Slashdot Mirror
Defense Chief Urges Big Cuts In Military Spending
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates says the Pentagon is wasting money it will no longer get, and focused on targets as diverse as the large number of generals and admirals, the layers of bureaucracy in the Pentagon, and the cost of military health care. 'The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, opened a gusher of defense spending that nearly doubled the base budget over the last decade,' Gates says. 'Military spending on things large and small can and should expect closer, harsher scrutiny. The gusher has been turned off, and will stay off for a good period of time.' Gates, a Republican who was carried over as Defense Secretary from the Bush administration, has already canceled or trimmed 30 weapons programs with long-term savings predicted at $330 billion, but is now seeking to convert as much as 3% of spending from 'tail' to 'tooth' — military slang for converting spending from support services to combat forces. While this may not seem like a significant savings in the Pentagon's base budget, cuts of any size are certain to run hard against entrenched constituencies. Gates's critique of top-heavy headquarters overseas was underscored by the location of the speech — the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum. President Eisenhower, the supreme allied commander in Europe during World War II, warned the nation of the menacing influence of an emerging 'military-industrial complex' in his farewell address as president in 1960. 'Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals,' said Eisenhower, 'so that security and liberty may prosper together.'"
This will be spun as a Democratic administration not "supporting the troops", despite it being proposed by Gates, a holdover from a Republican administration. Much like how only Nixon could go to China, only a Republican can advocate cutting the defense budget (even if only a mere 2-3%) without being pilloried as near-treason.
Eisenhower said:
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/indust.html
I wonder why people always ignore that part.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
It definitely goes against the grain of what we've seen before now.
Stating the obvious usually does.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
our thrifty defense overlords. I really do.
Indeed.
If there really is going to be some "tail-to-tooth" transfer of spending, it'll be a very welcome change.
However, I am a bit peeved at the mention of "military healthcare". Given the atrocious cuts in services for veterans who've been injured in combat, I think that is the one area where the government needs to do more.
After all, if we ask people to lose limbs for us, it's only fair if we at least take care of them, when they come back from the battlefield with life-altering disabilities. It doesn't really matter what wars they were fighting. They are OUR soldiers, and it's our duty as a nation to support them, regardless of whether we support the politics that brought them to the battlefield.
Does this mean major cutbacks on corporate welfare and job security clearances for US Persons?
I'd love to get an engineering job outside of the defense/military industrial complex, maybe this will finally make the other jobs on the market relatively more competitive! And maybe I could get to apply some of the mechanical/aerospace skills I learned in college finally?
Corporate welfare through defense spending has been an awfully good way of keeping the educated middle class too busy doing busywork to try to enact any kind of social change. But maybe mass entertainment has finally caught up with keeping those minds preoccupied with inane things.
"Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money that we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would many times over, not one human being excluded, not one, and we could explore space together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace." -Bill Hicks
Living With a Nerd
I remember reading somewhere that Eisenhower was the president to most significantly cut the military budget in the past 60 years.
Anyone else who tried to do it was labeled as "making America weaker" or a giant wuss. But it was much harder to call the man who lead the largest amphibious invasion in history a pussy.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
> It's nice to see Mr. Gates being so active in his retirement. After running Microsoft for so long, running the US Military must be a nice break for him.
> It looks like he's using his business acumen to streamline the military.
Don't worry. Military spending will come to a screeching halt when he's done with Operation Bluescreen!
Military spending has been increasing at an unsustainable rate for at least the last 30 years. If it continues to increase at this rate it will surely bankrupt us. Our heavy investment in the military (over other important things such as education) also suggests that our priorities are badly skewed and need to be realigned.
Facts have a liberal bias.
Makes sense to me. America is in a huge economic hole and desperately needs money pumped into infrastructure, health, job creation and other areas of government. America spends more on the military than other developed countries combined, so even a slight reduction in this should reap rewards in other areas. And if the US is smart about how it cuts spending, it does not even mean the military need become weaker as a result. Spend smarter, not 'harder', I guess you could say.
When your budget is greater than your earning power, things must be cut. That's just the way it is and anyone with a brain can understand that. As such, I expect that the US Military will accept the cuts logically and maturely... Much like the Greek people.
That is literally the only area of defense I support increasing funding for. I find it funny (and sad) that the people who most loudly proclaim to "support the troops" don't really give a shit about them once they're back.
I may personally want to cut defense spending and often not even respect the troops or what they're doing, but as misguided as I think they are, they sure as shit deserve support when they come home missing limbs or with PTSD. It's disgusting the way most soldiers end up due to the way we toss them aside once they've used up their usefulness.
The man is awesome. He cares for America. Basically, another Eisenhower. Obama has a group working on figuring out how to cut the deficit and balance the budget. That group needs to have EVERY head of each dept. tell them how to cut waste for each. Finally, that group needs to push for a balanced budget amendmendment that will block the running of deficits during good times. Right now, the majority of our unneeded debt is from 1982-1990, and from 2002-2007. That accounts for about 8 trillion dollars of a time when we had a decent economy and had ZERO reason to run a deficit.
Personally, If Robert Gates was to run for president (or even replace Biden) , I would vote for him.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I agree, but in many situations it is possible to do MORE with less.
If you study the events leading up to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the size and rampant spending of their military-industrial complex as it slowly bankrupted them for thirty years comes out on top. Everyone knew it existed, and everyone knew it would suck the nation dry before they could "win" the Cold War against the United States, but it was so entrenched in their economy that the means to measure and control it simply did not exist. It's interesting to see that Eisenhower noticed this disturbing trend fifty years ago. If the Soviet Union was bled dry in thirty years, how much longer can the United States survive the siphoning of hundreds of billions of dollars from their economy? Or is it already too late?
American citizens really must ask themselves what this spending has done for them. Access to foreign oil? Protection from terrorists? For a fraction of the trillions of dollars spent in the past decade on "defense", those issues could have been resolved virtually overnight. Instead, you have made a select group of people very rich and very powerful. Was it worth it?
Eisenhower and DOD created DARPA as a way to guarantee that we had fundamental RD being done. That group has been responsible for keeping American military on the cutting edge. W converted it from a mix (basically university, business, etc) to a great deal of money to just business esp. into Texas. That has come at the cost of long range basics. That needs to be changed back. We do need a better way to get our RD into the field, but not at the cost of the future. In addition, more of the RD needs to funnel back to either American business, or at least Western business, with all of the work in America/West.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The economy must really be on the verge of disintegration, if this is what they are talking about publicly. Batten down the hatches!
"Lost time is not found again."
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial-congress complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
I know it's complex, but if you ignore the political implication aspect you're devaluing the entire notion.
You can't take the sky from me...
Well, we're doomed then. For the majority of USA "citizens," if it doesn't exist on American Idol, it doesn't exist.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Indeed.
If there really is going to be some "tail-to-tooth" transfer of spending, it'll be a very welcome change.
However, I am a bit peeved at the mention of "military healthcare". Given the atrocious cuts in services for veterans who've been injured in combat, I think that is the one area where the government needs to do more.
