The independants and libertarians boo Rumsfeld off the stage.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/feb/12/us-military-tea-party-movement

1. Rumsfeld might make speeches but has no power. Get over it. Oh that's right....It's still OK to blame Bush.
2. Even the most conservative warhawk realizes that the military budget needs scrutinized. Changes definitely need made in the way Pentagon contract$ are negotiated, but that doesn't mean in the meantime we need to allow our national defense to be weakened.
3. You cite the ultra-leftist Guardian and want us to swoon? Really? Who cares what British Liberal Democrats think?
4. Independent is spelled with an "e" not an "a'....I kid.

believer;676529 wrote:1. Rumsfeld might make speeches but has no power. Get over it. Oh that's right....It's still OK to blame Bush.
2. Even the most conservative warhawk realizes that the military budget needs scrutinized. Changes definitely need made in the way Pentagon contract$ are negotiated, but that doesn't mean in the meantime we need to allow our national defense to be weakened.
3. You cite the ultra-leftist Guardian and want us to swoon? Really? Who cares what British Liberal Democrats think?
4. Independent is spelled with an "e" not an "a'....I kid.

1. I'm also sure another was he was one if not the worst SECDEF in history.
2. Sure, except House Rep. head of the Armed Services Committee Buck McKeon, who is against all defense cuts.
3. Yeah, its the Guardian, but Rummy's reception was at the very least, not too warm.

This has never been any kind of secret. Everyone was just too busy turning themselves inside out to paint the 'baggers as racist kooks that they failed to notice.

ptown_trojans_1;676539 wrote:2. Sure, except House Rep. head of the Armed Services Committee Buck McKeon, who is against all defense cuts.

There's a difference between straight-up defense cuts and the political mechanics underlying the actual defense spending.

fish82;676541 wrote:This has never been any kind of secret. Everyone was just too busy turning themselves inside out to paint the 'baggers as racist kooks that they failed to notice.

Depends on the political circumstances does it not?

I'm completely content with the armed forces spending what they need so long as they are running like a lean, fit, well-oiled machine. If they aren't that's the biggest problem, I think.

I suppose this is one area where those who rail against big government actually like big government. The defense budget should be treated as any other goverment agency and needs streamlined.

Our military spending is so out of control. We could cut the budget by a 1/3 and still have the largest budget of any country. Our military is second to none, we don't need to spend as much as we do currently. They could reduce the number of worldwide bases as well. Do we really need bases in England, Germany, Italy, etc.? We have the technology now to strike very quickly. We don't need to be stationed throughout the world, it is not our job to be the world "police".

stlouiedipalma;676639 wrote:I suppose this is one area where those who rail against big government actually like big government. The defense budget should be treated as any other goverment agency and needs streamlined.

Agreed. The current setup for defense is in GREAT need for streamlining.

dwccrew;676655 wrote:Our military spending is so out of control. We could cut the budget by a 1/3 and still have the largest budget of any country. Our military is second to none, we don't need to spend as much as we do currently. They could reduce the number of worldwide bases as well. Do we really need bases in England, Germany, Italy, etc.? We have the technology now to strike very quickly. We don't need to be stationed throughout the world, it is not our job to be the world "police".

A 1/3 perhaps eventually. I'm for a more streamlined defense budget myself. But, we also have to take into consideration strategic threats and regional alliances.
Cutting bases abroad is hard, but needed. Critical bases such as Japan, Germany (Ramstein), South Korea, Guam, Diego Garcia, Turkey, Bahrain, and Kuwait are still needed.
Bases here in the U.S. need cut as well, but will face much resistance. (Think of the same debates in the 90s).

Platforms will need to be slowed/ cut. The new air craft carrier is not really needed, nor are many of the large platforms the Marines or Navy desire. However, one expensive one that will need funded is the new nuclear ballistic missile sub to replace the Ohio class in the next 15 years. Estimates put the current cost at 13 billion a boat, with 12, maybe 10 planned.
I'd also say we still need to fund the next long range conventional/ nuclear bomber, that plans are to be manned and unmanned. Plans are currently to have it operational sometime in the 2020s to replace the B52 and some B2s.

That means reforming the defense acquisition process, allowing off the shelf items, more international companies to compete for lower costs, and a more streamlined system of requirements. The whole Air Force tanker fiasco and the F-35 dual engine programs are great examples of waste.

Also, the intelligence budgets in the DoD, for drones, satellites, real time intelligence, cyber warfare etc. need to be maintained or increased.

Finally, I'm unsure of how you tackle the heath care aspect of the defense budget as that will continue to grow year by year. According to my discussions with Jaques Gansler, former DoD official, the heathcare part of the budget is 15-20% of the budget and will grow. Introducing higher copays or privatizing may be some part of the solution.

ptown_trojans_1;676681 wrote:That means reforming the defense acquisition process, allowing off the shelf items, more international companies to compete for lower costs, and a more streamlined system of requirements. The whole Air Force tanker fiasco and the F-35 dual engine programs are great examples of waste.

Also, the intelligence budgets in the DoD, for drones, satellites, real time intelligence, cyber warfare etc. need to be maintained or increased.

Finally, I'm unsure of how you tackle the heath care aspect of the defense budget as that will continue to grow year by year. According to my discussions with Jaques Gansler, former DoD official, the heathcare part of the budget is 15-20% of the budget and will grow. Introducing higher copays or privatizing may be some part of the solution.

