Time To Cut Military Spending Drastically (wage, Mexican, weapon, illegal immigration)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure, but the use of the military in certain areas is certainly Unconstitutional.
Constitutional or not, taxpayers should demand that spending is reigned in. Please read some of the links in my initial post, just one or two, they are all very enlightening. The military should not be untouchable.
Part of the problem has to do with military contracts. Members of Congress and some people in the Pentagon get to decide on certain types of contracts as in who and where. One example is a Mississippi congressman who got a Navy ship built in his homestate. Thing was, the US Navy said they didn't need the ship. Then you have Admirals and Generals who are buttered up by corporations. Then once those admirals and generals leave the service, they move right into a corporate executive position within that company and are then privy to classified information through their security clearance and their old Pentagon networking connections. I don't know how you can fix the problem with Congressmen other than ensuring they are voted out of office. But the Admiral and General problem could be reduced by setting a time limit for how long after military service could they move into a position in a Department of Defense contractor/supplier position. Those Admirals and Generals aren't hurt if you keep them out of such jobs for four or five years. They're drawing full retirement benefits including pay and medical. In 1997 there was a toll free "waste, fraud, and abuse" hotline. I worked at SIMA, a Navy shore maintenance repair facility. We were told if we thought items coming in were excessively over priced, we were to call the number. We did but never heard of an outcome. We'd ordered a box of plastic tie straps. We were suspicious when the box arrived and each plastic tie strap was individually wrapped in bubble wrap. I think they were about $8 to $10 per plastic tie strap. There are some parts Navy ships use that are very expensive because of the level of quality control involved but plastic tie straps ain't one of them.
Part of the problem has to do with military contracts. Members of Congress and some people in the Pentagon get to decide on certain types of contracts as in who and where. One example is a Mississippi congressman who got a Navy ship built in his homestate. Thing was, the US Navy said they didn't need the ship. Then you have Admirals and Generals who are buttered up by corporations. Then once those admirals and generals leave the service, they move right into a corporate executive position within that company and are then privy to classified information through their security clearance and their old Pentagon networking connections. I don't know how you can fix the problem with Congressmen other than ensuring they are voted out of office. But the Admiral and General problem could be reduced by setting a time limit for how long after military service could they move into a position in a Department of Defense contractor/supplier position. Those Admirals and Generals aren't hurt if you keep them out of such jobs for four or five years. They're drawing full retirement benefits including pay and medical. In 1997 there was a toll free "waste, fraud, and abuse" hotline. I worked at SIMA, a Navy shore maintenance repair facility. We were told if we thought items coming in were excessively over priced, we were to call the number. We did but never heard of an outcome. We'd ordered a box of plastic tie straps. We were suspicious when the box arrived and each plastic tie strap was individually wrapped in bubble wrap. I think they were about $8 to $10 per plastic tie strap. There are some parts Navy ships use that are very expensive because of the level of quality control involved but plastic tie straps ain't one of them.
Great post and you really outlined a number of problems here. The Congressmen whose district is home to a military base or a military manufacturing center has no incentive to ensure that defense spending and budgets are scrutinized. As with all government-run operations, the military is not immune from extreme inefficiencies. I hate to harp on this point, by this thread is meant to question why the military, unlike other government programs, should be exempt from such scrutiny.
Great post and you really outlined a number of problems here. The Congressmen whose district is home to a military base or a military manufacturing center has no incentive to ensure that defense spending and budgets are scrutinized. As with all government-run operations, the military is not immune from extreme inefficiencies. I hate to harp on this point, by this thread is meant to question why the military, unlike other government programs, should be exempt from such scrutiny.
Most enlisted personel have seen some form of waste during their time in service. What makes it worse is things the money is wasted on is usually unimportant while those important things are starving for funding. I was on a ship with a 3 star admiral. We could barely keep the engines and generators running but we could sure throw a fancy party for local officials in foreign ports. That's when I had the chance to see what wine that cost over $100 a bottle taste like. We were told some of the money for those parties came from the US State Department but I have my doubts. Another reason why Congress won't agree to close foreign bases is because it's a taxpayer paid vacation for them and their families. They tell their voters they're going to inspect the troops or see the condition of military bases. That's within their rights as members of Congress. But what they don't tell you or their voters is they might spend a day on the Naval base in Naples or Gaeta, Italy but the rest of the two weeks is spent traveling the Italian countryside. Saw this first hand while stationed in Gaeta, Italy. You and I paid for their vacation. We had to wait for the next budget cycle to get money to fix the steam turbine driven water pump and the steam turbine electric generator but that Admirals barge (motor boat with private cabin) will look and run fantastic at all cost.
