Author Topic: Now even MORE cuts for our military personnel. (Read 716 times)

powderman · « **on:** February 23, 2014, 06:57:57 AM »

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/22/us-military-to-unveil-plan-to-cut-personnel-costs/?intcmp=HPBucket

US military to unveil plan to cut personnel costsPublished February 22, 2014The Wall Street Journal Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is set Monday to recommend a limit on military pay raises, higher fees for health-care benefits and less generous housing allowances to prune billions of dollars in benefits from the defense budget, setting up an election-year confrontation with veterans groups and lawmakers.
Faced with steadily increasing military personnel costs that threaten to overwhelm an ever-tighter budget, Mr. Hagel is also expected to include a one-year freeze on raises for top military brass—a gesture meant to show that the best-compensated leaders also will make sacrifices.

Pentagon officials describe the package of cuts, which will be part of the military's coming budget, as a modest and realistic attempt to save billions of dollars needed to protect other critical portions of U.S. defense spending.
But the approach—which would also place limits on things like support for grocery stores offering discounts to military families—is certain to face fierce resistance from veterans groups that recently defeated a far more modest congressional effort to curb military pay.

"This is a real uphill battle with Congress," said Mieke Eoyang, a former Democratic congressional aide and director of the National Security Program at Third Way, a centrist think tank in Washington.
"God bless [Mr. Hagel] for trying to get a handle on these costs," she said. "But in this political environment, in an election year, it's going to be hard for members of Congress to accept anything that's viewed as taking benefits away from troops."

Pentagon officials say that they recognize the political realities, but emphasize that declining military spending makes trimming costs even more important this year.
"Personnel costs reflect some 50% of the Pentagon budget and cannot be exempted in the context of the significant cuts the department is facing," said Adm. John Kirby, the Defense Department's top spokesman. "Secretary Hagel has been clear that, while we do not want to, we ultimately must slow the growth of military pay and compensation."
Click for more from The Wall Street Journal.

spruce · « **Reply #1 on:** February 23, 2014, 07:10:38 AM »

How about they cut some benefits for illegals instead.

powderman · « **Reply #2 on:** February 23, 2014, 07:42:36 AM »

Quote from: spruce on February 23, 2014, 07:10:38 AM

How about they cut some benefits for illegals instead.

And congress. Over $300 billion a yr wasted on criminal invaders. POWDERMAN.

magooch · « **Reply #3 on:** February 23, 2014, 11:09:12 PM »

How about sharply cutting the Air Force; in particular what is spent on Air Force One?

DDZ · « **Reply #4 on:** February 24, 2014, 05:09:04 AM »

Why not cut congress's wages and benefits in half, Probably they need to be cut by 2/3. Just like a communist country. The leaders make extravagant wages, while the military personal survives on crumbs. Something isn't right when a congressman is making 170K plus benefits, and an E3 is making 21K.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #5 on:** February 24, 2014, 05:21:14 AM »

Or cut out the dept of education and other useless departments.

BBF · « **Reply #6 on:** February 25, 2014, 02:10:48 AM »

Since it is a Volunteer Army, you can always leave.
Perhaps a smaller Armed Forces will curtail acting like the Universal Policeman on this Planet and get drawn/mixed up into other Peoples internal affairs..
If it ever came to a full out conventional War 450.000 or 800,000+ won't make a microscopic difference. Should it get nuclear any amount of troops is meaningless.

DDZ · « **Reply #7 on:** February 25, 2014, 05:31:59 AM »

Quote from: BBF on February 25, 2014, 02:10:48 AM

Since it is a Volunteer Army, you can always leave.

That is right, they can leave, but is that the way we want to run our military? Shall we just pay them pennies, then say go ahead leave if you want? Or should we have a military like North Korea, where every able bodied man is required to serve under law, then are paid almost nothing.

Do you think it is just, that our congressmen are making 170K a year, plus all the best benefits possible, while our armed forces, who volunteer to serve the country are offered poor housing along with little salary. Or is it right that government gives welfare recipients a check, housing, food, and its tax free, while someone that serves their country, and at times gives their life, make much less than welfare recipients get for sitting on their can. Then you have the gall to say "since its volunteer you can leave"

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #8 on:** February 25, 2014, 05:43:16 AM »

The military is one if not the last govt. department that is run with an eye to meeting the need of the people. It does so because of the people who make up the military forces. What better way to destroy America than to cut the military and loose the capable people who run it. If the need arises how long would it take to rebuild ?

powderman · « **Reply #9 on:** February 25, 2014, 07:55:26 AM »

Quote from: SHOOTALL on February 25, 2014, 05:43:16 AM

The military is one if not the last govt. department that is run with an eye to meeting the need of the people. It does so because of the people who make up the military forces. What better way to destroy America than to cut the military and loose the capable people who run it. If the need arises how long would it take to rebuild ?