After all, if we ask people to lose limbs for us, it's only fair if we at least take care of them, when they come back from the battlefield with life-altering disabilities. It doesn't really matter what wars they were fighting. They are OUR soldiers, and it's our duty as a nation to support them, regardless of whether we support the politics that brought them to the battlefield.
I firmly agree. One important point that Gates misses is that military personnel and civilian employees of the military often have much lower salaries than the equivalent private sector positions. One of the main reasons that many people make the choice to serve directly rather than as, say, a contractor is that the government promises job security and health benefits. In other words, many people are choosing stability over paycheck. If Gates is going to reduce the "stability" portion of that equation, then he will need to either increase the pay for those remaining or be prepared to hire more contractors to get the job done.
Soildiers, sailors and marines, as well as their families, earn everything they get. I would hardly call it an 'entitlement' program to give benefits to people that we ask to give up their youngest, healthiest years and spend them slogging through mud, risking their lives; or for their families to have to sit back and wait, wondering if their spouse/parent will come home in one piece, if not alive. I'm not saying this because of the "rah-rah-rah" stuff, I'm saying it because there is a world of difference between soldiers earning keep for themselves and their families and, say, welfare. "Back in the day" there might have been something to be said for perhaps a tiered system where those "in the rear with the gear", who were at less risk, didn't get as sweet a deal. But, as we're now in wars where there really aren't front lines and safe zones, where anyone is a potential enemy and you're just one grenade away from death, even at the supply depot, there really isn't a whole lot of difference now.
http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1467
I found a lot of the media coverage to be selective, and the headline on this /. posting to be somewhat misleading
The alternative is that the soldier's enroll their family into a healthcare program and pay for it then? Ok, cool. So they will remove the benefit from the soldier and pay him the value of the lost benefit so he can then pay for healthcare. It's not like it's the whole family, only spouse and children under 18. No parents or other family, just dependants.
Besides, have you been to the military hospital? Trust me, it's cheaper to leave the military healthcare as it is.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
No. Healthcare is considered a right in most of Europe. One of the big pushes has been to provide healthcare for everyone.
The military healthcare system for veterans and their families is an absolute necessity. Soldiers get payed crap, they deal with a job that curtails their constitutional freedoms, a job where they have to deal with the trauma of violence, death, killing and risk being killed/maimed themselves.
You want to cut the military pay roll? Fine. Reduce recruiting, let old soldiers retire. But each and every one of them needs what little help and compensation they do get and deserves more.
Because it really makes sense to have a parallel health care system only for soldiers?
VA hospitals are a pretty good system, but they should really be for everyone, not just ex soldiers. Public health care is good for everyone, not just people who were in wars.
-josh
Your comment makes me rage. If you were close enough I kick you in the junk so hard your grandchildren would still be feeling it...if you were still capable of having them.
The military is NOT the "largest entitlement program in the country." It's not even fucking CLOSE.
Maybe you should take your ignorant self over to http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258 and read the very simple article that breaks out the spending. The U.S. Military budget is about 20%, Social Spending is about 55%!
So no, I'm not kicking you in the junk for slagging the military although that irritates me as well. I'm kicking you in the junk for being ignorant of the real budget numbers.
I supported the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but I do not support the way they were handled. I do think the military-industrial complex should have been abolished long ago. Why? Because what has it done to protect us, really? Vietnam? It didn't help us win. Grenada? Yeah right. A banana republic with a few Cuban troops that our Salvation Army could have whipped. Panama? See above. Gulf War I? We didn't win that war, remember? We stopped just short of victory, a violation of one of the most fundamental principles of war that history has ever taught us: never leave an aggressor intact. We had to go back and do the job right in 2003. Somalia? We were trying to help those people, they started shooting at us, so we left. Confrontation with Saddam's forces while enforcing the no-fly zones and inspectors? Come on. We had about 20,000 troops in theater at the time. We don't need to spend $400b a year to maintain THAT, or any of our other troop commitments around the world. Iraq War and Afghan War? We took an army with a military doctrine of slowing down a Soviet tank advance across Europe just long enough for our ICBMs to reach Moscow, and tried to use it to fight two major land wars in Asia. Big mistake. We SHOULD have immediately instituted a draft after 9/11, converted factories to war production, raised a massive army (like, 5 million men), and when the time was right, rolled into Iraq with at least a million strong. The PROPER way to occupy a country you defeat is to make sure your occupying troops are in every city, town and village so they can establish ORDER. That wasn't done. You can only spread 100,000 troops so far in a country if 28 million. And we have all seen the results. They always make the same mistakes, thinking you can do war "on the cheap". You can't. But I am encouraged by Secretary Gates' plan. It may be a step in a direction we should have gone in decades ago.
Zooperman
The support given to veterans is not "military healthcare." That bill is footed by the VA which is not part of the military. Gates, to his credit, took strong action when the problems at Walter Reid were first exposed, and top brass lost their jobs. This is one of the few people from the previous administration that has earned my respect.
"I would hardly call it an 'entitlement' program to give benefits to people that we ask to give up their youngest, healthiest years and spend them slogging through mud, risking their lives; or for their families to have to sit back and wait, wondering if their spouse/parent will come home in one piece, if not alive"
It's voluntary. Nobody is asking anybody to do anything. If they don't want to do it, then they shouldn't sign up. Why people sign up with families, I'll never understand. None of the "wars" that we are involved in are defensive, or even necessary. If enlistment drops by 90%, we'll still be able to DEFEND the country just fine.
I don't respond to AC's.
We're very far away from all nations that pose any significant threat. And our nuclear deterrent doesn't cost all that much.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
I'm sure this is all political and we'll continue to police the world. They're not coming home until the dollar outright collapses, which is probably not far off. While we're at it, how about cutting a couple TRILLION off the $4 Trillion budget!?!?!?
Ah, the old military is only xx% of the budget, argument. Right. Most of the money that we waste on military isn't even IN the budget. It's "discretionary" spending.
Any way you slice it, it's a massive, massive waste of money. We need about 1/10 of our current military to defend the country. All of the wars/invasions that the US has started since WWII have benefited military contractors, and military families. None of them have been of any benefit to the citizens of the US.
I don't respond to AC's.
And *you're* qualified to determine what's a massive waste of money? *I* think Social Security and other entitlements are a waste of money, but that's because I'm 27 and not going to see a penny of it. So, frankly, leave it up to experts to decide if it's a waste. Mr. Gates seems to have a fine handle on the situation.
From TFA:
"Mr. Gates said the nation owed quality health care to those in uniform, their families and veterans, but pointed out that members of the military health care system have not been charged increases in premiums for 15 years — even though the program’s annual cost has risen to $50 billion from $19 billion a decade ago.
'Health care costs are eating the Defense Department alive,' Mr. Gates said."
He's suggesting changing the cost structure of it, not cutting what it covers. Given no premium increases in 15 years, I'd have to say that it's time to make some changes to it.
"Choosing to refrain from producing another person demonstrates a profound love for all life" [vhemt.org]
There will always be terrorists--does that mean that we must always have war? If we do have war, does this mean that we always have to fight in in the quintessential American way--throwing massive amounts of expensive resources at our enemies at an overwhelming rate?
