It's time for BIG cuts in our military

Did you overlook this? One of the first sentences in the article you linked:

"The highest paid CEOs in the D.C. area come from the defense and finance industries."

The DC area is not the nation.

 

The military is one of our strongest disaster relief organizations.

However, they are forbidden to act until either the State Governor requests their assistance, or Congress takes charge and orders them in.

This is why I always blamed a lot of the problem with Katrina on the government of Louisianna. They knew it was comming, but did nothing until the president pretty much told them "Am I going to have to take charge of your National Guard and order them into action, or are you going to do it?" The 2-4 days they could have been activated before the hurricane struck land could have saved hundreds of lives.

In fact, days before Katrina struck land, the National Guards of Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi were all mobilized. Opposed to the less then 24 hours that Louisianna gave it's own members.

Almost a decade earlier, California has a large earthquake. The very same morning it happened, the Governor of California had the National Guard mobilized, and requested Federal assistance from President Clinton.

And it does not only respond to US disasters. Earthquakes, storms, and tsunami's all over the world generally see huge deployments of US military members to assist in recovery operations.

 

Yea, why not start on that gigantic part of that wheel that falls under "entitlement programs"?

At least the military actually works for it's money. And does not get overtime, has no Union, and has no collective bargaining rights. All they can do is hope that their raise might actually come close to what inflation was the year prior.

 

9 March 1916.

 

Not much of a threat, but true nonetheless. Plus, technically Japan occupied U.S. territory WAY up north. That was a brutal campaign despite how small it was.

 

Yea, they took a few islands off the coast of Alaska. But you said mainland, so that is what I listed.

They also occupied many US Pacific territories in WWII, including Wake and the Philippines.

 

Lockheed has plants all over the nation, I'm pretty sure Grumman does also. Boeing, United Technologies Corp. , all have manufacturing and design/engineering locations all over the country. Boeing has an integrated Defence division that makes Chinooks among other military hardware, i've found job openings in California, Pennsylvania, etc..

I know for a fact Lockheed has locations in Long Island New York.
Other Aerospace corporations have locations in Florida, Kansas, Texas etc...

United Technologies is umbrella Corporation of Pratt & Whitney Engines, Sikorsky Helicopters, Hamilton Sundstrand etc... etc...

The CEO of United TEch, Louis Chenevert,
even in midst of recession received $17.9 million compensation in 2009, down from $22 million.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht...sunitedtechnologiesexecutivecompensation.html

Thats just one example, you can look up the compensation of any Finance or Aerospace CEO and I can bet it is no less than $1million. What do these old men really do that warrants such compensations? Ship your jobs overseas, shut down factories to "Save the company money" while giving themselves raises. I dont see any reason to defend such people.

 

OK, now you need to make up your mind exactly what you are talking about.

First you list their job openings all over the country. Then you go and try to accuse these same CEOs of shipping the jobs out overseas?

I hate to tell this to you, but Boeing and Raytheon are not the same as the Bye-Bye-Baby Crib Company. And it is pretty much a requirement in any defense contract that the majority of the item must be made in the United States.

So you need to decide exactly what you are talking about here.

And you might be surprised at how much some CEOs actually do for companies. If you think that they are all nothing but lazy suits that never did anything, look at Howard Hughes. Or Michael Dell.

 

Your numbers are off.

Total military spending is in excess of 1 Trillion if you include homeland security, pensions and so forth.

Total revenue is 2.15 Trillion putting military speading at almost half of our revenue.

The budget at roughly 3.4 Trillion still puts military spending at closer to 30% than 20.

50% of total revenue is massive.

From 2000-2008 the DOD budget went from 300 billion to 700 billion.

Need to get that back down to 300 and curtail other military spending items like 63 billion on "international affairs".

To put things in perspective .. Total Federal spending in Canada .. with free health care and all the stuff they get is 180 Billion

How the hell can we spend 63 Billion on international affairs when they can run a whole country on just triple that ??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_military_spending

 

Homeland security is very seperate from the DoD with exception perhapes of the Coast Guard. Also, pensions and VA care are pretty much gurranteed. You really can't cut that....or do so without losing your political office.

 

It is separate from the DOD but it is part of Defense spending.

It is hard to cut Defense spending of any kind without losing political points I think.

I was just pointing out the bottom line numbers which are staggaring.

Spending is 1.4 Trillion or so in excess of revenue's of 2.1 Trillion = roughly 3.5Trillion in Total spending.

If we could grow revenues to 3.5 Trillion things would be fine but the stark reality is that revenues decreased by 450 Billion after the crash; from 2.7 Trillion down to 2.15 Trillion.

If the economy does not pick up in the very near furture, something has to give.

 

The funny thing is you can almost substitute "entitlements" for "defense" and get aboujt the same numbers.

The overall budget needs significant cuts across the board if we want to remain solvent. Defense and entitlements will need cuts.