SHOOTALL. True Sir. This is just part of obamas plan to destroy us. POWDERMAN.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #10 on:** February 26, 2014, 04:43:41 AM »

Where will the cost savings be ? There are few jobs for anyone you turn out thousands of people that may have to go on welfare or other govt. support WHAT DID YOU SAVE ?

BBF · « **Reply #11 on:** February 27, 2014, 02:21:24 AM »

DDZ
My "gall" is that this is exactly what you do if you feel you aren't getting your worth. Put in your notice. What I see in the News, the Services do not seem to have a problem recruiting people.

BTW When I got drafted the E-1 recruit made 95 bucks per month.

Food and Board paid.

As far as the various Govt. critters, they have just about always skimmed off the cream and will do so as long as they are able to vote themselves a payraise.

BTW

A Chinese friend of mine told me the other day that Service in their military is not mandatory. They have more than enough volunteers to fill their need. I don't know if it is the thruth or not, I do bnot see why she would lie.

I do know that they have a very short mandatory time in which basic( non- weapon) training is spent sometime after or during their High School education.

Gary G · « **Reply #12 on:** February 27, 2014, 05:24:09 AM »

Quote

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #13 on:** February 27, 2014, 05:28:33 AM »

Nice chart n keep in mind that all but two listed on the left side receive protection from the US and our interstate highway system is funded thru. the defense dept. I believe . And considering the condition of the interstate roads here it appears the cuts have started.

Gary G · « **Reply #14 on:** February 27, 2014, 07:59:57 AM »

Also keep in mind that every dollar spent on the military is a dollar not used to produce the products that people actually want which affects the
standard of living.

Construction and maintenance of Interstates is paid for by that 40 to 50 cents per gallon tax that you pay on each gallon of gas that you buy.

Why are we protecting all but two when they have their own military?

twoshooter · « **Reply #15 on:** February 27, 2014, 12:41:03 PM »

I watch the Stealth fighters and bombers practice refueling overhead all the time, got some great pictures. I understand that such practice runs run somewhere between $30k & $50 k an hour. SO.... in the time it takes for them to pass overhead and out of view they spent more money playing war than my annual pension and social security. And this is to keep them sharp because they face an awesome force of high tech, well trained, well financed, well equipped airmen ready to do battle ?
Not quite. They are battling mostly a group of men whom herd goats as a day job, or raise poppies, many of whom cannot read, don't have power and plumbing where they live, and their weaponry mostly consists of small arms and shoulder fired weapons. They still stone women to death for suspected adultery and cut heads off neighboring tribesmen. They have kings or sultans that are fabulously wealthy but the average person makes about as much money a year as a good waitress here makes in a weekend.
We do not need this much military, and we need to quit paying to protect everyone in the world. This is like when we shipped Thailand a 10 year supply of condoms with a shelf life of 6 months.

NWBear · « **Reply #16 on:** February 27, 2014, 12:52:20 PM »

You have to LOVE the sequester - that is what makes the cuts MANDITORY !!!!!!
Doesn't matter who else overspends or where - DOD must cut X% for each future budget.
Of course where they cut is optional...

ironglow · « **Reply #17 on:** February 28, 2014, 12:19:04 AM »

What we are headed for... Sharing New York Revolution's photo;

BBF · « **Reply #18 on:** February 28, 2014, 12:23:54 AM »

Quote from: SHOOTALL on February 26, 2014, 04:43:41 AM

Where will the cost savings be ? There are few jobs for anyone you turn out thousands of people that may have to go on welfare or other govt. support WHAT DID YOU SAVE ?

You don't turf anybody. Retirement and people leaving on their own will bring down the numbers.

don29 · « **Reply #19 on:** February 28, 2014, 05:53:05 AM »

Quote from: BBF on February 25, 2014, 02:10:48 AM

Since it is a Volunteer Army, you can always leave.
Perhaps a smaller Armed Forces will curtail acting like the Universal Policeman on this Planet and get drawn/mixed up into other Peoples internal affairs..
If it ever came to a full out conventional War 450.000 or 800,000+ won't make a microscopic difference. Should it get nuclear any amount of troops is meaningless.

that IS the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

the old "Fix bayonets" and doing a shoulder-to-shoulder to charge does NOT apply in most of todays combat strategies; limited nuclear weapons DO have a place since the mid-to-late 50's.

it's a paradox, though, as the need for the infantry soldier will ALWAYS be there, the iron willed men of our air force and navy WILL always be needed...