That strategy is great for WWII and for duking it out with the Soviet Army at the Fulda Gap, but it isn't very sensible for a long term war against a loose coalition of poor, ideologically committed killers.
We're spending tens of thousands of dollars per terrorist kill. If we're going to fight terrorists successfully we need to do it on a budget. Our irresponsible spendthrift congresspeople can only see as far as the money that defense industries bring to their regions. Military spending can easily become just welfare for the upper classes. Gates' point about the military being topheavy with generals and admirals is important. The military leadership is committed to propagating itself and will never act to make its command structure more "lean and mean."
We've remained in Iraq and Afghanistan all these years because our military is a $700 hammer and those countries happen to be the nails that our country's warhammer is adapted to. That approach isn't working and we can't afford it forever.
Actually, yes, it is good to have a parallel health care system only for soldiers. The physical and psychological needs are vastly different than most civilian situations. We owe it to those who put their lives on the line for us to take care of them. We do not owe it to everyone else (including me) to take care of them.
On the other hand, the real scandals are that (a) the VA system is shockingly bad at providing good health care, and (b) if ObamaCare is not repealed, we will essentially get VA for everyone... except Congress, the president, cabinet officers, the politically connected and other "better than the hoi polloi" types.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Contrary to the posts above, our military might has other ramifications outside of defense.
On a similar note; when Britain ceased being a, if not THE World Power in their time, because of the reduced military spending the average British citizen's standard of living went up. (I think I read that in the Economist and I'm too lazy to find the cite.)p/>I for one hope to see the day when we, the USA, are not the World Power.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
> The military is NOT the "largest entitlement program in the country." It's not even fucking CLOSE.
Your link refutes your argument. Your link refers to three large entitlement programs with approximately the same size as military spending. These numbers are from your link:
* $715 billion for military spending ("some 20 percent of the budget")
* $708 billion for social security ("another 20 percent of the budget")
* $753 billion for Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP ("together account for 21 percent of the budget")
Your own source states that military spending exceeds social security spending (albeit by just 1%), medicare, medicaid, and CHIP. Only by combining *all* of them can you justify your bizarre "not even fucking CLOSE" claim. It's like saying that Bill Gates was never one of the highest paid employees of Microsoft because there were many other employees whose *combined* salary exceeded his.
In addition, "military spending" above specifically excludes veterans benefits, but if we're talking about entitlements they should clearly be included. Even excluding that, military spending--using your own data--is slightly larger than spending on social security, the largest of entitlement programs.
> Your comment makes me rage. If you were close enough I kick you in the junk
> so hard your grandchildren would still be feeling it...if you were still capable of having them.
I suggest consulting your own sources before getting so angry you consider assault.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The military is NOT the "largest entitlement program in the country." It's not even fucking CLOSE.
Maybe you should take your ignorant self over to http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258 and read the very simple article that breaks out the spending. The U.S. Military budget is about 20%
Except those numbers are a bit misleading. Why are benefits paid to veterans NOT included in the defense spending part of that chart? That money is certainly part of what we spend on defense. It's just a game to make it sound like less than it really is.
When I was born, America was the industrial giant of the world. Economic theory held that a positive trade balance was necessary to remain an economic power and that "consumer driven" societies were doomed to collapse under a mountain of debt. Since then, we have given up our manufacturing leadership in every area but one -- weaponry. The military industrial complex is our last big manufacturing exporter of hard goods. True we are selling death on a scale that Wall-mart might envy, but just like the Soviet Union in the 1970-80s this is what keeps us as a world power. Many might say "good riddance" to such a role, but this industry will not go down without a fight, something that is probably second nature. Many Americans will support them too. Mr. Gates may slow the acquisition of new weapons. However, it will only take one contractor selling a "latest and greatest" weapon to another country instead of US for all of that to change.
Eisenhower said "military-industrial complex", not "military-industrial-Congress" complex. Read the speech.
However, I am a bit peeved at the mention of "military healthcare". Given the atrocious cuts in services for veterans who've been injured in combat, I think that is the one area where the government needs to do more.
No, no, you've got it all wrong.
When someone bitches about government-sponsored health care, you're supposed to point to Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA as amazing bastions of excellent funding and service. Mock their intelligence. Give them a false choice between:
- No Medicare, Medicaid, VA, etc.
- Unchecked, liberal tax-and-piss-away failnomics.
Then, when you need money, just take it from those services - even though they're already terribly run and underfunded. Start with the military. If they're overseas they can't bitch. If they're here, they're either too young to have any opinions about health care, or they're horribly maimed, burned, or otherwise disfigured - the press won't give them much camera time. The scant few who are healthy and informed? Just paint them as evil right-wing warmongers.
Then move on to the old people. Cut money from the existing programs, call it a restructuring. When they bitch, set up a new program who's cost/output is worse than the old program was. Old people bitch and vote - they've got nothing else to do. Take their pills away for a minute, let 'em bitch, then hand them half the pills in a less-efficient bottle. They'll vote for it every time.
Then draw up some legislation that takes more money from tax payers to put back into the pot you just took from, made new programs out of, etc.
If someone bitches about the new legislation, go back to the first step.
I put it to you that you are already bankrupt from overspending for the past 30 years. If the USA wasn't a nation that can just keep printing more money when required, or spend itself trillions into the hole, it would have been bankrupt years ago.
The Military/Industrial Complex that Eisenhower was warning against, got into power, and its been reaping massive fortunes for its Corporate Owners for that entire time. Look at Haliburton most recently.
Blackwater - when did the US citizenry decide it was actually okay for the country to hire mercenaries, and in fact let them equip themselves with a private airforce etc? Billions lost there.
Its long since past time for these cuts to be made - and in fact if the system were forced to trim itself down to ensure the "Tooth" part of the equation is still effective it would probably be very effective still - but the US budget is firmly in the grasp of the corporations that are making billions in profits for their owners off of defense spending, and the Military who naturally want all the high-tech tools and manpower they can get so they can be as effective as possible. You are not going to break that grip, ever. The politicians who are in office, BELONG to those companies, and if they want to keep their jobs, must keep supporting them I am afraid.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
"our peaceful methods and goals"
yeah, right!
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
*I* think Social Security and other entitlements are a waste of money
Hungry people don't stay hungry for long.
They get hope from fire and smoke as the weak grow strong.
You can't take the sky from me...
*I* think Social Security and other entitlements are a waste of money, but that's because I'm 27 and not going to see a penny of it.
People have been wringing their hands over the looming demise of Social Security since before you were born.
The only real threat of you not getting your investment back is if the politicians find enough excuses to dip into the kitty for other uses, or if the people who want to transfer the whole kitty into the stock market finally get their way.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
"VA hospitals are a pretty good system"
I take it you have zero experience with the VA.
"Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. "
I wonder if we will see similar thinking with respect to funding science?
-cluge
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
I'm cool with that, if you're cool with Military Personnel working on your body.. who aren't doctors. Your X-Ray tech will be an E-4 Specialist who gets paid ~28k$ yearly. You can't contract out those jobs either because those soldier's need to learn how to do those jobs so they can deploy and perform them.
