DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Obama's Proposed Military Cuts

Increased domestic spending may be behind proposed military cuts, CBO report suggests
As the Obama administration announces proposed sweeping defense cuts, a Congressional Budget Office report documents how increases in other areas of domestic spending may be forcing the White House to reduce money for the military.

The CBO report finds that mandatory spending, which includes Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, is projected to rise $85 billion, or 4 percent, to $2.1 trillion this year.

Interest on the debt is worse. It is projected to increase 14 percent per year, almost quadrupling in dollar terms between 2014 and 2024. "We are going to be spending more in interest in a couple of years then we do on national defense," House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, R-Calif., told Fox News.

The Obama administration acknowledges the defense cuts are controversial but maintains they are being done with a specific intention:"...in order to sustain our readiness and technological superiority and to protect critical capabilities like special operations forces and cyber resources," Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel told reporters Monday.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen , D-Md., told Fox News the draw down from two wars is a logical time to save defense money. "We do not need for the defense of our country to be able to have a defense doctrine that calls for fighting two land wars at the same time," he said.

But history is filled with hard lessons in disarmament. Churchill warned a pacifist Britain, worn out from massive loss of life in World War I, of its unpreparedness for war with Germany as early as 1934. In 1936, he said in a speech to a disinterested Parliament, "A lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes... until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong... these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history."

McKeon offers a contemporary reprise of Churchill’s words. "The price is going to be paid for this whether it's in the Middle East, whether it's in the Pacific, whether it's in Europe," he said. "I don't know where. I don't know when. I don't know how, but some bad actor is going to challenge us."

House Republicans may have some leverage over the cuts and they can appropriate money for defense programs at higher amounts than the Pentagon calls for. And while Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told the Washington Examiner late Tuesday the defense cuts are "dead on arrival," the Senate Majority leader deferred judgment.

"I'm running the Senate...we'll weigh it when it gets here,"Harry Reid told reporters.

It’s not just Republicans who have concerns about the defense cuts. When and if military assembly lines slow and bases potentially close in Democratic districts, the cuts may find greater bi-partisan opposition.

using Churchill would have a more dramatic effect if GB wasn't the sole area of Europe that Hitler could not conquer.

Yeah we need to cut the military so we can extend those unemployment benefits and ship another 500 mil to Syria...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they're suggesting demobilization not demilitarization right?

And we begin the collapse under our own weight.

The problem is that they will screw it up big time .. There is such a ton of wast in the Armed forces that it would revile some of the social programs .. Ask any crew chief / First Sgt or equivalent , how much money they crap away in October ( end of fiscal year ) and thats just for starters .. Remember all the talk about the new Tank that the pentagon didn't want but Congress was shoving down their throat ? When is the last big tank battle ? How many Battles of Midway do folks envision in the future ?

High Tech , more Educated and special Ops personnel ... Not big budget , pork belly antiquated spending , you know , politics as usual !

We should be looking hard at everything we spend money on, from those who file papers (do we even still use paper?) to every aspect of the military budget. We cannot continue to just automatically spend more and more each passing year. The math will never work, give the enormous debt we are buried under.

Not sure what they are trying to do other than reduce costs, but he better not hurt the Vets. that would tick me off.

They deserve our best as they gave us their best.

I hope I never hear one more person call Social Security an entitlement.

Good. There's no reason for us to be spending so much on military. Cut all the fat.

Good .

You watch Obama try and shift the military cut savings into entitlements.

They really don't need tanks. There's about 3 stories every year about military spending on tanks. The military says, "Hey, we got a lot of tanks and we don't need anymore." and some random congressional member says, "I have a tank manufacturer in my district. You need 30 tanks." and they get 30 tanks.

the US has downsized the military after every major war.

how is this any different?


you guys spew hate just for the sake of it. swear to god, calm down.

Maybe it's just me, but I have no problem bringing our troups home. We are not the world police and we should worry more about protecting our own boarders than telling every other country what to do.

I am all for our soldiers coming home and being with their families, not being shot at and etc, etc... but the second we start a heavy withdraw, or it gets near the end of the year or whatever, they'll sign the security agreement and we'll keep some troops there and likely continue aide and air assistance. NOBODY messes with the United States air power. We got some wicked machines with devastating array of firepower.

I do not believe there any country who thinks they can compete with us right now, so why waste money proving them right. :?

I think China would disagree...

China's also 20 years behind the US in military tech wise.

The only thing that scares me about china is them callling in their debts

They have the manpower, but they don't have the technology. Would be a very interesting war. It was easy back in the day like the Civil War when you could just overpower someone, but with all the drones and all it's no longer like that.

That said at the end of it they could be our ally and the EU our enemy.

since you wanna be pissy, i guess manners is going to go out the window.

you need to learn how to read.

first off, i didn't say one damn word about obama. not one, but since thats the standard you wanna use:

Dawg_lb got the party started with the first comment.

then mill creek said obama specifically.

should i keep going?

i don't make comments without reading first. maybe you should do the same.

even daman is worried that we will hurt the vets.

so even though he didn't say anything hateful, him and others need to calm down a bit.

reading. it does wonders.

our soldiers, including myself, with our great technology, has been getting blown up left and right with home made items.

i learned the hard way that technology means zero when your enemy has a will and a way.

I really wouldn't consider any of our wars in the past years conventional warfare. I would also say we're really holding our punches. It also doesn't help that we can't attack the perpetrators and supporters of these countries and giving them loans/donations.

I read every word.. twice... I still don't see the hate.

and thats the biggest problem i have with deploying.

OIF and OEF, we are waging war, and trying to help the people at the same time. its to the point that our ROE's are pretty much a joke, we can't shoot unless being shot at, which if you're a gunner downrange is absolutely dangerous, we have to share the roads with these people when we are doing convoy's, which leads to VBIED's all the time.

i hate trying to be friends with the same people who will kill us at a moments notice. this isn't war at all.

uh huh.

the biggest problem isn't the technology bro.

its the terrain and the media .we can win any man on man situation such as air force vs air force or such, but as we all know, thats not how wars work nowadays.

the reason? unlike other countries, we really follow the Geneva Convention. hard. so we have "rules" in war, when other countries operate like their are none, because there SHOULDN'T be.

example, we aren't going to carpet bomb the entire country of afghanistan. the afghani's know it. the last thing we need is the media reporting we killed more civilians than militants. that isn't strategy, thats borderline genocide.

thus, all that technology we have, HALF of that goes completely out the window. now, that leaves us with ground troops.

Dawg LB, i'm a trained soldier. E-6/SSG, expert on m-4, 240B, 249, 9mm, etc.

if i go to YOUR house and try to kill you, i have maybe a 10 percent change of succeeding, because thats your backyard. you know it, you live it. i just turned into another guy flying blind trying to find you. you'd kill me before i even knew your location.

now imagine that, times 1000 in china. no offense, but we are always at a disadvantage when going to someone else's house and trying to win a war there.

i agree.

I don't see why not. In a world war, because that's the situation I'm talking about, because I don't see us attacking China and it not being a world war, there are no rules. There would be no UNSC or Geneva Convention/International Laws during the war.

Swish, I agree with you about the war on "terror", you guys get the shaft while others get to eat off what you're doing (securing power).

Quote:

---

I don't see why not. In a world war, because that's the situation I'm talking about, because I don't see us attacking China and it not being a world war, there are no rules. There would be no UNSC or Geneva Convention/International Laws during the war.

---

We would try to comply with those rules regardless.. we just would. the only way I can see us not caring is if they had already done that here.. However, I just don't see the world war scenario playing out..