuts have caused so it's a sore point with me. However, if what you say is true about the reasoning behing these proposed cuts then I can't disagree with the reasoning. We need our military right here at home but we need them strong and well equiped as well.
An odd prescription, one not offered by the author of the articles I linked.

[Shu]

Cabin,
I see your point. Politicans and outdated thinking have kept us from making a more streamlined efficient military for urban fighting. There isn't really the need for hundreds of main line battle tanks. Wars are not fought world war 2 style anymore. Lessons learned take awhile to get to policy makers. There will still be a need for ground troops, and those ground troops have to be supported.

Putting them on our southern boarder does have merit, bases will need to be built, those troops will still have to be supported but at least the money will stay in America. 

The technology the military develops is done by civilian and military partnerships. When the Enigma code machine was captured it was turned over to some mathmaticians at a Brit university to study. The exploitation of this machine lead to the modern computer. To say civilians could have developed it faster is not entirely true. The Military says it has a need and the civilians who supprt them come up with solutions. It is a partnership.

[magooch]

Put the troops to work rounding up illegal beaners and escorting them out of the country.  There's only about 20 million of them and when they're gone there should be a lot of job openings for real citizens.

[Shu]

I would be for putting some of those billions in foriegn aid on rebuilding our own infrastructure. Hiways are falling apart to say the least.

I get the point do we really need 200 F35 fighters when it has absolutely no equal anywhere in the world? Do we really need 1000 M1 main battle tanks?
Better and lighter body armor, would be a great addition though.

[powderman]

Cracking down on unscrupulous govt contractors would save us billions. Wish  I could find the article about the $300 chair glides, $500 hammers and $400 toilet seats. POWDERMAN.