I apologize for sounding hostile, didn't sleep last night. But honestly, VA hospitals don't typically see a soldier's family. The base/post hospital does. VA hospitals are kind of setup as support for old (read grandpa who fought in the war) vets. It is only in the last few years that so many young vets have needed post-service care. Soldier's on active duty who are injured don't leave the service until they are fixed/rehab'd (in theory). Or their care is migrated from the on-base hospital to a more permanent VA hospital during a medical retirement.
But after you leave the military, if you want to keep using Tricare or whatever, you have to pay (75$/month for a single guy i think? and more for dependants). If you retire, you get medical benefits for life.. so do your dependants i think (until they are over 18)?
I'm glad you think VA hospitals are good, i do too. But they aren't public health care, you have to "pay" into it. Not with money, but an oath and putting up with crazy BS. I think after VA learns to cope with this new influx of younger Vets they can expand to provide coverage for citizens, it's more than possible. The VA has been running such a huge healthcare system for so long they would make a good template for a public system.. if not morph into one (if, like i said.. people are ok with very underpaid military guys working on their body).
TL;DR - The VA is decent and unfortunately setup to be exclusive to military. But would make a good template to follow for a public system.. or expand the VA's capacity to service all citizens.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
http://www.iousathemovie.com/
Right, so now not only is the younger generation coughing up to support their older generation, if we don't provide what they want AARP is going to come wielding pitchforks on their golf carts? I already pay $300-400/month in FICA. Keep taking more, and at some point it just becomes impractical for me to work to pay for others (and being young, I'm mobile and can move to another country).
"VA hospitals are a pretty good system" ...compared to the average American hospital.
(As good as the best hospital? No.)
Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
if we don't provide what they want AARP is going to come wielding pitchforks on their golf carts?
Pretty much. Social programs keep human misery below the "bloody uprising" threshold, they are as important to social stability as police and fire services.
You can't take the sky from me...
Best of luck to them. I suggest they continue to work if they're able to (Retirement is an abboration in history; only one generation has been able to do it). I myself plan on working until the end.
Best of luck to them. I suggest they continue to work if they're able to (Retirement is an abboration in history; only one generation has been able to do it). I myself plan on working until the end.
Live long and prosper :)
You can't take the sky from me...
You're talking about (I'll assume) Uniform Allowances, Basic Allowance for Housing and Basic Allowance for Subsistence. The uniform allowance comes once a year on the anniversary date of your service. It's enough to purchase a few uniforms to replace those that are worn or damaged during the course of the year. Those uniforms are paid for out of the initial paychecks a service member receives while at boot or OCS. They're not given away. They are paid for. Basic Allowance for Housing is based off of rank and time in service. It's not based on the number of dependents, but whether you have dependents or not. This means it's the same for a service member with just a spouse as it is for a service member with a wife and four kids. If you live in the barracks, you don't get this. If you live aboard a ship, you don't get this. If you live in base housing, you don't get this. In some cases, it will cover rent and utilities. In many cases, it will not even cover rent. Basic Allowance for Subsistence is meant to offset the cost of meals for the service member only. BAS does not increase with dependents because it is meant for the actual member, not their family. If you live in the barracks or aboard a ship, you don't get this as you're expected to eat in the mess hall/galley/etc. I Now all of this isn't enough to live on. Military members still have to put gas in their cars, maintain residences and take care of the same things their civilian counterparts do. To call the vast majority of a military member's salary disposable is ignorant at worst and uninformed at best.
But, as we're now in wars where there really aren't front lines and safe zones, where anyone is a potential enemy and you're just one grenade away from death, even at the supply depot, there really isn't a whole lot of difference now.
That does it! I'm writing the Pentagon for my Cold War back pay as soon as I finish this post. Let's see... 1968 to the fall of the Wall... that's a good 21 years give or take... Washington DC area most of the time... OK... 5 years away at school so let's say 16 years of high risk certain annihilation and 5 years of lower risk Mad Max survival.... I'm working up those figures now. Suuuuwheeet retirement, here I come!
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
You might want to stick to civilian transport for a while.
...just sayin'
Why people sign up with families, I'll never understand.
Because some people want to ensure a future for their children? Is that really that hard to understand?
I'll grant you though that the need to do so may or may not exist today.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
It would be difficult for the administration to come out and say that they wanted to close bases without being labeled anti-military. However, trimming the "base budget" may not be the only thing that needs to be considered... Have they ever looked at some of the costs associated with operating stateside bases? I wonder what the costs are to operate the bases in Hawaii compared to operating the ones in Florida? Not just facility costs, but associated costs with shipping stuff out there, pay, etc. Same with some bases in California. Granted, congresscritters will have a cow if the military shut down large bases in "their" state.
I'm still trying to figure out some things about the military. For instance, the Air Force should be the aviation specialists, however, each branch has it's own planes. The Military Occupational Specialities cross all the branches: for instance every branch has a cook, admin personnel, police, etc. Why can't money be better spent cross training? Instead of having different cooks dependant upon the base, why not have one branch provide cooks? Or admin? Or intel? Or pilots? That might help clean things up a little. There could also be less bases if there then potentially less budget required.
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." General James Mattis
You are an idiot. I just wanted to say that up front before I completely demolish your point.
Many jobs offer healthcare benefits for the family of employees, either subsidized by the employer or paid for by the employee. In the case of the military, the absolutely shit pay that military personnel receive can be considered to be part payment for healthcare for their family members. As I remember from when a family member was in the service, a married E-4 with 1 kid makes so little that they are considered to be below the poverty line.
The military person themselves is not the only person who can need medical care as a result of their job. A soldier who comes back from a combat zone with injuries has a massive impact on their family, and the family will need counseling and care as well.
Finally, these are people who volunteer to put their lives on the line for their country. Unless and until we can guarantee that ALL US citizens will receive health care regardless of the ability to pay, we absolutely must provide specific coverage for military/their families.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
As percent of GDP? What about as percent of total expenditure? Or percent of income generated by the state itself (taxes)?
Doesn't seem like such a low number then.
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png
Especially considering a very large percent of that slice of the pie is actually spent on foreign invasion instead of just keeping up a military for protection.
I find looking at the numbers graphically helps me to better understand the relative scale of things.
http://www.deathandtaxesposter.com/
What would the Military-Industrial Complex do?
Watch This Suckers
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
VA hospitals are a pretty good system, but they should really be for everyone, not just ex soldiers. Public health care is good for everyone, not just people who were in wars.
I actually paused at that to try and determine if you were joking or not. The VA system, which always gets a lot of deserved and undeserved bad press, is swamped right now only handling former military members. Swapping it over to handling all military personnel is quite literally impossible. You would have to do a massive spending spree to build the facilities and recruit and hire the people to man it. It's not as simple as just taking the military medical facilities, draining out the medical officers, and filling it back up with VA personnel. By the time congress had passed the laws to do the switch, stuffing it with favorable contracts for their districts, it would cost massively more than the current system. Even if you could just wave a magic wand and switch them without additional cost, you've just swapped the money from one office to the one down the hall. The VA is not part of DoD. It is its own independent cabinet level office of government. Since you pay taxes for all of them, it is a net savings to you of zero. If you take a peek at this handy little graph at http://gregmciver.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/federal-spending.jpg , you'll see that with the exception of a couple post-WWII years, the federal budget has never gone down in the last 66 years. When congress tells you they are "cutting" programs and/or departments, what they are telling you that instead of spending 100 million over last years budget for department X, they will only be spending 50 million additional dollars. And in most cases, the 50 million in "savings" is moved to another department elsewhere.
