If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Stars and Stripes)   Hero: House committee votes to not cut military pay and benefits. Asinine: The DoD has a problem with this   (stripes.com) divider line 110
    More: Hero, DoD, House committees, committee votes, Buck McKeon, TRICARE, troops, committees, House Armed Services Committee  
•       •       •

1668 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 May 2014 at 7:20 AM (12 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



110 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-08 07:05:44 AM
The DoD wants to keep pay low so more toys can be bought.

It never occurs to them that maybe we already have enough toys and could, in fact, possibly stand to send some to the Salvation Army donation bin because we have too much.

We need to deprioritize the military and security apparatus in this country and repurpose those savings into infrastructure, education, and national parks. fark the bloated military.
 
2014-05-08 07:23:29 AM
AverageAmericanGuy: The DoD wants to keep pay low so more toys can be bought. private contractors can be paid.
 
2014-05-08 07:26:30 AM
The DoD has a problem with it because they are now hamstrung.  They've been given a budget that is significantly lower than what they want/need.  That's fine, we don't need to be fighting two wars anymore, and I'm all for shrinking down the Army and such.  The DoD is even fine with this.

Except, when they say "okay, to do this, we have to drop the A-10.  It's old and slow and we can save money," they are told by Congress that they are not allowed to cut the A-10.  So they go through again.  They're not allowed to cut the F-35 too much, because the same thing will happen.  They've cut the F-22 fleet to about 4.  The F-15s are drawn down to their "original" planned numbers out to 2035.  The Lawn Darts may lose an entire block of upgrades (assuming no Congressional interference there).  The only places the military, especially the Air Force, is maintenance and manpower.  They're already pushing through "force shaping" to cut active and civilian force, but even that is going to get pushback and "law" from Congress.

In short, the military is farked.
 
2014-05-08 07:27:28 AM
Our military is a massive jobs program looking for a job.
 
2014-05-08 07:29:35 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: The DoD wants to keep pay low so more toys can be bought.

It never occurs to them that maybe we already have enough toys and could, in fact, possibly stand to send some to the Salvation Army donation bin because we have too much.

We need to deprioritize the military and security apparatus in this country and repurpose those savings into infrastructure, education, and national parks. fark the bloated military.


I disagree.  I'm all for expanding the National Guard and two years mandatory service, either out of High School or after College.  You want to build infrastructure, double the size of the Army Corps of Engineers and build some new bridges.

It'd give millions of people job-related training, we'd have the largest standing military at any given point, and some damned pretty roads.

I highly doubt it's feasible, but a kid can dream.
 
2014-05-08 07:31:06 AM
FTA: Military brass has warned it needs the reforms to fund a force that's equipped and ready to fight.

What's our military budget?  Over $600 BILLION?  How about, go fark yourselves.  You already get way more money than you need.
 
2014-05-08 07:35:56 AM

ReverendJasen: FTA: Military brass has warned it needs the reforms to fund a force that's equipped and ready to fight.

What's our military budget?  Over $600 BILLION?  How about, go fark yourselves.  You already get way more money than you need.


I have said this many times before, so I'll say it again.

Return Federal income taxes to their pre-2001 & pre-2003 levels, before the Republican Congress and GWB cut them that eliminated our budget surplus, returned us to deficit spending and put the Iraq & Afghan Wars on the credit card.

/Being an American patriot means a lot more than putting a cheap, yellow ribbon magnet on your car.
//It can be as simple as paying your income taxes to fund the DoD, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
 
2014-05-08 07:38:18 AM

Semantic Warrior: AverageAmericanGuy: The DoD wants to keep pay low so more toys can be bought. private contractors can be paid kickbacks and bribed can be attained.

 
2014-05-08 07:46:06 AM

Where wolf: The DoD has a problem with it because they are now hamstrung.  They've been given a budget that is significantly lower than what they want/need.  That's fine, we don't need to be fighting two wars anymore, and I'm all for shrinking down the Army and such.  The DoD is even fine with this.