The military has become an expensive, glorified jobs program. We are not any safer because of the wars started in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in fact, a great argument could be made that these wars have made us less safe. Terrorism is a real threat, but it's a threat that is best dealt with through law enforcement and intelligence tactics, not wide-scale military action.
At a time when the American people, led by the Tea Partiers, are very worried about out of control government spending, there seems to be little discussion about one of the biggest culprits: the military! It's time for Americans to wake up and stop regarding the issue as a third rail. There is so much wasteful spending, from $600 plungers, to ridiculous government contracts for shadow defense forces like Blackwater, that we cannot go on much longer like this.
Anyone interested in further reading, simply look up "Military-Industrial Complex," a term that was coined by departing President Eisenhower and something that has been written about ad nauseum in the decades since.
The US is the single greatest power that has ever existed and controls the world because of that "superfluous" military. It is the only reason you can live a lifestyle where obesity can actually be a problem and wars can be fought for you without having to worry about draft cards comming in the mail and having enemy bombers fly over your house.
I didn't say it was right, mind you... but the contemporary suburban "american dream" lifestyle would be impossible without the Military Industrial Complex. Are you willing to give up everything you have in exchange for a different system that you may or may not benefit from?
The US is the single greatest power that has ever existed and controls the world because of that "superfluous" military. It is the only reason you can live a lifestyle where obesity can actually be a problem and wars can be fought for you without having to worry about draft cards comming in the mail and having enemy bombers fly over your house.
I didn't say it was right, mind you... but the contemporary suburban "american dream" lifestyle would be impossible without the Military Industrial Complex. Are you willing to give up everything you have in exchange for a different system that you may or may not benefit from?
I feel confident that our safety and the American Dream would still be possible with military spending that is half of what it currently is. We'd still be the greatest power in the history of the mankind, and without the need to "control" the world.
I think your attitude is typical of the automatic response a lot of people have when this issue is discussed. It's as if decreasing funding would jeopardize our security, which is not at all the case. Even if you truly believe that the wars we're fighting in the Middle East make sense, there are still other areas where we can scale back. We've had bases in Germany, Japan, and Korea since the end of the respective wars we fought in those countries. We have bases in places we've never fought wars, in countries like England and Australia that have been our allies for over a century (and probably will be for a long time coming). It's just too much. At a time when people are complaining about out of control government spending, why is the military off limits? Why are scare tactics, like the ones in your post above, continuously used?
Cut military spending in half and we'll be safer and fiscally better off. Not only would that free up resources to use elsewhere, but it also keeps us from getting involved in wars in which we have no business and only raise animosity towards the United States.
I summarized some of the arguments in my first post, but I'd still encourage you to read a few of the links I posted, particularly from the Cato Institute. Cato is far from a liberal organization, so you can trust their opinion and their motives here.
You?! I am not Afghan. Anyway, those deeds as such may not be bad, but they would be way more appreciated if they were not associated with the military, but with a civilian organization without a hidden agenda. Foreign military is considered bad, thus many locals will always reject anything that military does on their land.
I keep reading you and wondering what side you would have taken in Germany in 1956 when the German army was reformed. I somehow think you and I may have been involved in the fights I got into when German people beat up their soldiers. Of course, back then they didn't feel a need for a military and indeed they feared that a German military would result in the old Hitlerian days. However, any fool living then would have realized that if the Americans had pulled out because many people didn't like them there was a real chance that the Russians would have just taken over all of Germany.
I am just wondering if all Europeans have been as taken over by progressive thinking as you have. It wasn't that way in the late 1950s in most of Europe and the people there loved us of the American military for what we had so recently done for them.
Before leaving this thread I must ask how many of you people who want to cut the military in half heard the Obama speech in Colorado just before the election where he said he wanted a civilian corps that was as powerful, well supplied, and trained as the military. What did he mean when he said that? I think he was talking about his own private army which may well being formed right now and many will accept it when it comes into being. I prefer to have a military that can oppose something like that if it comes into being.
Before leaving this thread I must ask how many of you people who want to cut the military in half heard the Obama speech in Colorado just before the election where he said he wanted a civilian corps that was as powerful, well supplied, and trained as the military. What did he mean when he said that? I think he was talking about his own private army which may well being formed right now and many will accept it when it comes into being. I prefer to have a military that can oppose something like that if it comes into being.
I'm not an Obama supporter in the least, yet I find this type of thinking fascinatingly paranoid. Obama can't do half of the things he you probably think that he dreams of doing.
I hope that this isn't the best argument for a large military that wastefully spends taxpayer money.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