The underpayment is already here.
I know a few dozen people who paid into SS their whole lives. How much do they get a month? About 300 bucks.
They saved for years. Had a good stash of money (401k ect). They get that from the government. What happened was the inflation from 1975 till now happened. It TOTALLY flattened what they were going to get. Back in 1975 300 a month was pretty sweet money. Now its not enough.
My father who had a 100k pension plan from a company will get 50k of it. That was probably enough to retire decently in 1980 (when he retired from that company). Now you would be lucky to make that stretch out 3 years.
It doesnt matter. EVEN if I get the money back from SS. By the time I get it the money will be so devalued its not worth it.
Ever wonder why the gov lets inflation in the 2-10% range? Because they have HUGE obligations. Inflation erodes those obligations.
While I agree that we're spending too much on some weapons systems... there's absolutely no excuse to pay 7 billion dollars for a DDG-1000 destroyer...Gates is fiercely protective of the biggest, most expensive military boondoggle of all time, the Joint Strike Fighter. He will absolutely tolerate no talk of canceling it.
It was supposed to be the "cheap" supplement to the F-22, much the same way the F-16 was the cheap supplement to the F-15. But now the F-35 costs as much, or possibly even more than the F-22 (CBO estimate: $122 million a copy and climbing), while being a substantially less capable airplane. And this has happened under Gates' watch.
And yet, he balks at buying more Super Hornets for the Navy instead, at what is a bargain price in the fighter world... $45 million apiece. There's no logic here.
I'm as big a hawk as you'll find, but I think the primary problem is with two parties here... defense contractors, and Congress. Congress sees defense as a jobs program, and defense contractors are ripping off the taxpayer. I've come to the reluctant conclusion perhaps we should abandon private suppliers for the military, and go back to in-house supply solutions. For instance, the Navy used to build their own ships in their own shipyards. It was seen as a way to not be too reliant on private yards, and to keep them honest. God knows we need that again. I'm a big capitalist, and all for competition in truly free, private markets. But defense contracting isn't really a free market. You're serving one customer... the government. Maybe it's time to open up our own shipyards again, and revive the old Naval Aircraft Factory in Philadelphia. Maybe that's the only way to put firms like Lockheed on notice that the gravy train is over.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
If you divide the amount by the number of beneficiaries it's got to be the most expensive, though "entitlement" is not exactly the right word.
And then was quoted by Brian Williams later: "The dirty little secret is the world is out of money and the emperor has no clothes."
All of government is going to have to be cut back and more than 50% of the people paying taxes. Not just the "rich".
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
To be fair, the problem with social security is that it was enacted when most people died before retirement age (retirement being 65; most died at 63) and we now live much longer. The solution is to push the retirement age for social security higher (it should be tied to estimated life expectancy statistics) and encourage (from a tax perspective) people to save more during their lives, while being comfortable as a nation/world with slower growth due to lower levels of consumption. But we know that ain't gonna happen, and it's going to end up as a clusterfuck of epic proportions. There is going to be a huge retired population who is going to want to lean on younger generations to provide for them, and those younger folks (myself included) are not going to want to slave away for the older generations. Begun, the generation wars have.
I'm writing this in Arlington, Virginia, and I believe that most of the U.S. military's overseas missions, such as the war on Iraq, are neither defensive nor necessary.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
>>I take it you have zero experience with the VA.
The VA actually does a pretty good job providing "good enough" health care for people, and on a tight budget.
Don't knock it; Kaiser has made a fortune off "good enough" health care.
It's certainly better than Medicare, or whatever Chimeric monstrosity the Democrats will dream up next.
Easy. Stop all carbon emissions and atmospheric pollutants, and see what happens over the next few decades. If there's no statistically significant drop in the rate of temperature change, then carbon emissions and other atmospheric pollutants weren't the (sole) cause. Wait, is that what they're already asking us to do? See? They're not asking us to stop polluting because they know it's bad -- they're asking us to stop so they can get the data they need to falsify your claim that pollution isn't the problem. Just good science.
Military spending has been increasing at an unsustainable rate for at least the last 30 years.
No, the cost of individual weapons systems has been rising at an unsustainable rate. Military spending is a fraction of what it was during it's peacetime highs, when it dominated federal spending in the 50's and 60's. Bush the Elder made big cuts to the military budget, and Bill Clinton made even bigger cuts. Even at the height of our military force structure during the Reagan years, the military was a fraction of what it was under Ike, Kennedy, and Johnson.
What we're getting isn't more military spending, but less bang for our military buck, by buying fewer weapons. We're spending about the same, GDP-wise. It's just that individual ships, planes, etc, cost more, so we're buying less of them. We bought 800 F-15's. We replaced them with 187 F-22's. Same buck. Less bang, even though the individual weapons are more capable. There's simply no way one F-22 can replace 4 F-15's in the real world, no matter what Lockheed's marketing department says.
By far the largest and most bloated parts of the federal budget are the entitlements... Social Security, Medicare, etc. They'll bankrupt us long before military spending would. And while you can cut military spending, by law, you can't cut SS and Medicare, only their rates of growth.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Let's not forget that military people don't have to pay for food, clothing, or shelter. That makes the vast majority of their salaries disposable income.
As for food, mess hall/deck food is widely variable mostly depending on the caliber of the cooks and the number of people being fed at one time.(one reason submariners had the best, relatively speaking). Palatable food depended on whether commissary awards were at stake.
As for clothing, only one set of dress blues was free. Everything else was automatically deducted from my paycheck until the account balance was zero. I received $15 per month to cover $30 pants, $25 shirts and I did my own washing since the ship's laundry didn't give a rat's ass about how clean or how they smelled.
As for shelter, I lived in a 30" x 26" x 78", five sided box. The fifth side was curtained, basically a coffin. This was "home" for 4 years, 11 days (but who's counting)
My only consolation resulted in my applying for 2 - 3 days leave when we went to sea for the upcoming import period, usually some exotic disease infested, overcrowded, smelly country that was a whole lot better than being aboard a ship.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
I find it funny (and sad) that the people who most loudly proclaim to "support the troops" don't really give a shit about them once they're back
Many of these people only 'support the troops' when it involves zero personal sacrifice on their part (other than putting a bumper sticker on their car). The mothers stuck at home while the daddies/husbands are at war, the parents who take home a son who is now blind... These are the individuals who are 'supporting the troops.'
'Health care costs are eating the Defense Department alive,' Mr. Gates said."
I beg to differ, Halliburton, Blackwater(Xe), and all the other military contractors are eating the Defense Department alive.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Tell that to the Vietnam veteran!
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
People have been wringing their hands over the looming demise of Social Security since before you were born.