Except, when they say "okay, to do this, we have to drop the A-10.  It's old and slow and we can save money," they are told by Congress that they are not allowed to cut the A-10.  So they go through again.  They're not allowed to cut the F-35 too much, because the same thing will happen.  They've cut the F-22 fleet to about 4.  The F-15s are drawn down to their "original" planned numbers out to 2035.  The Lawn Darts may lose an entire block of upgrades (assuming no Congressional interference there).  The only places the military, especially the Air Force, is maintenance and manpower.  They're already pushing through "force shaping" to cut active and civilian force, but even that is going to get pushback and "law" from Congress.

In short, the military is farked.


They spent decades trying to force the Navy to maintain USS Iowa as part of the Reserve Fleet, when DoD/DoN wanted  desperately to strike it.  The Army is having to maintain thousands of tanks they will never need in some southwestern desert supply depot, because Congress insisted we needed them for   defense industry subsidiaries security.  Let's not even try and parse the F-35 and LCS fiascos.

Maybe there needs to be a Constitutional amendment mandating that you can not serve on an Armed Forces committee if you receive campaign money or represent a state or district with a major defense contractor.
 
2014-05-08 07:49:22 AM
It's kind of scary listening to high level military leaders speak about how well soldiers/airmen/seamen/marines can sustain a pay/benefit cut when it's still not uncommon for those same members to be on programs like WIC. Not to mention we're just recently leaving a time in our history where members were routinely abused with protracted deployments. Way to show how out of touch you all are.
 
2014-05-08 07:57:26 AM

ReverendJasen: FTA: Military brass has warned it needs the reforms to fund a force that's equipped and ready to fight.

What's our military budget?  Over $600 BILLION?  How about, go fark yourselves.  You already get way more money than you need.


Main article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal _budget">Expenditures in the United States federal budget
During FY 2013, the federal government spent $3.5 trillion on a budget or cash basis, down $84 billion or 2.4% vs. FY 2012 spending of $3.54 trillion. Major categories of FY 2013 spending included: Social Security ($803B or 23% of spending), Medicare & Medicaid ($760B or 22%), Defense Department ($608B or 18%), and interest($259B or 7%). Healthcare and Social Security spending increased $81B (5.5%) versus 2012, while Defense spending fell $47B (7.2%).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#cit e_note-CB O_MBR_Sept_2013-10">[10]
Total Entitlements  = 47%
 Total Defense       =  18%

 Go fark yourself.
 
2014-05-08 08:01:03 AM
Whatever they sound like, the facts of the matter are everything about Congress giving the DoD conflicting mandates with not enough $$$ to actually pay for what they're required to do. That that amount is a ridiculously large sum is regardless of reality, any ridiculously large sum can be consumed if Congress gets into the mix and starts requiring you to maintain obsolete systems to fight obsolete conflicts based on the singular fact that Congress is A. Old and B. A bunch of nitwits.

Of course the military can't afford to just go "it's not our fault, Congress is a bunch of chumps." You do that and your war fighting ability gets restrained by Congress just not pushing through promotions that don't fellate them. You end up with soldiers being served by Generals who are even worse crawled up the ass of Congress than they already are. You'd say "get Congress out of the military's hair" except that would be a stupid notion too - because it's not like giving ambitious, aggressive, charismatic men with armies at their backs has ever turned out badly in history.
 
2014-05-08 08:17:27 AM

kyrg: Total Entitlements  = 47%
 Total Defense       =  18%


"Cut out the strip clubs? I pay WAY more on rent." Perhaps there is some wisdom in considering a move to a cheaper neighborhood, but go after the low-hanging fruit first.
 
2014-05-08 08:18:24 AM
Actually, all of that sucks. They get a 1% pay raise, but with the subsidies they're slashing, they'll end up losing over time, at least the guys with families. Maybe the single people will have extra beer money.
 
