There are alot of things that should be cut from the military budget like getting rid of military bases around the world; however, cutting soldier and veteran benefits would be a crime.
There are alot of things that should be cut from the military budget like getting rid of military bases around the world; however, cutting soldier and veteran benefits would be a crime.
lolz at first I didn't recognize the "A Few Good Men."
stop hating america wrote:
For each dollar spent on the military, hundreds of lives are saved.
So I don't know the military budget, but I would guess it's of order hundreds of billions. For each dollar, hundreds of lives are saved. So the military saves tens of trillions of lives each year. 5,000 planet Earths would be wiped out EVERY YEAR if it weren't for the military.
do the math wrote:
stop hating america wrote:For each dollar spent on the military, hundreds of lives are saved.
So I don't know the military budget, but I would guess it's of order hundreds of billions. For each dollar, hundreds of lives are saved. So the military saves tens of trillions of lives each year. 5,000 planet Earths would be wiped out EVERY YEAR if it weren't for the military.
You might want to go back and read the post you were commenting on. If you still don't get it...well, not quite sure what to say.
well,
1) the pentagon has 150,000 mercenaries whuch they can immediately lay off.
2) stop offering taxpayer provided contribuitions to retirements and plan management to new officers and enlisted. i.e. you can retire after 20 years but no taxpayer monies can be used to pay or manage pensions, medical benefits, dental, health, prescription.
3) same as 2) for all federal, state, city, county, public education, public university, corrections, police, fire, forestry, including politicians, judges, safety workers, teachers, cops, soldiers, postal workers, etc.
in other words gov't workers and elected politicians will receive social security, medicare, and 401k just like we taxpayers get and no more.
That's Hollywood jive. US mil murders millions of people for nothing. The US mil is used as occupiers to steal homes from Muslims and gift them to Jews to pay for the Holocaust. Unfair beacuse Muslims are Semitics too and had nothing to do with the Germans.
Amazing letsrun ignorance. I would love to see abbas in the military for 3-4 years and see if he/she agrees with the ignorant remarks above. Cut their pay? Ha! They work for such low pay already. I dont believe we should be fighting these wars in the middle east but to cut back on the people that protect us is idiotic. You will be the first little cry baby to beg for their help if someone attacks us but then it will be too late.
It sucks for the US to occupy other's countries and murder millions of Muslim Freedom Fighters for defending their ancient lands. Better to cut 1/2 the Pentagon budget and bring home soldiers.
Lip Kitten wrote:
The reason why military retirement is 20 years is because the military is a young man's game by necessity.
That's false as a matter of fact, particularly in a high-tech era. More important, however, the alleged necessity of kicking people out of the military in their thirties and forties doesn't justify paying them a high percentage of their active-duty pay and benefits for the next thirty to fifty years of their lives.
Lots of occupations are better suited to young people than to older folks. Professional ballet-dancing, modeling, and minor-league baseball, for example, are much better suited to young people. That is not, however, a good reason for paying those people a high percentage of their peak earnings in those professions for the next fifty or sixy years of their lives.
In seeking to set optimal pay and benefits packages, market and behavioral economists would tend to focus on providing the most cost-effective incentives to prospective and current military employees to achieve a given level of military quality, while recognizing externalities like the social effects of large numbers of unemployed middle-aged individuals. As an empirical matter, high retirement pay and benefits will generally be much less effective in obtaining and retaining high-quality employees than, for example, high pay and benefits for active-duty employees, and will more likely be the result of successful lobbying by current and former employees with relatively low value in the employment market at large.
On a personal note, my father retired from the military before the age of fifty, with a guaranteed future income stream of seventy-five percent of peak base pay, plus benefits. Thirty-six years later, with no intervening gainful employment, he's still making much more money as a military retiree than the average full-time worker in the private sector. The system has been very good to him. But is this an optimal system for allocating federal funds?
You certainly have a right to your opinion and I agree we should come home and let the "muslim freedom fighters" deal with their own problems in their stench filled countries. Maybe next time they wont come kill thousands of Americans.
The US started the war with Islam when it invaded the Middle East in the 1940's. End the US occupation of Palestine and the rest of Islamic lands and reasons for attacks will cease.
The US started the war with Islam when it invaded the Middle East in the 1940's. End the US occupation of Palestine and the rest of Islamic lands and reasons for attacks will cease.
This message board is filled with pansies who cannot make it in the military world, thus they scorn soldiers out of jealousy. Use logic, and maybe ask why these "perks" are necessary.
crazy person wrote:
Son, the cost of freedom is priceless. Where would this country be if we never stopped the evil Iraqi empire? Or stopped the Libyan leader from massacring his own people (but let Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia do whatever they pleased.)
It's people like you that undermine the democracy of this country and place doubts in the minds of the young men and women protecting our country. Shame on you. Shame. On. You.
Yea, I wasn't serious.
The military budget is the damn elephant in the room. I haven't taken a look at the supposed cuts in these bills in Congress, but if they are anything like the business as usual, they won't make a dent in the military budget.
what?!!! wrote:
... the people that protect us is idiotic.
I love this phrase. It would be nice if it were true. But the reality is that 90% of our military involvements are not about "protecting" Americans and we could easily cut 2/3 of the military and still be just as safe as we are today.
That is not a knock on our military servicemen and women. Many of them are great folks who do a fantastic job. Undoubtedly some of them are d-bags and are incompetent or worse (just like in any other huge organization).
But, when all is said and done, a huge chunk of our nation's resources is being plowed into a grossly oversized military machine that manages to stand beyond critique. Phrases like "Our brave men and women", "Keeping America safe", and "people that protect us"... are successfully used to shut down any meaningful discourse on what size and type of military really makes sense for us.
Look at history, man. After the Nixon admitted defeat and kowtowed to Mao and the US Army lost Asia in 1975, relations have been stellar. Asia won in 1975 after 500 years of battling Europe and US white imperialism. A free Asia means prosperity. Since the US stopped attacks on Asia, Asia stopped retaliatory attacks on the US.
The same will happen if the US gives Palestine back to the native people, pulls out European settlers, and closes it's bases on Islamic lands. The US is being driven out anyways, so why not have Obama do the 'public relation' show, and pass out medals, declare victory, and get the hell out of the Mid East.
They aren't overpaid, but it needs to be downsized and more selective.
The military IS cutting back.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/06/AR2011010603628.html
Starting in 2015 the Army is cutting 27000 from the active force, Marines are cutting 15000-20000. Army currently has approx. 569,000 active soldiers, Marines around 202,000.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7626/10-05-Recruiting.pdf
As a comparison the Army's active end strength in 2000 was 482,170 soldiers. Neither of the Army's numbers above include Reserve or Guard numbers.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/end-strength.htm
In the 1990s the Army's active end strength dropped from 780,000 to 480,000. Likely as a result of the end of the Cold War.
Our military as always been about training, it's what we do, not something we do. It's about being ready for that 'what if' scenerio. That's why we have as many personnel as we do.
Now, what makes this issue of dropping the end strength a little more difficult is the recent decision to reduce deployment length to 9 months. So, now you need to maintain end strength a little higher to sustain the rotation of troops in and out of the combat zone every 9 months vs every 12 months.
Alan
Gov't employees are overpaid.
I say cut the Pentagon budget by 95%. The Texas National Guard can protect the Rio Grande from invasion. George Wimp Bush did his duty for the Guard.