2010 was the first year that the payouts for social security exceeded the amount that was taken in by social security taxes (contributions is a silly word for it). So yes, the demise was looming, and now its getting closer: http://economistmom.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/nytimes-social-security-deficit-032510.jpg With the ratio of working population v. retirees getting more and more heavily skewed in favor of retirees you will get a situation where either the taxes will have to increase or the benefits will have to decrease. As somebody who doesn't expect to retire for another 30 years I would MUCH prefer paying the 7% (plus employer's 7%) into a retirement fund than into Social Security if I had that option.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
I have to argue with that. Ever been "over there"? How in hell can a soldier or sailor keep his mind on what he's doing, after he gets a letter from home: "Dear John, Suzy needs braces, and you know there's no money for them. Your mom sent me $xxx, my mom sent $xxx, and I took some money out of my 401k, and almost had enough - THEN THE FUCKING CAR BROKE DOWN!! I don't know how I'm going to get the car repaired, and dress the kids for school. Jimmy has outgrown his walker, and we'll never be able to afford a prosthetic for him. I'm about ready to go home to Kansas, and let that dirty old lecher who has always chased me have his way, if he'll just take care of the kids!"
Preposterous, you say? Maybe. Maybe not. Soldiers and sailors don't get much of a paycheck to start with, they certainly can't afford a decent health care plan if we take away what they have now.
Now, IF you had suggested that MAYBE the military wastes some of the health care money they DO have, then we might find that Gates agrees with you. If you bothered to find citations, then some of the rest of us might agree with you. There is waste in every system - and that is a large part of what Gates is on about.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Yes, it's voluntary. Take away the most basic necessities that any family needs, and you'll find that the volunteers aren't showing up any longer. Do you want to go back to the way the Queen's army was run 150 or 200 years ago? Good luck with that.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
there is something a little narrow about your perspective. I recall being in the military as a draftee and I do not really recall a lot of choice. admittedly, it was one those crap big asian land wars that no one both patriotic and sensible should go for. but no one really complains about world war II and we are still doing personnel expenses for that.
and so there are problems. but i think you should go with current personnel costs than with the junk contracting out Blackwater crap that started up big time under Rumsfeld. I do not want to play "I get to pick the alternatives" Lipmann scams, but I am just saying.
as it happens, I have pretty good anti-war creds. S-2 and I got to be real friendly. and it was real rare for a draftee to say anything good about a lifer. But you might work on trying to get a handle on the reasons people join up, not the economic reasons. again, just saying.
We can agree on the Iraqi war. But, that's POLITICS. Politics is completely separate from what a soldier has to do. Politics shouldn't have anything to do with whether a soldier can provide for his family or not.
If you expect a soldier to provide his own health care for his family, be prepared to increase his pay twofold, anyway, and maybe more. In the end, it will cost you a lot of money to deprive a soldier of the family health care that he has now.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
It's voluntary. Nobody is asking anybody to do anything. If they don't want to do it, then they shouldn't sign up .. If enlistment drops by 90%, we'll still be able to DEFEND the country just fine.
The problem with such attitude is that feedback won't be measurable as just a drop in new recruits. It's also the whole attitude that your soldiers will have. What you say basically implies an army that is strictly mercenary - since you're effectively treating them as such, that's what they will be. The problem is that, when a truly just war comes eventually, all you'll have is the mercs, and an army built on merc culture. I very much doubt that such an army could, say, fight to win in something like WW2.
this whole issue would become a non issue if we had presidents and politicians that didnt start a war every 2-4 years. less war usually means less military...it also means alot more work for politicians who are completely resolved to sitting on their duff all day. Learning about cultures, countries, and history as opposed to the knee jerk "nuke em from orbit" response politicians usually give to countries that dont fall lock-step with US policy might do us all a world of good.
Good people go to bed earlier.
"you have to "pay" into it. Not with money, but an oath and putting up with crazy BS."
I couldn't have said it any better. The problem is, those who have never been there simply can't understand. It's like trying to explaind the difference between blue and yellow to a blind man. He MIGHT understand, academically, but he will never REALLY understand.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
You do realize that strengthens his point? These people volunteer to fight for their country, and you think that when they come home sick or broken, we shouldn't pay to heal them?
This is true, but only if you define "pyramid scheme" in such a way that Social Security is not one.
If you are anyone -- including someone currently on Social Security -- and expect to get a comfy retirement from Social Security, you are guaranteed to be disappointed. Social Security is not setup to provide a comfortable retirement, it is setup to provide a minimal safety-net pension to mitigate (not eliminate) poverty among those who have worked but can no longer do so due to age or disability.
Weak "means testing" is already implemented, since Social Security benefits are taxable income if your total income is above a certain point.
For the reasons in the preceding response, SS beneficiaries with other sources of income already get less money from Social Security. Since Social Security is insurance against poverty due to age or disability, this makes sense.
This is scaremongering with no basis in reality.
Don't get me wrong, I was merely disagreeing with Shakrai's comment, which was pretty limited in scope. Sure, I agree that if you're going to field an army that you'd better make sure its soldiers don't have to worry about whether their families have food on the table or their kids can go to the doctor when they get sick. (But that's also part of why I don't think we should field so many unnecessary armies in the first place.)
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
Enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCdgv7n9xCY
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Stop calling the DoD what it was renamed after WWII and start calling it what it really is: The Department of War.
That is all.
I disagree. Perhaps if serving in the military were mandatory (like some european states), then I might be so inclined to agree with you. But no one is forcing them to become soldiers,
Criminal courts frequently compel individuals to join the military as an alternative to prison (where we foot their healthcare bill anyway). .
I am surprised you've never heard of this thing called the Selective Service, which does in fact exist to compel people to join the military during times of need. You are also forgetting that the American military serves at the discretion of civilian leadership, which you absolutely have the power to influence through your vote.
Perhaps you should have paid more attention during civics classes, these are two incredibly major responsibilities that American citizens enjoy.
There's no real tangible evidence that having jarhead in harms way is doing anything for me, besides increasing my taxes. I am not concerned with terrorists in Iraq. I'd be concerned about Terrorists in my home country.
Really? This Times Square bomber received training and funding from Taliban personal at a Taliban facility in Pakistan. If your goal is stopping terrorists, where else would you want to put boots on the ground? Without those Devil Dogs out there kicking ass, those terrorists would be over here bombing our schools.
One comment I would make on your argument is that in the US, Employers typically offer healthcare as a benefit to attract and retain talent. Assuming, as you argue, that our military is entirely volunteer, you can consider soldiers as employees. Certainly after $100,000's and years of training, offering benefits like healthcare is a smart investment to retain your talent.
So what you are saying is that the people who are closest to horrible tragedy often have their judgment clouded by the desire for revenge that goes along with such atrocities, even to the point of not being able to make rational decisions?
Agreed, that happens, and its why hot heads make bad policy. Its why we should outlaw naming bills after murdered children. Its why we need to roll back the majority of post-9/11 changes. Its why the civil libertarians need to yell the loudest when everyone else is the most sure that its time to give up some liberty.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
VA hospitals are a pretty good system
What are you smoking, because that's gotta be some good stuff you got there. VA hospitals are among the worst medical facilities out there bar none.