2014-05-08 08:18:29 AM

kyrg: ReverendJasen: FTA: Military brass has warned it needs the reforms to fund a force that's equipped and ready to fight.

What's our military budget?  Over $600 BILLION?  How about, go fark yourselves.  You already get way more money than you need.

Main article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal _budget">Expenditures in the United States federal budget
During FY 2013, the federal government spent $3.5 trillion on a budget or cash basis, down $84 billion or 2.4% vs. FY 2012 spending of $3.54 trillion. Major categories of FY 2013 spending included: Social Security ($803B or 23% of spending), Medicare & Medicaid ($760B or 22%), Defense Department ($608B or 18%), and interest($259B or 7%). Healthcare and Social Security spending increased $81B (5.5%) versus 2012, while Defense spending fell $47B (7.2%).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#cit e_note-CB O_MBR_Sept_2013-10">[10]
Total Entitlements  = 47%
 Total Defense       =  18%
 Go fark yourself.


And you contradicted nothing that he said.

So go fark yourself.
 
2014-05-08 08:25:48 AM

kyrg: ReverendJasen: FTA: Military brass has warned it needs the reforms to fund a force that's equipped and ready to fight.

What's our military budget?  Over $600 BILLION?  How about, go fark yourselves.  You already get way more money than you need.

Main article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal _budget">Expenditures in the United States federal budget
During FY 2013, the federal government spent $3.5 trillion on a budget or cash basis, down $84 billion or 2.4% vs. FY 2012 spending of $3.54 trillion. Major categories of FY 2013 spending included: Social Security ($803B or 23% of spending), Medicare & Medicaid ($760B or 22%), Defense Department ($608B or 18%), and interest($259B or 7%). Healthcare and Social Security spending increased $81B (5.5%) versus 2012, while Defense spending fell $47B (7.2%).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#cit e_note-CB O_MBR_Sept_2013-10">[10]
Total Entitlements  = 47%
 Total Defense       =  18%
 Go fark yourself.


So, something that's 300x more expensive than it needs to be fell by 7%? Well, I guess it's a start.
 
2014-05-08 08:27:28 AM
Don't like it? Find another job.
 
2014-05-08 08:27:32 AM

AirForceVet: Return Federal income taxes to their pre-2001 & pre-2003 levels, before the Republican Congress and GWB cut them that eliminated our budget surplus, returned us to deficit spending and put the Iraq & Afghan Wars on the credit card.

/Being an American patriot means a lot more than putting a cheap, yellow ribbon magnet on your car.
//It can be as simple as paying your income taxes to fund the DoD, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.


I have no problem with that.
I just think we don't need to spend $690B a year on military, which is more than the next top 10 countries combined.  And yet politicians cry about budget shortfalls and how we're going to pay for healthcare or infrastructure.  Stop buying new tanks every farking year, that's how.
 
2014-05-08 08:29:31 AM
Q. Why do Democrats like to close down military facilities?
 
2014-05-08 08:34:08 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: The DoD wants to keep pay low so more toys can be bought.

It never occurs to them that maybe we already have enough toys and could, in fact, possibly stand to send some to the Salvation Army donation bin because we have too much.

We need to deprioritize the military and security apparatus in this country and repurpose those savings into infrastructure, education, and national parks. fark the bloated military.


No, the DOD wants to reform it's pension system.
 
2014-05-08 08:34:29 AM

karnal: Q. Why do Democrats like to close down military facilities?


Why do you insist on asking stupid questions? Congressional democrats fight closures in their district tooth and nail like every other congresscritter. The truth is we don't need to spend billions of dollars on defense spending that doesn't defend anyone.
 
2014-05-08 08:35:14 AM

karnal: Q. Why do Democrats like to close down military facilities?


A: Because $690BB
 
2014-05-08 08:35:42 AM

karnal: Q. Why do Democrats like to close down military facilities?


Obviously, we hate 'Merica and want the commies to win.
Or,
Benghazi!!!!!
 