Conan The Librarian · « **Reply #20 on:** February 28, 2014, 09:43:28 AM »

You can't just leave. Once you are in, they own you for the duration of the contract.

twoshooter · « **Reply #21 on:** February 28, 2014, 10:37:04 AM »

They are discussing the cuts at a major base near me, looking at 1000+ military position cuts, 150+ civilian, at least to start. I hate to see them unemployed also but many are already on welfare. Young enlisted families up through sergeants rank are often on food stamps.

Larry L · « **Reply #22 on:** February 28, 2014, 12:15:02 PM »

As of June 2013 we had the worlds largest army. After his cuts we will still have the largest army. A lot of you are thinking of war like they did in WWII. They expected war to be between people with rifles to shoot it out. They didn't expect navies to fight and never see each other. They didn't know about how effective the airplane could be. Today we have people sitting in Houston that can deliver ordinance anywhere in the world, even nukes if need be. We don't need the numbers on the ground unless you still want to be the worlds police force like our military has become. Does it make us weaker or more technologically advanced and not need the numbers? Technology is a good thing when fighting a war and previous wars support that thinking. With drones and smart bombs capable of a GPS target, why endanger the troops? Hit the leaders of the enemy and the fight is pretty much over. While I still don't like Yomma, I think this is one he got right. Now what he does with the money saved......yeah, that's another subject.
http://www.businessinsider.com/10-most-powerful-militaries-in-the-world-2013-6?op=1

Conan The Librarian · « **Reply #23 on:** February 28, 2014, 09:41:46 PM »

A coupla things:
1) We need to keep in mind that there are never cuts in spending. The money just goes to a pet program, and then it becomes a permanent part of the budget, guaranteeing even greater national debt and inflexibility for the things that matter.

2) The US department of defense is the largest employer in the world, with about 3.2 million employees. Second largest is Chinese army with about 2.3 million, then Walmart with about 2.1 million. The real question is why we have 3.2 million employees in DoD? And that doesn't count a lot of civilians, and supply chain employees. One thing this means is that when your friendly neighborhood republican politician says that these cuts compromise the national defense, the proper response is to laugh and turn these numbers right around on him: How the hail is 3.2 million people not enough? And let's hear some details if you please? What are they doing? Sitting around reading comic books all day?

3) DoD has a budget of 420 billion dollars a year. Ask the repub if that's not enough, how much is enough?

4) The numbers were higher during the mainstream of the recent Iraq/Afghanistan wars. The next question is, why did it take over ten years to deal with that situation, and put the nation at the brink of default multiple times? And why did we need to have bailout money from potential enemies like China to fund it all?

The answers you get will be the same exact answers that you get from a democrat about democrat issues: it's never enough, we just need to keep increasing the spending. It's like a drug.

don29 · « **Reply #24 on:** March 01, 2014, 02:10:49 AM »

another thing to keep in mind...so-called "Cuts in spending" usually come from PROPOSED budgets

don29 · « **Reply #25 on:** March 01, 2014, 02:26:28 AM »

Quote from: Larry L on February 28, 2014, 12:15:02 PM

As of June 2013 we had the worlds largest army. After his cuts we will still have the largest army. A lot of you are thinking of war like they did in WWII. They expected war to be between people with rifles to shoot it out. They didn't expect navies to fight and never see each other. They didn't know about how effective the airplane could be. Today we have people sitting in Houston that can deliver ordinance anywhere in the world, even nukes if need be. We don't need the numbers on the ground unless you still want to be the worlds police force like our military has become. Does it make us weaker or more technologically advanced and not need the numbers? Technology is a good thing when fighting a war and previous wars support that thinking. With drones and smart bombs capable of a GPS target, why endanger the troops? Hit the leaders of the enemy and the fight is pretty much over. While I still don't like Yomma, I think this is one he got right. Now what he does with the money saved......yeah, that's another subject.
http://www.businessinsider.com/10-most-powerful-militaries-in-the-world-2013-6?op=1

what you say is true...but why do leaders of the world consider it unethical to target leaders?

there will ALWAYS be the need for the infantry 'grunt'...the sailor to man the ship...the pilot/crew to man the airplane...i don't know if i'd want to a a paratrooper jumping from a drone...

i read recently that old F-16's are being taken out of mothballs and being converted to drones...is that a good idea?

who will secure the territory you "Take out the leader" of? robosoldier? drones are a very effective method against targets...but look at the firestorm of controversy over it...

men build machines and technology...men can, and do, defeat those machines and technology...

the single largest problem with ANY drone/robot...it cannot make decisions on it's own.

this is very controversal subject and there are some very credible thoughts at hand here.