Last I recall, there was a special report about a VA hospital that had mold growing on the walls of every room. None of the hospital staff cared to do anything about it, despite the health hazard that the spores posed.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Unless your workforce continued to increase, social security was never sustainable anyway. It was only possible over the past 40 years because of the baby boomers. Without another similar increase in workers, and another one every 40 years, it'd be impossible for the taxes collected to keep up with the people retiring, especially as they're also living longer.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
> Because some people want to ensure a future for their children? Is that really that hard to
> understand?
>
> I'll grant you though that the need to do so may or may not exist today.
No not at all, though, what IS hard to understand, for me, is how anyone, who hasn't had their head in the sand for their entire life, equates signing up to fight whoever congress and/or the president says to fight with ensuring a future for their children.
So far, they have a piss poor track record when it comes to picking the fights that we need to (or even should) fight. So far they have shown absolutely no shame whatsoever when its come to provoking the start of conflicts for political ends (a tradition going back far enough that Lincoln himself was nicknamed "Spotty Lincoln", long before he was president).
Aside from the revolution (which wasn't fought under the current government), the war of 1812, WWI, and WWII, I am having trouble thinking of a conflict that Americans needed to fight to ensure the future for their children.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
gates is a fucking moron. i'm sorry, is that not LOUD ENOUGH?
when gates' buddy preznit Bush invaded the wrong fucking country [Iraq] and told everyone it's because they had WMDs (yet no deployment system to reach the US) we were told that it was to save America. but really the Iraq war has done just about nothing right and cost us BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars - funded by the chinese, since we don't really have the money for that war in the first place.
if gates wants to rightsize the military budget he should do so by gettting our troops the fuck out of iraq. NOW, not in 2012 or whatever bullshit obama has dreamed up. it's not our role to police iraq any longer; they've had plenty of time to realize that if they want the rule of law, they'll need to take care of their problems themselves.
initially, afghanistan appeared to be a good place to find the taliban/alqueda and get back at them for 9/11. now several years hence, we're in an intractible position: vietnam without the jungle. we should pull out of there as well to cut back on military expenses.
what this article fails to mention is that military spending funds a lot of our rural, gun-toting, conservative areas in America. cutting the military budget means putting a lot of factory workers out of work. what will they possibly do? we need a better plan for fixing america's economy, and if you're going to cut military spending, you need a plan to put people to work doing other valuable jobs.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Is the VA as good as the best private hospitals? No, it's not the Mayo Clinic. But better than average? Hell yes. The VA is one of the best-run government programs.
Speaking as the son of a 30-year VA doctor, and of a 30-year St. Jude Children's Hospital doctor (once acknowledged as the best in pediatric oncology). I've seen how they both run inside and out, and the VA is much, much better run than most private hospitals. It's one of the best services we've provided to our veterans and their families.
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
The VA actually does a pretty good job providing "good enough" health care for people, and on a tight budget.
Good enough? I doubt it. The quality may compare to other shitty health care that has been successful in terms of profits, but it isn't quality health care by any means.
Good enough? No.
"Good enough" sure, in comparison to other shitty services.
Enough? Not by a long shot.
VA hospitals are shut down all the time. Tons of people eligible for said care can't take advantage of it because there are simply no facilities within a hundred miles of them anymore. The situation is worse when you consider that the reason the VA hospitals are shut down is to save money and redirect it to improving the quality of care at other VA hospitals - the ones who can still only provide your "good enough" level of care.
SocSec would be eminently sustainable if it were pegged to the average life expectancy with a 5 year lag between the rate and when it was implemented. Which is currently over 77 years old.
Yes, ignorance it horrible. Try this on for size to learn why you're numbers are wrong.
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
I served. The military is a fine establishment, being abused by the military industrial complex. Defense spending is an entitlement for them, they produce things we don't need, and all the cowards in office listen to all the cowards in the population who are so scared of their shadow they piss their pants when the step into the daylight (who are also usually boisterous wanna-be bullies who are too cowardly to do their own fighting). Stop drinking the kool-aid.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Lets go with the plan that our founding fathers had. Every abled body man between the ages of 16 and 56 is part of a well regulated militia, to be called up in case of invasion or insurrection. The only thing the federal government does is: establish the training program (for the well regulated part); provision weapon stocks; run a navy.
I'm sorry, did you not like the constitution? You know, the part where it says they will be no standing army.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
I'm not an American Citizen (So forgive my lack of education on American Subjects) but seeing how American Foreign Politics play a bigger role than any other nation I feel compelled to express my opinion on it.
The Time Square bomber shows more or less that it's not being very effective, because it means they got lucky he didn't create a nice bomb. It shows how little the American soil is actually protected from this kind of warfare.
It seems to me that it'd simply be better if you weren't mucking around in their business. If the resources spent searching for insurgents in Middle Eastern Countries is effective over there, why wouldn't it be as effective over here? The government would rather the "Collateral Damage" be on their soil, not ours. And thats the only reason. It's not as bad if an Iraqi Civilian dies. More innocents over there have been killed than American Soldiers, and we cry when a soldier comes home wounded. Point is, neither the soldiers or innocent civilians over there would be hurt if the soldiers weren't over there. You can claim the terrorists would be more effective, but we wouldn't know that unless we tried it. I can claim that overall hostilities towards the US would decline and there would be less bombers. Neither of those arguements hold any water.
>>Good enough? I doubt it. The quality may compare to other shitty health care that has been successful in terms of profits, but it isn't quality health care by any means.
If you're expecting an MRI when you kinda sorta maybe need one, then no. You're not getting an MRI.
But they do an outstanding job for the budget they have. Even RAND likes them, and they're about as anti-socialized medicine as they come.
This is complete bullocks, your life your choices is a guide to creating a Living Will, something everyone should have which spells out plainly what choices you want made about your medical care in case you're not capable of relaying your wishes yourself.
Sig withheld to protect the innocent.
Your argument, while technically accurate, is simply ridiculous.
It's clear from the numbers I posted that military spending represents less than 25% of the total budget.
It's also clear that social spending is upwards of 50% of the total budget.
So let me clarify, if you cannot achieve the promised social nirvana with expenditures of 1.9 TRILLION (that word deserves to be capitalized) ***per year*** then what makes you think that having an additional paltry 214 billion or so is going to make a difference? (214 Billion represents roughly 30% of the military budget.)
Further, you state that military spending is somehow "entitlement" spending but you see nothing wrong with CHIP (entitlement) SS (entitlement) Medicare/Medicaid (entitlement), plus innumerable safety net programs (entitlement).
Taken in gross amounts based on YOUR categories your argument is ridiculous from top to bottom.
Sir,
I am not prepared, at this time, to argue with you.
I will state that your link is of questionable value and here is why I believe that to be true:
First, there is the question of their estimate of interest on national debt. There is no basis for this other than their say so.
Second, I have some serious questions about the 162 Billion they casually add for GWOT. Even a casual reading of the website shows a serious problem with this.
In the future please try to link to non-partisan sites for information. With WRLs reputation and the inaccuracies on display in that budget breakdown I'm having difficulty taking them seriously.
Thank you for service to our country and my post shouldn't be read as an attack on you personally.