2014-05-08 08:37:20 AM

karnal: Q. Why do Democrats like to close down military facilities?


Because they hate welfare programs?
 
2014-05-08 08:39:22 AM

Where wolf: AverageAmericanGuy: The DoD wants to keep pay low so more toys can be bought.

It never occurs to them that maybe we already have enough toys and could, in fact, possibly stand to send some to the Salvation Army donation bin because we have too much.

We need to deprioritize the military and security apparatus in this country and repurpose those savings into infrastructure, education, and national parks. fark the bloated military.

I disagree.  I'm all for expanding the National Guard and two years mandatory service, either out of High School or after College.  You want to build infrastructure, double the size of the Army Corps of Engineers and build some new bridges.

It'd give millions of people job-related training, we'd have the largest standing military at any given point, and some damned pretty roads.

I highly doubt it's feasible, but a kid can dream.


How about no. Some of us aspire to white-collar careers, and driving trucks or pushing shovels for two years will just be a waste of our time.
 
2014-05-08 08:42:38 AM
In the end the reality is there are no big time lobbyists acting on behalf of the common soldier.

There's no fancy DC restaurants filled with Congressmen being wined and dined in an attempt to get them to not cut college benefits for veterans.

There's no big firm that a Senator can call up and "request" a big campaign contribution in exchange for keeping military pay secure.

Defense contractors have all of those things, so their needs get met. And since there have to be cuts the only place to cut is soldiers, pay, and benefits.

The real issue is that when there's an uproar over said cuts and Congress votes to force the military not to do them, they don't then cut other things - contractors won't stand for that - and they don't appropriate more money, either. That's where the military has an issue. Congress wants to keep the cuts, but have them just happen out of the ether, without anything actually losing any funding.
 
2014-05-08 08:42:42 AM
Has anyone pointed out yet that DOD's problem is with Congress spending money like a sailor on shore leave on tanks and jets that DOD has repeatedly said they neither need nor want?
 
2014-05-08 08:44:52 AM

karnal: Q. Why do Democrats like to close down military facilities?


A: Because you touch yourself at night.

/oblig
//so are slashies
 
2014-05-08 08:45:26 AM
This is very simple to understand:

Congress has reduced the amount of money it's giving the military, but not allowing them to reduce the amount of money they need to spend on contracts that go to companies in Congressional districts.

Yeah yeah, military industrial complex. Bleh.
 
2014-05-08 08:45:32 AM

King Something: Has anyone pointed out yet that DOD's problem is with Congress spending money like a sailor on shore leave on tanks and jets that DOD has repeatedly said they neither need nor want?


But the lobbyists and campaign contributors who own the companies making those tanks have children to feed!
 
2014-05-08 08:45:35 AM

King Something: Has anyone pointed out yet that DOD's problem is with Congress spending money like a sailor on shore leave on tanks and jets that DOD has repeatedly said they neither need nor want?


Well, sure, but... social security and medicare, so clearly go fark yourself.
 
2014-05-08 08:45:49 AM

King Something: Has anyone pointed out yet that DOD's problem is with Congress spending money like a sailor on shore leave on tanks and jets that DOD has repeatedly said they neither need nor want?


There is another factor here; Congress also wants to cut their budget so not only do they want them to give the soldiers more money but the overall budget will be decreased so there will be a double-dip in the toy budget.
 
2014-05-08 08:46:19 AM

moothemagiccow: karnal: Q. Why do Democrats like to close down military facilities?

Why do you insist on asking stupid questions? Congressional democrats fight closures in their district tooth and nail like every other congresscritter. The truth is we don't need to spend billions of dollars on defense spending that doesn't defend anyone.


Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., introduced a proposal to trigger the Base Realignment and Closure act, which would mean closure of military facilities. The last BRAC process began in 2005 and remains controversial; critics contend that projected savings from that round have never been realized.

As China and Russia have doubled their military expenditures over the past decade, where is the logic is reducing ours?

