what a POS Obama is

[phillyintexas]

Originally Posted by Old-T

I agree with most of what you say--and philosophically I agree with all of it. But in today's world you hit upon the key point: inter-operable.

I would probably disagree only on the organization structure. Instead of air, ground, space I suspect it might be better structured around tactical, strategic, logistics, SPECOPS, etc. Either way it should be far more efficient and effective than today.

+1 on tactical, strategic, logistics, SPECOPS, etc. (cyber will be big in the future)

Not all folks are familiar with the lingo so I used "air, ground, space ..."

Unfortunately there are 538+ hands "in the pot" when it comes to configuring the DoD. All of them are protecting their own interests. IMHO we won't see real change in the DoD structure until we get to the point where we just can't afford the military under its current configuration and Congress is forced to act. They'll probably do it under a variant of sequestration.

[Old-T]

Completely concur on cyber.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by phillyintexas

The articles don't apply because the military are NOT being asked to take a "hit" on their medical care without the civilian servants being asked to take a hit. Actually, the hit the civilians are projected to take is larger. I rely on the military health care system for my medical care so I'm concerned about it. I also know you can't get "blood from a stone". If you don't raise revenue you must decrease expenses. One of the ways is to look at the cost of military health care. Am I concerned about that--you bet. I also know the amount we're paying "out of pocket" for Tricare hasn't increased in many years. How many things haven't gone up in price since the 1990s--especially costs related to medical expenses.

I work for DoD in civil service. If you eliminate my job (its deemed essential) it'll end up being staffed by military personnel which has been proven to cost more than the compensation currently paid to me. Are their other position that could be eliminate--yes. However, its not always a one-to-one relationship.

DoD consumes 17% of the US budget. To even get close to the 85% you stated you would need to eliminate totally:

Medicare
Medicaid
Social security
All Highway funding (no roads or bridges expanded or repaired)
All transportation funding (rail, air, bus, subway and etc.) Close airports
Eliminate all other features of US security (border security, port security, airport security, support to fight terrorism across the world, and etc.)
Stop all suppression of illegal drugs from crossing the border
Shutdown all of the banks and financial institutions
Do away with controlling flu, measles, and numerous diseases throughout the country
Close all of the prisons
Rampant food safety issues
Not regulate nuclear power plants or waste
No ability to help anybody after earthquakes, hurricanes, flooding and etc.
Stop all govt backed loans for education and mortgages
Your new job would be in a sweat shop since we'll no long monitor working conditions
No more weather forecasts from NOAA -- local weather forecasts rely heavily on it

The above will all be lost--and that's just the items I can think of off the top of my head. There are mannnnny more that would be shutdown.

Good luck with your proposal. This isn't fantasy land--all cuts have impacts.

OK, 85-90% might be just a little high... considering our government just took over 1/6th of our economy, when does it stop growing?

Our soldiers better not get fucked over, is my point.

[phillyintexas]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

OK, 85-90% might be just a little high... considering our government just took over 1/6th of our economy, when does it stop growing?

Our soldiers better not get fucked over, is my point.

Below is an excerpt of a post I made that have a subject along the lines as this one:

"There has been some reductions to training, weapons and personnel levels in the past years due to sequestration and other budget cuts; however, military personnel have done very well the past 10+ years [5 under Obama] in all forms of compensation when compared to their civil service and private sector counterparts. Yes, they will be impacted in the future in one form or another when it comes to compensation. The reality is that if we're going to balance the budget we need some revenue increases along with a lot of cuts to expected future expenditures. The bottom-line is that everybody that's receiving any $$$ in any form from the government (that ALL of you) will need to share in the burden of balancing the budget. I hear a LOT of people talking about balancing the budget but every one of those folks will also say don't cut the portion that impacts me. Well folks you can't have it both ways. Either you suck up your part and support it willing or sit back and watch the situation get worse. "

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

OK, 85-90% might be just a little high... considering our government just took over 1/6th of our economy, when does it stop growing?

Our soldiers better not get fucked over, is my point.

You're so full of shit. Your numbers NEVER make sense.

And WHAT'S going to happen if our soldiers get fucked over ... like the the returning vets did under Bush?

YOU GONNA DO SOMETHING? (I recommend Mr. Rogers videos!)