Well, that was easy. I didn't even get halfway through the list and hit the mark.

*wipes hands on pants*

What's next?

Sounds simple enough when you don't have to worry about the opposition crying about being soft on foreign threats.

/I managed to do it

Made all the cuts in weapon systems and infrastucture, with 20 billion to spare...how hard was that?

Didn't touch health care or tuition because you should get something for service. Plus, as a vet there is some self interest.

Didn't touch the list myself. I'm just going to sit back and see what happens in the real world.

The cuts to retiree benefits should concern me, if I was unemployed, a real possibility in today's economy and federal budget infighting. I am concerned about them for those who have totally retired after active duty and didn't start a second career. I am opposed to cutting tuition assistance to active duty members. They need the chance to improve themselves and get ready for the civilian world.

I would suggest modest cuts in all areas, until the goals are reached. Cutting some programs completely out aren't wise in sustaining a worldwide military presence.

979 billion in cuts (new window)

Ennuipoet: Made all the cuts in weapon systems and infrastucture, with 20 billion to spare...how hard was that?

Didn't touch health care or tuition because you should get something for service. Plus, as a vet there is some self interest.

i touched the premiums and copays because even with those cuts they're still getting very good healthcare coverage for very cheap.

I cut Military bands, de-funded ACORN and NPR and I've got a $430 Trillion surplus.

Kazan: 979 billion in cuts (new window)

Ennuipoet: Made all the cuts in weapon systems and infrastucture, with 20 billion to spare...how hard was that?

Didn't touch health care or tuition because you should get something for service. Plus, as a vet there is some self interest.

i touched the premiums and copays because even with those cuts they're still getting very good healthcare coverage for very cheap.

I left those alone because I think those cuts cause a lot of harm without offering a lot of savings. The high-tech fighter jets and stuff got the axe from me, and I met the cuts without touching any of the benefits or (I think) harming our defensive capabilities from the types of threats we're actually going to see.

But yeah, that was mostly an exercise in "wouldn't this be easy if there was nobody crying about every little thing and I had unlimited power," which just made me sad about the problems with our current system.

/Oh, and all the nuclear stuff. I'd have cut all of them if I could.

Humean_Nature: ...

as you can see from the link i left in high tech programs i thought would save the lives of some of our service men (better tanks, comm systems) but destroyed the unneeded overpriced F-35 and i did a reduction in force. i would like to cut a lot more than that (how about 6 carriers instead.. and no more than 10k troops on foreign soil ACTING AS CONSULTANTs).

$1.012 TRILLION
CATEGORY CUTS PCT.
Benefits $96 9%
Salaries-- 0%
Personnel $492 49%
Weapons $148 15%
Nuclear, Missile $69 7%
Operations, Maint. $208 20%

You can easily get to 102% just by reducing ground forces by 35%, and the Pentagon civilian personnel by 20%. No need to touch anything else, even though if I were in charge, I'd cut a lot of the rest of the stuff, except benefits.

Kazan: Humean_Nature: ...

as you can see from the link i left in high tech programs i thought would save the lives of some of our service men (better tanks, comm systems) but destroyed the unneeded overpriced F-35 and i did a reduction in force. i would like to cut a lot more than that (how about 6 carriers instead.. and no more than 10k troops on foreign soil ACTING AS CONSULTANTs).

It's true that some of that stuff would save lives in combat, but the number of lives protected by better battle armor is a drop in the bucket compared to financial difficulties faced by every (combat and non-combat) military family when their insurance costs and benefits go up.

If it really came down to it, sure, that stuff is a luxury compared to civilian health insurance. But it's a luxury that I think we owe them, especially when we can easily reach our goals without touching those figures.

Humean_Nature: Kazan: Humean_Nature: ...

as you can see from the link i left in high tech programs i thought would save the lives of some of our service men (better tanks, comm systems) but destroyed the unneeded overpriced F-35 and i did a reduction in force. i would like to cut a lot more than that (how about 6 carriers instead.. and no more than 10k troops on foreign soil ACTING AS CONSULTANTs).

It's true that some of that stuff would save lives in combat, but the number of lives protected by better battle armor is a drop in the bucket compared to financial difficulties faced by every (combat and non-combat) military family when their insurance costs and benefits go up.

If it really came down to it, sure, that stuff is a luxury compared to civilian health insurance. But it's a luxury that I think we owe them, especially when we can easily reach our goals without touching those figures.

i don't disagree, which is why i only did the changes that make it so perscription co-pays are $15 and their YEARLY premiums are only $1100 . what isn't on there that i think should be - a straight out pay raise for pretty much everyone ranked E-anything and the low O-ranks.


for example the air force wants computer scientists..... yet they only can offer $30k. i laughed in their face [ok.. i actually said "sorry guys, you don't offer enough money to get me to put up with basic and having to follow the orders of people i consider idiots"] and within 2 years of graduating college was making 3x as much.

Eddie Adams from Torrance: I cut Military bands, de-funded ACORN and NPR and I've got a $430 Trillion surplus.

Republican-like math detected.

Osomatic: You can easily get to 102% just by reducing ground forces by 35%, and the Pentagon civilian personnel by 20%

Then you'd have people shouting that you're soft on defense, not protecting America, AND putting Americans out of work. Rationally, it makes sense....politically, it's a series of attack ads and a loss of votes

IgG4: $1.012 TRILLION
CATEGORY CUTS PCT.
Benefits $96 9%
Salaries-- 0%
Personnel $492 49%
Weapons $148 15%
Nuclear, Missile $69 7%
Operations, Maint. $208 20%

Ah, I see the troll entry for this thread has already been submitted.