Cutting costs is definitely needed but cut them where they can be cut:

Start with getting rid of 25% of all generals and admirals.....fixed cost contracts with defense contractors...and drop the F 35.
 
2014-05-08 08:47:26 AM
Why so butthurt subby? Nobody likes an unfunded mandate, even the DoD.
 
2014-05-08 08:47:33 AM

rebelyell2006: Where wolf: AverageAmericanGuy: The DoD wants to keep pay low so more toys can be bought.

It never occurs to them that maybe we already have enough toys and could, in fact, possibly stand to send some to the Salvation Army donation bin because we have too much.

We need to deprioritize the military and security apparatus in this country and repurpose those savings into infrastructure, education, and national parks. fark the bloated military.

I disagree.  I'm all for expanding the National Guard and two years mandatory service, either out of High School or after College.  You want to build infrastructure, double the size of the Army Corps of Engineers and build some new bridges.

It'd give millions of people job-related training, we'd have the largest standing military at any given point, and some damned pretty roads.

I highly doubt it's feasible, but a kid can dream.

How about no. Some of us aspire to white-collar careers, and driving trucks or pushing shovels for two years will just be a waste of our time.


I mean, I'd be down with it if a huge war started that threatened to pull in the US, but in relative peacetime?  No.  FARK no.
 
2014-05-08 08:50:32 AM

karnal: As China and Russia have doubled their military expenditures over the past decade, where is the logic is reducing ours?


We still spend more than those two combined and continue to fund and build equipment that the military itself doesn't farking want and that soldiers hate to use?
 
2014-05-08 08:51:41 AM

kyrg: Total Entitlements = 47%
Total Defense = 18%
Go fark yourself.


Why is that biatch complaining that I blew $500 at the casino? We spend $2000 on our mortgage every month, so she should go fark herself.
 
2014-05-08 08:52:52 AM

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: kyrg: ReverendJasen: FTA: Military brass has warned it needs the reforms to fund a force that's equipped and ready to fight.

What's our military budget?  Over $600 BILLION?  How about, go fark yourselves.  You already get way more money than you need.

Main article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal _budget">Expenditures in the United States federal budget
During FY 2013, the federal government spent $3.5 trillion on a budget or cash basis, down $84 billion or 2.4% vs. FY 2012 spending of $3.54 trillion. Major categories of FY 2013 spending included: Social Security ($803B or 23% of spending), Medicare & Medicaid ($760B or 22%), Defense Department ($608B or 18%), and interest($259B or 7%). Healthcare and Social Security spending increased $81B (5.5%) versus 2012, while Defense spending fell $47B (7.2%).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#cit e_note-CB O_MBR_Sept_2013-10">[10]
Total Entitlements  = 47%
 Total Defense       =  18%
 Go fark yourself.

So, something that's 300x more expensive than it needs to be fell by 7%? Well, I guess it's a start.



Because there is only waste in the military and cutting entitlement spending equals racism right?
If people like you would show as much disqust with the waste, fraud and abuse in the etitlement programs as you do with defense, It would go a long way to dispelling the impression that you are a liberal democratic toadie
 
2014-05-08 08:53:31 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: The DoD wants to keep pay low so more toys can be bought gets whatever it wants because budgets are meaningless.

 
2014-05-08 08:54:22 AM

Tomahawk513: rebelyell2006: Where wolf: AverageAmericanGuy: The DoD wants to keep pay low so more toys can be bought.

It never occurs to them that maybe we already have enough toys and could, in fact, possibly stand to send some to the Salvation Army donation bin because we have too much.

We need to deprioritize the military and security apparatus in this country and repurpose those savings into infrastructure, education, and national parks. fark the bloated military.

I disagree.  I'm all for expanding the National Guard and two years mandatory service, either out of High School or after College.  You want to build infrastructure, double the size of the Army Corps of Engineers and build some new bridges.