So you would advocate conscription? That's what it sounds like to me.
I don't understand how saying "If you can't figure out an iPhone" is supposed to be a defense of the statement "if you don't know how to use an iPhone".
My beef is that knowing how to use an iPhone is no more relevant to advance science and technology than knowing how to flush a toilet.
I don't know if anyone else has seen this, but this sure helped put things into perspective for me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt8hTayupE I know it's not 100% on topic with the defense cuts, but it still helps to illustrate the scale of the problem.
The United States could cut its defense spending by 80% and still have the most expensive military in the world.
Actually, the mercenaries, e.g. Blackwater (or whatever their name is now) are already much better paid than the regular army.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
From the very beginning.
French and other military personnel were enlisted, borrowed or "bought" into the continental army to fill critical skill gaps. Most specifically the naval forces to which the colonies had practically no skilled personnel.
But all governments did this, the US were not exception, letters of marque, bounties, hiring armed merchantmen (pirates). Mercenaries only really fell out of favour in the 19th century. Skilled soldiers and sailors were hired by the hundreds in the Napoleonic wars, the US did the same when it blockaded Tripoli.
Hiring professional soldiers is a long standing tradition in all governments.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
But it hasn't and it wont be. SS is bankrupt. Hell, our entire nation is pretty much bankrupt. We're just juggling with numbers to provide smoke and mirrors.
I'm in my 30s. Honestly, I don't expect to get a dime out of SS. Anytime some politician wants to side aside more money for the program, it ends up in a general slush-fund anyways. My advice? Give it up, SS is a lost cause for anyone but baby boomers.
Life is not for the lazy.
You Must Construct Additional Pylons
A right is something which you are in the right for doing - you can do it with impunity.
No a "right" is a legal concession from the state which an individual can positively enforce in a court of law. A right can be negative, --a concession that the state will not do something to you, eg. legislate against your freedom of expression-- or positive, a concession that the state will do something for you, eg provide you or your children with a adequate minimum level of education.
Rights are neither God given, self-evident, universal nor fixed (though they may be entrenched). If you can't enforce it, it's not a right.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
It's voluntary. Nobody is asking anybody to do anything. If they don't want to do it, then they shouldn't sign up. Why people sign up with families, I'll never understand.
Probably the same reason police and firefighters sign up for a dangerous job. Patriotism and a hankering for a little excitement. Maybe you think it is crazy and stupid, but have a little respect for people that are willing to put their lives on the line for people like you, who don't even care about them.
You're probably one of those people who wouldn't try to pull a victim out of a burning car either, because you might risk your life, hmmmm? Better to watch the person burn and wait for the volunteer firefighters to solve the problem while you watch the show.
None of the "wars" that we are involved in are defensive, or even necessary. If enlistment drops by 90%, we'll still be able to DEFEND the country just fine.
I think the US said the same thing at the start of WWII.
I think you're thinking too far into what the parent was saying, or I'm not thinking far enough. But what was asked is why people would sign up with families. And the reason is those people that have families need to support their kids and spouses. The military really takes care of the spouses and kids of those who volunteer for the military whether it be financially, medically, or the numerous other benefits. That sounds to me like ensuring a future for their children.
You must have no idea what the VA health care system is like. I can tell you for a fact that civilian health care was much better. My endodontist wanted to extract my tooth without even trying to save it and denied the option for implants, both of which my civilian endodontist offered. Besides that, I can't go to a civilian health care provider because the military already offers one, even if it may be inferior.
The only war you can make a case for is WWII. The War of 1812 was basically started by the US in an ill-conceived attempt to conquer Canada.
WWI we really didn't have much business picking either side, per the tradition of George Washington and the Monroe doctrine. At the beginning the US tried to arm both sides, but the US basically had to choose between arming one side or arming neither side. The US had much greater financial ties with Great Britain which in the end was the decisive factor
"SS is bankrupt. Hell, our entire nation is pretty much bankrupt."
Only if you define bankrupt as spending more money than you earn. While this could lead to bankrupty eventually, people, companies and governments can spend more than they bring in for long periods of time as long as they can service the debt. SS won't stop paying out benefits-the government will just make up the difference between the amount of taxes it collects and the amount it disburses each year either by borrowing more money, raising taxes and/or cutting benefits.
Put simply anyone who claims that the US is bankrupt, that SS is bankrupt or Medicare is bankrupt is lying.
There has always been a lot of fat, but lean where extra resources are needed.
An extreme example was the late General Haig who somehow managed to completely avoid any sort of logistical, combat or other involvement with operations in Korea, Vietnam, Central America etc etc and still get called a "warrior". By the end he was in charge of God knows how many people doing God knows what, while the resources for combat troops got tighter and tighter. The cold war is well and truly over so there is no longer any excuse.
There's also such things as donations to Israel and other places (Algeria?) hidden in that military budget - give them the stuff but not out of a Navy budget or other misdirection.
There are thousands out there involved in pointless projects just as a lot of the inflated crap under Haig was. The numbers by which the US capacity exceeded that of the USSR were staggering to the point of complete meaninglessness - 10 times more missiles makes a very strong point but 100 times is an expensive joke that is taken far less seriously by potential enemies.
the surrplus money will only be used to pay for more politicians and commite's
beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
Increased spending does not necessarily translate into better medical treatment. It is entirely possible to decrease spending while increasing medical care through efficiency gains. Same deal with civilian healthcare and even educational systems.
Soldiers get payed crap, they deal with a job that curtails their constitutional freedoms, a job where they have to deal with the trauma of violence, death, killing and risk being killed/maimed themselves.
Sounds like a good reason to not sign up for an entirely voluntary force...
With the first link, the chain is forged.
The solution is to push the retirement age for social security higher (it should be tied to estimated life expectancy statistics)[...]
The problem is that those last twenty years will be quite difficult. After you passed the 50 year mark you can't expect to get a decent job anymore. No, specialized knowledge and plenty of experience don't help; they are a further disincentive as they make you more expensive than a 20 year old college graduate who is much more flexible regarding eccentric work hours and relocation than you anyway.
Yes, WalMart will gladly hire you as a bagger. But if you don't have your retirement money in the bank when you hit 50 you can only hope you don't get downsized or you're not going to make it on your own.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
So essentially, they do it for the exact same reasons that many suicide bombers who were told that their families would be paid large sums of money when they were martyred do it?
Seems... appropriate.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Interesting. Actually, I added 1812 because I knew it was a war that we fought with England, but, I couldn't remember why and I vaguely thought that they started it.
As for WWI, I could at least make the case that with such a large conflict going on, there is something to be said for taking sides in a conflict thats already going on and bringing it to an end. At least we didn't start that one, or otherwise provoke it into happening.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
This is scaremongering with no basis in reality.
Not scaremongering, just a set up for a joke. Sheesh.
Collective security means you spread the cost. Instead of all western countries having enough soldiers to defend themselves against everyone you only need enough to hold your enemies off till help arrives. Of course it -does- mean trusting your friends. The logical place for such things is a world government, though few in the USA would agree.
I'm sure it'll be very appropriate when a suicide bomber goes into your country and detonates a bomb that kills your entire family.