Lobo, Then find the waste and unnecessary line items FIRST, calculate the savings, and then adjust the budget. The cut percentage is arbitrary; they were given a number and now the DOD has to go back and figure out where to cut. It's doing things half-assed backwards, and quite honestly, I find it ludicrous to do this at the same time the government is pushing a 'stimulus' bill that's pushing close to a trillion dollars of new spending.
The irony of this, btw, is that the programs that are most likely to be affected are new weapons systems which are providing civilian employment. Cut the programs and more jobs will be lost. Don’t get me wrong; I realize there is significant waste and corruption in the DOD budget, and it should be addressed. But there is waste and corruption everywhere in the Federal budget. I’d much prefer to see the budget cleaned up elsewhere and focus on the DOD once our military activities are reduced and it’s safer to do so. Oh, and btw, the missile defense systems are not to defend us from Russia, it's in anticipation of new missile systems developed by Iran, North Korea or other 'friendly' nations in the region. These defense systems would be useless against Russian land or sub based ICBM's. On Feb 1, 3:31 pm, Lobo <[email protected]> wrote: > FRANKG > > Don't you think it sort of matters WHAT in the Pentagon budget is > being cut? What makes the overall dollar amount so sancrosanct? > > God knows, while they were hardly the first to waste zillions, the > Bush Pentagon people REALLY went wild wasting countless billions on > utter nonsense, ranging from outrageous cost overruns on obsolete > weapons systems that didn't even work, to shipping tons of currency by > weight (literally!) to Iraq to be passed out with zero accountability. > And all the while, shortchanging the troops in Iraq themselves on body > armor, truck armor, and even BULLETS! > > In these times, do we REALLY need to spend hundreds of billions of > dollars to, among other things, base missiles in countries that don't > want them, in order to "defend" them and us from a Soviet Union that > ceased to exist nearly a quarter of a century ago? > > I'm all for spending what we actually need to defend ourselves. But, > just as Ike warned us back in 1960, the Military/Industrial Complex > (more accurately, the "Congressional/Military/Industrial Complex") has > become a reason for spending unto itself, where we are kept in a > perpetual state of war in order that gigantic sums of money might be > fed to sate its ever-hungrier belly. > > Before we toss out all those billions, why don't we first find out > what is really necessary to keep us safe, as opposed to simply what > will make certain congressmen, Pentagon generals and arms > manufacturers happy? > ======================================================================= > > On Jan 31, 10:11 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > (Why is it not surprising that this bon mot of foolishness comes to us > > > regards of the "Fair And Balanced" folk at FOX "News"?) > > > Lobo, > > > Does Fox have the facts correct or no? If it does, then how is this > > foolishness? The government is spending a large percentage of a > > trillion dollars (that it doesn't have) on highly questionable > > 'projects' while it cuts the military's budget, which is currently > > waging two wars, and Fox is being foolish for reporting it? > > > Of course there is waste, fraud and abuse in the Pentagon. No one said > > there wasn't. It's a government agency. Is there any government agency > > that doesn't have waste, fraud and abuse? > > > This, of course, is not the point. Like it or not, we are in two wars. > > The military is stretched thin. You start cutting the budget and > > people will die. And lets not forget, the situation in Afghanistan is > > far worse than it’s been in Iraq for a while, so now is not the time > > to be cutting funds. Bush was brutalized for not spending enough to > > armor humvees or to get enough body armor to the troops. But now it's > > OK to cut the budget because it was raised so much before? > > > You know what would be a unique idea... if someone actually tried to > > eliminate the waste, fraud and abuse and save money that way rather > > than just cut funds and leave the corruption in place. > > > On Jan 31, 5:49 pm, Lobo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > ... there being no such thing as waste, fraud or abuse in any Pentagon > > > budget, of course. > > > > Free rubbers?!? OMIGOD! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!! > > > > (Why is it not surprising that this bon mot of foolishness comes to us > > > regards of the "Fair And Balanced" folk at FOX "News"?) > > > ======================================================================= > > > > On Jan 31, 12:41 pm, Travis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The obamunist strikes again. > > > > - > > > > > From: Travis > > > > Subject: RED ALERT: A trillion in pork, but Pentagon must cut 11%! > > > > Date: Friday, January 30, 2009 > > > > >http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/01/red-alert-trillion-on-pork-b... > > > > > Friday, January 30, 2009 RED ALERT: A trillion in pork, but Pentagon > > > > must > > > > cut > > > > 11%!<http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/01/red-alert-trillion-on-pork-b...> > > > > > *BREAKING 7:41PM ET*: *Fox News Television reports that Barack Obama has > > > > issued a demand that the Pentagon reduce its budget by more than 10%*. > > > > > The dollar figure is $55 billion. > > > > > President Obama wants to spend a trillion dollars on welfare, condoms, > > > > international STD prevention and handouts for illegal immigrants... but > > > > negative funding for the *very mission his Presidential Oath required*. > > > > > Americans will die, needlessly, if this man gets his way. > > > > > Overreach? He's already pulled his arm out of its socket. > > > > > Here *are the phone numbers for every U.S. > > > > Senator<http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm> > > > > *. *Call now* and demand -- with as much polite-itude as you can muster > > > > -- > > > > that they speak out against both the Porkulus package and this > > > > outrageous > > > > attempt to weaken America. > > > > > *Update*: Connie B. noted that the requested budget cut is just "a > > > > start"! > > > > > *Update II*: First mainstream media outlet to report appears to be > > > > InsideDefense > > > > (subscription)<http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/0-0&fp=49831eb0070dbe74&ei...>(hat > > > > tip: > > > > Ace <http://minx.cc/?post=282072>): "'Substantial' Cut to FY-10 Budget > > > > Plan; > > > > Pentagon to Appeal" > > > > > *Update III*: Tommy emails: "We're all dead men walking." > > > > > *Update IV*: Iran. Nukes. Operation > > > > Starfish<http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007/12/operation-starfish.html> > > > > . > > > > > *Update V*: Via Reuters, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) says that long-range > > > > U.S. > > > > antiballistic missile system should be scaled down as part of a > > > > belt-tightening<http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idU...> > > > > . > > > > > *Update VI*: Inside Defense: "[T]he Obama administration has directed > > > > Pentagon officials to pare back its original FY-10 topline > > > > proposal<http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/2-0&fp=49831eb0070dbe74&ei...> > > > > ." > > > > > -- > > > > *~@):~{>- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