I agree on these points but we're operating an all-volunteer military system. The average enlisted person makes jack squat compared to their civilian Federal counterparts. The idea of "free" medical care as part of a very modest compensation package is part of the - um - "attraction." Start screwing with that and you can be sure that retention and recruitment will suffer.

Try concentrating on making the military procurement process a truly competitive and non-political process, but let's not screw with the soldiers, sailors, and Marines and their families...their jobs are scary enough.

Yeah, here is one aspect of the defense budget that will go up: replacing the aging nuclear triad:
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02/13/a-new-nuclear-triad/
That includes new SSBN Ohio class subs
A new Air Force heavy stealth bomber, manned and unmanned
and a study for a replacement of the Minuteman III ICBM.

All are needed as nuclear weapons are not going away anytime soon.

What constitutes a "real" tea-partier?

believer;676529 wrote:1. Rumsfeld might make speeches but has no power. Get over it. Oh that's right....It's still OK to blame Bush.

I blamed Bush and Rumsfeld here? My only opinion on this thread was one line calling a spade a spade as it relates to the overbloated military budget. If you're OK with pissing away one tril a year...then don't call yourself a conservative Republican.

2. Even the most conservative warhawk realizes that the military budget needs scrutinized. Changes definitely need made in the way Pentagon contract$ are negotiated, but that doesn't mean in the meantime we need to allow our national defense to be weakened.

Oh bullshit. There are neocons and neolibs that don't dare put a crimp in this ridiculous cash cow. Look at the standard of living in places that have military bases around this country. Let me help you...the cities with bases are rolling in government money. And God help those that even mention the c word as it relates to their gravy train. To suggest that "warhawks realize the military needs scrutinized" is a joke. Because....they don't.

3. You cite the ultra-leftist Guardian and want us to swoon? Really? Who cares what British Liberal Democrats think?

How many conservative sources do you want on this subject? It is no secret that fiscal hawks have had it with these bullshit wars and ridiculous spending.

CenterBHSFan;678542 wrote:What constitutes a "real" tea-partier?

People that started the tea party...that's who....not the chickenhawk neocons that unsuccessfully hijacked it from the libertarians. Shawn Hannity is the first that comes to mind. Shawn Hannity stands for very little of what the "true" teapartiers stand for.

Just for you Believer....happy reading....

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/less-bang-for-the-buck/

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4906696

Why is it that those who use the term "chickenhawk" are always the former? Every time.

Footwedge;678564 wrote:Just for you Believer....happy reading....

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/less-bang-for-the-buck/

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4906696

First one, reforming the defense acquisition process is important/ needed. However, just going to the low cost tools and machines is not an option. Instead, it should be more of an open bidding process with the private sector. But, military requirements are tougher than the private sector, so it is a balance. That balance leads to higher costs. Finally, there is the good and bad of international components, good as they are usually better and cheaper and bad in that they can be possibly corrupted.

As to the 2nd. Cuts in bases are needed, but not in Asia. Japan and South Korea rely on our alliance to offset North Korea and China.

queencitybuckeye;678601 wrote:Why is it that those who use the term "chickenhawk" are always the former? Every time.

Takes one to know one maybe?

I'll take the moderator authority and make this thread just about the DoD budget:
Missile defense, an issue near and dear to all R's, especially in the Senate, got an increase from 8 to 8.6 billion.
http://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/budgetfy12.pdf

Overall budget is down to an estimated 670 billion, with 553 billion being the base budget and 117 in Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2012/FY2012_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf

queencitybuckeye;678601 wrote:Why is it that those who use the term "chickenhawk" are always the former? Every time.

Is that it? Or would you like to comment on the article I posted?

ptown_trojans_1;678755 wrote:I'll take the moderator authority and make this thread just about the DoD budget:
Missile defense, an issue near and dear to all R's, especially in the Senate, got an increase from 8 to 8.6 billion.
http://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/budgetfy12.pdf

Overall budget is down to an estimated 670 billion, with 553 billion being the base budget and 117 in Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2012/FY2012_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf

Wrong PTowne. The aggregate expenditure when everything is tallied....homeland security...wars...bases...munitions productions...et al....exceeds 1 tril....and that does not even take into consideration the health care for wounded vets....another sunk cost that continues to grow.

Well DHS budget I don't claim as defense, but ok, if you want to include it, sure.
Also, bases are included in the DoD budget as well as partly covered by the host country, normally.
The wars are also included, 117 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.

The VA budget did increase, which is very good, and much needed.

I'm sure if you include DHS budget, DoD budget and the VA budget, you would get over 1 trillion.

We spend way too much on our military and military related things. End of story.

ptown_trojans_1;679523 wrote:Well DHS budget I don't claim as defense, but ok, if you want to include it, sure.
Also, bases are included in the DoD budget as well as partly covered by the host country, normally.
The wars are also included, 117 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.

The VA budget did increase, which is very good, and much needed.

"When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009, the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $680 billion, $16 billion more than President Obama had requested.[3] An additional $37 billion supplemental bill to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was expected to pass in the spring of 2010, but has been delayed by the House of Representatives after passing the Senate.[4][5] Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $319 billion and $654 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $1.01 and $1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010.[6]"


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

Reference from wiki is footnoted.