 

Agreed, there is no way to keep either at current spending levels.

Look at what Greece had to do and some claim that we are technically in worse shape that Greece.

The problem when you make cuts is that revenues decrease initially in the short term as GDP shrinks causing a recession.

It is a bit of a catch 22. Revenue is not enough to maintain spending but when you cut spending revenue decreases.

We have to suffer the pain before we can experience the gain but politician has the stones to tell the public the harsh reality.

The fairy tale will turn into a nightmare eventually.

 

The U.S. isn't anywhere close to Greece. In fact, there are multiple European countries that are in more dire straits than the U.S. The only thing that makes the situation in the U.S. a bit scary is that we don't have big brother Germany or France to bail us out.

 

It depends on how you look at it. US deficit is currently worse.

The main difference between US and Greece is that Greece has to rely on people to lend them money. "Big Brother" as you put it.

The US "technically" can not default because they can print money. Greece does not have this option.

In this respect we do have a Big Brother (the Fed), and he has been bailing us out every step of the way.

The US is still able to borrow money in the Markets but some of the demand for US debt comes from the Fed buying.

 

If Europe DOES bail out Greece the European financial and even political system will be pretty badily shaken, at least in the short run. Why should German people pay for the Greek people's debt? What happens to Spain and Portugal? On the otherhand, if Europe lets Greece fail they'll likely abandon the Euro, in which case you'll probably see the biggest bank run in world history. Those are some pretty serious stakes.

 

I think that at some point they will no longer be able to continue to bail Greece out.

After all .. it is not really a bailout. Today Greece announced that they need 8 Billion Euro's by mid October to meet their interest payments (not default).

The problem is that when Europe gives them the money it is not a "bailout" but a loan which makes their interest payments to higher.

Solving debt by increasing the debt ??

This is going to continue. Every month or so Greece has more interest payments come due that they can not pay and so the "loans/bailouts" will have to continue.

Unlike the TARP bailout, where there was at least something of value to back the loan - property in this case, there is "zero" that backs sovereign debt.

There is no recourse for investors, you can not take the Greek Govt to court .. and so on.

I agree that we may see bank runs in the near future. Just last week Lloyds of London stated that they were withdrawing deposits from "most" European banks.

No clarification on what "most" meant. It is funny you mention bank run because that is exactly what came in to my mind when I saw that headline.

Ireland is probably next.

 

You didn't read, if the situation arises and the authorities ask, they will act. Also the US soldiers in general have a big chance to be deployed and come in action so your idea of them looting the treasury without working is rather stupid.

 

If Greece ditches the Euro and goes back to its own currency to try and print away its debt no one in their right mind will keep their money in Europe....especially with Portugal and Spain having trouble too. That's why most economists agree that Europe HAS to bail out Greece.

 

I suspect they will ditch the Euro and default. Then they can start over just like Russia and Argentina.

 

Which will have very serious implications for the Euro.

 

Indeed.

This is why all the pundits are floating the idea of an "orderly" default.

I wish the pundits best of luck with that one and challenge folks to find me a historical precident for an "orderly" default.

Anything is possible I suppose, but the balance of probabilities tilts towards contagion spreading.

The value of Banks holding Greek debt would plummit, and the bond market would go into fits raising the cost of borrowing to levels that countries such as Ireland and the other Pigs could not bear.

Im not sure how much skin the IMF and the ECB have in the game but they would likely have to recapitalize to offset losses from a Greek default.

An interesting example of such contagion was the Asian flue in 1997-8 that started in Thailand .. of all places, and ended up in Russia defaulting.

 

I agree that America needs to cut back on it's military expenses. It's important to global stability that America stays a strong nation but a strong military is not as important as a strong economy and not having to rely on borrowing from other nations to keep the government running. In the years leading to WW2 America did not have a strong military compared to other nations but it had a strong industrial base and it was able to quickly build forces in large numbers when they were needed. The US navy was where the majority of spending was before WW2 and it would be a good idea to go back to that. Aircraft carriers are more effective than ground bases in places like Germany and Japan anyway. They can be wherever you need them and pack a punch serious enough to give any potential enemy something to think about.

 

The Euro was a horrible idea from the start; trying to standardize currency only leaves one option for currency, and doing so leaves it without competition from other national currencies so that it may rise or fall on its own, just like government programs that are nationalized so they don't have competition from private companies.

That said, onto military cuts.

I don't say that we cut our expenditure on defense, only on foreign intervention. If we cut out the middle-east wars and the thousands of troops we station in random countries, that's a hell of a lot of the budget slashed right there. Then we can focus on providing defense for our country, not offense to non-existent enemies.

 

Okay...

... so we bring the troops home...

... in this economy...

... where ya gonna find jobs for `em?

Huh?, Huh?...

... betcha didn't think o' dat one did ya?

Obviously not.