It'd give millions of people job-related training, we'd have the largest standing military at any given point, and some damned pretty roads.

I highly doubt it's feasible, but a kid can dream.

How about no. Some of us aspire to white-collar careers, and driving trucks or pushing shovels for two years will just be a waste of our time.

I mean, I'd be down with it if a huge war started that threatened to pull in the US, but in relative peacetime?  No.  FARK no.


And in a time of war, civilian skills and educations can be applied towards useful defense positions, since a suddenly-bloated army and navy would have a need for administrative and other non-combat soldiers, officers and specialists. But giving everybody a shovel or tractor will accomplish nothing beyond giving callouses and arthritis to future surgeons and scientists.
 
2014-05-08 08:54:48 AM

WhackingDay: Actually, all of that sucks. They get a 1% pay raise, but with the subsidies they're slashing, they'll end up losing over time, at least the guys with families. Maybe the single people will have extra beer money.


Negative, the married people get paid WAY more in benefits. Where it's gonna hurt is in retention. Why keep working for these shiatty bastards who don't want to pay you a living wage. Most junior enlisted make way way under minimum wage.

karnal: Start with getting rid of 25% of all generals and admirals.....fixed cost contracts with defense contractors...and drop the F 35.


Winner winner chicken dinner.
 
2014-05-08 08:59:23 AM

karnal: Q. Why can't your nose be 12 inches long?


A: Because then it'd be a dim!
 
2014-05-08 09:00:22 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: The DoD wants to keep pay low so more toys can be bought.

It never occurs to them that maybe we already have enough toys and could, in fact, possibly stand to send some to the Salvation Army donation bin because we have too much.


Actually, they want less toys, but congress won't allow that.
 
2014-05-08 09:00:58 AM

karnal: moothemagiccow: karnal: Q. Why do Democrats like to close down military facilities?

Why do you insist on asking stupid questions? Congressional democrats fight closures in their district tooth and nail like every other congresscritter. The truth is we don't need to spend billions of dollars on defense spending that doesn't defend anyone.

Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., introduced a proposal to trigger the Base Realignment and Closure act, which would mean closure of military facilities. The last BRAC process began in 2005 and remains controversial; critics contend that projected savings from that round have never been realized.

As China and Russia have doubled their military expenditures over the past decade, where is the logic is reducing ours?

Cutting costs is definitely needed but cut them where they can be cut:

Start with getting rid of 25% of all generals and admirals.....fixed cost contracts with defense contractors...and drop the F 35.


So we can tell Asians our gun is bigger than theirs? That's what this is about?
 
2014-05-08 09:04:13 AM

Tomahawk513: I mean, I'd be down with it if a huge war started that threatened to pull in the US, but in relative peacetime?  No.  FARK no.


We do need to consider that as a possibility.  Putin has said he wants to rebuild the glory of the Soviet Union, and some of the countries in his way are NATO members.
 
2014-05-08 09:06:42 AM

karnal: Q. Why do you never see Dims hiding in trees?


A: They're really good at it!
 
2014-05-08 09:09:33 AM

kyrg: Because there is only waste in the military and cutting entitlement spending equals racism right?


Why do you keep playing the racism card? It cheapens perfectly valid claims of people who are actually called racist!
 
2014-05-08 09:10:05 AM

Where wolf: I'm all for expanding the National Guard and two years mandatory service,


Yeah, that will make the U.S.  military stronger.
 
2014-05-08 09:10:27 AM

sprawl15: karnal: Q. Why do you never see Dims hiding in trees?

A: They're really good at it!


Q. How many Dims does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A. Just one, but it really gets screwed.
 
2014-05-08 09:14:27 AM

karnal: sprawl15: karnal: Q. Why do you never see Dims hiding in trees?

A: They're really good at it!

Q. How many Dims does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A. Just one, but it really gets screwed.


Yup, screwed until it bursts alive with excitement. An electrifying experience, if you will.
 
Displayed 50 of 110 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report