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.
I watched Gates talking about just this. It a matter of defense budget has remained close to 4% since the Clinton cuts which was called the peace dividend.Do not confuse war sepnding with the defense budget itself. With misson changes there will be spending changes.The so called defense budget cuts where a huge part of clinton's balancing the budget then on paper at least.Of course we have more than madeup for it in other increases in spending as is normal when politicans see money they can start to borrow.That is one reason GAO wanred that the budget this time can't be cut bu defense budget this time.
That should really increase the unemployment stats. Obama is the POTUS who told us all to go back to school so that we could spend too much money for a degree in a field where there are no jobs.
An easy fix for this is to increase the minimum ASVAB score on these admin jobs. That will force either two things 1.) a lot more individuals enlist in the lower skilled combat arms MOS’ 2.) the overall level of enlisted drastically goes down because the military will force new comers into job fields that aren’t applicable in the outside world.
The times have changed drastically since the civil war where most soldiers were tasked with pulling triggers. In today’s army you need to shoot, move and communicate. The combat arms troops are tasked with shooting while support troops handle the other 66 percent. Than you have the fact that most homeless veterans were ex combat arms. After serving their enlistments combat arms troops will have to reinvent their selves then build the skills necessary to secede in life. With a majority of combat MOS’ the price of transitional services will sky rocket.
Just my two cents after serving in OIF1 & 2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
I may be in the minority, but I see this as a good thing. The military has been stretched thin in the War On Terror, but part of that has to do with fewer soldiers/marines/sailors/airmen electing to sign-up for combat related duties, and instead taking the more "administrative" route that keeps them out of harms way.
In my three trips to Iraq, i've seen what I consider to be a top heavy Administrative Army. Not to denigrate those that serve, but most American's would be surprised at the number of military folks sitting behind a desk versus shooting a gun. Yes, these folks are needed, but the ranks are bloated with these servicemembers from my perspective.
I believe a strategic reduction in non-combat roles is needed while simultaneously increasing the number of combat operators.
As for the Navy, I can't speak specifically to this troop reduction, but if its anything like what i've witnessed in ground forces, i'd say its good to reduce the force there as well.
So we spend fortunes and get little from it. I'd rather us invest in alternate energies where we can get people off the grid ( the grid makes us susceptible to disabling attacks) We can employ as many people but actually do things that benefit us, or economy and our personal wealth.
If we kill off many of these super expensive military projects we can scale down our needs and reduce the demands on our funds.
Stopping the war or closing a base will have little impact of budget reduction until you eliminate the roles of those employed. simply moving people from one place to another won't reduce our costs and likely would increase them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristineVA
This could be interesting. You say to "stop building ships" which I agree with; however, when that is said do you (the general you) realize that this does not really "shrink" the government but directly impacts many, many contract (private sector) workers? It seems that much of the government's efforts are no longer done in-house and to make the cuts people want, it really truly will impact the private sector. Yet, all I hear is get rid of government workers.
I just wonder how the government will try to balance slashing the government yet increasing the private sector workforce. I don't think it's going to work.
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.