Pocket Ninja: Well, that was easy. I didn't even get halfway through the list and hit the mark.

*wipes hands on pants*

What's next?

I hit 102% and didn't reduce any jobs, cut benefits or reduce investments in defense technologies.

I covered 75% of the $450B target number by checking every available box under 'Weapons' and 'Nuclear' and also checking 'reducing forces in Europe by 50K'. Tack on a 20% troop reduction and arrive at 108% of goal.

More importantly, it's sad that one can nearly reach the target savings by only cutting weapons programs.

Kazan: 979 billion in cuts (new window)

Ennuipoet: Made all the cuts in weapon systems and infrastucture, with 20 billion to spare...how hard was that?

Didn't touch health care or tuition because you should get something for service. Plus, as a vet there is some self interest.

i touched the premiums and copays because even with those cuts they're still getting very good healthcare coverage for very cheap.

Fine but you should be able to put a chunk of that to retraining/re-education, business loans and job placement deduction to soldiers being downsized. I think 50% of whatever you save in cutting jobs, should be used to help those soldiers get work.

--Reduce Army and Marines to 505,000, a cut of 35 percent, over next 10 years: $387 billion
--Reduce Pentagon civilian work force to 550,000, a 30 percent cut, over next 10 years: $105 billion
--Replace F-35 Joint Strike Fighter with F-16s and F/A-18s: $48 billion
--Reduce aircraft carriers to 10 from 11, and Navy air wings to 9 from 10: $7 billion
--Reduce military personnel in Europe and Asia from 150,000 to 100,000: $69.5 billion
--Consolidate Defense Department commissaries and retail stores: $9 billion
--Replace military personnel who perform commercial activities: $53 billion
--Standardize spending on base support: $20 billion
--Audit the Pentagon: $25 billion

Reduction: $724 billion over the next 10 years.

The Times says when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta submits his budget plan to the White House this week, he'll have to deliver it with a humbling assessment of America's military capabilities: The U-S military of the future will no longer be able to fight two sustained ground wars at the same time.

We don't need to fight two wars. We only need to fight one war: The war to defend ourselves if attacked. Other countries need to be able to fight their own wars. It's long overdue.

Standardize spending on base support
Would set a consistent standard for per troop spending on support services (like grass-cutting and electricity) at military bases, which now varies from a low of $10,800 per servicemember in the Marine Corps to $17,500 per servicemember in the Air Force.


But what will the Zoomies do without at least 2 golf courses per base?

Easy, reduce troop personnel and get 125% and you don't have to do anything else.

We don't need a million service personnel. We're not going to be at bloody war for much longer (hopefully).

this REALLY is trivial
step one, ignore the politicians and civilian military contractors.
step two, listen to the military when they say the dont need the stupid new weapons FFS.

tada
massive budget cuts

If you do the ones reducing the size of the military by 15% or 35%, then shouldn't a lot of the other categories for benefits and the like end up being for smaller amounts than what they are listed as, since they are based on the current size of the military?

I reduced our defense spending by 100% by surrendering to the Japanese Emperor.

My name is President Barack Hussein Obama.

SnakeLee: If you do the ones reducing the size of the military by 15% or 35%, then shouldn't a lot of the other categories for benefits and the like end up being for smaller amounts than what they are listed as, since they are based on the current size of the military?

This. If you reduced soldiers by 10%, you would reduce the overhead (support staff) by half that (another 5% total maybe), which would in itself eliminate 2.5%... and so on.

What is so sad is you can make all these cuts, especially in personnel and hardware, save hundreds of billions of dollars, and we will still have the most powerful military on the planet by far. Eisenhower was right.

Aar1012: Osomatic: You can easily get to 102% just by reducing ground forces by 35%, and the Pentagon civilian personnel by 20%

Then you'd have people shouting that you're soft on defense, not protecting America, AND putting Americans out of work. Rationally, it makes sense....politically, it's a series of attack ads and a loss of votes

Oh, no doubt. My planned counterattack: To talk about all the wasteful government jobs with fat taxpayer-funded benefits that I'm cutting. (I'm assuming that I'll be made king shortly.)

I did it with reduced personnel with plenty to spare. I'd probably increase spending for people currently in the military (better pay, better benefits) and then just have less people in the military as people retire or their service terms are done. I didn't even get down to the hardware section. I'm sure I could have saved lots in there.

Humean_Nature: It's true that some of that stuff would save lives in combat, but the number of lives protected by better battle armor is a drop in the bucket compared to financial difficulties faced by every (combat and non-combat) military family when their insurance costs and benefits go up.

Plus, you're incurring additional long-term cost with every life you save. That guy who didn't bleed out on the battlefield when his leg got blown off? You're now providing him with expensive health care and therapy for the rest of his life. Those things add up over time.

mrshowrules: Fine but you should be able to put a chunk of that to retraining/re-education, business loans and job placement deduction to soldiers being downsized. I think 50% of whatever you save in cutting jobs, should be used to help those soldiers get work.

agreed.

So we have seen this is possible. If only there was a way for the people to vote on it like this?

Sounds like many left the benefits untouched, and cut procurement and new weapons systems.

Which means Congress will cut benefits, and increase procurement, maybe with a third jet engine and another carrier group!

WhackingDay: As everyone else is discovering, this is pretty easy. But then again, someone isn't paying me to make it hard.

It's really easy until you get the Republicans involved. Like most things in politics.

Your Cuts: $452 Billion

Category Cuts Pct.
Benefits -
Salaries $16 3%
Personnel $147 33%
Weapons $124 27%
Nuclear, Missile $82 18%
Operations, Maint. $84 18%