Ok. So i'm a dumba**. lol. Makes sense and i fully agree with the control being returned to the proper people.
Ok. So i'm a dumba**. lol. Makes sense and i fully agree with the control being returned to the proper people.
This. I'm currently serving in the USAF and can honestly say that we waste a TON of money. Sometimes I look at the silly thing my wing spends money on and can only shake my head...then I think of how much money could be saved if EVERY wing in the AF would start acting like the stewards of taxpayer money that we're supposed to be. Yes... we could cut defense.
As far as entitlements go, however, unless I'm mistaken, I don't think Congress is allowed to make cuts to these programs as they are means tested and everyone that passes the test is "entitled" to the benefits. With legislation styled like this, I believe it is impossible for the congress to cut the programs' funding without axing them completely. Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to see them get axed completely but I'm enough of a realist to know it will probably never happen.
I understand the entitlements, but why do you want to cut spending on defense? Do you want to make us weaker or something?I don't understand. Not being a smartass, just want to hear your arguement.
I totally agree with cutting entitlements, but need to clarify cutting defense spending.
One thing that needs to be 100% eliminated is foreign military welfare. Defense spending is for DEFENSE (and funding justified wars).
That doesn't even sound like it's worth a s***! Don't know what it is, but it sure doesn't sound good.
That's where we provide monetary support to allied foreign militaries.
I also believe that we should completely cut ALL foreign aid (and meant to type that in my previous post).
Ah ok. So in a round about kinda way, we are paying them to stay allies with us then. If we do a barder kinda system with them, then that would be cool. "Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" basically. It seems like we are the only ones giving and not recieving anything. Of course, I am not that well informed on the subject.
Exactly. When we spend 8 times more than the next closest country (China) in defense spending and as much as the next twelve countries combined we are seriously overspending somewhere.
If anyone were serious about balancing the budget then defense spending reform would be first on everyone's list. Defense spending is the lowest hanging fruit out there when it comes balancing the budget. The idea of banning earmarks is nice but it isn't a drop in the bucket when it comes to balancing our budget. Anyone who has ever dealt with military projects knows that there is a ton of opportunity to save a ton of money out there. And like Veggie said, we need to stop spending money on foreign countries.
Any politician who talks about balancing the budget and doesn't talk about reforming defense spending, reforming social security, or raising taxes is just completely blowing smoke. That is my biggest gripe with the republican plans right now. They keep talking about a balanced budget but also have pledged to not touch social security, defense spending or taxes. Without touching those a balanced budget is mathematically impossible. The ban on earmarks is a nice gesture but doesn't really accomplish anything.
If earmarks are eliminated, then all funding will be passed down from the Feds through federal agencies.
Now, can anyone give me a list of the federal agencies that you think would:
a. have any common sense as to where the money should be spent,
b. have any ability to keep from skimming money from needy projects to favored ones,
c. have any ability to NOT be influenced by one man or political party?
Then, once the federal funds reach the states, could anyone give me a list of the state agencies that could meet the above same traits?
As for defense spending, in the past there have been instances where military projects were funded that the military didn't even want.
.
Now, can anyone give me a list of the federal agencies that you think would:
a. have any common sense as to where the money should be spent,
b. have any ability to keep from skimming money from needy projects to favored ones,
c. have any ability to NOT be influenced by one man or political party?
Then, once the federal funds reach the states, could anyone give me a list of the state agencies that could meet the above same traits?
As for defense spending, in the past there have been instances where military projects were funded that the military didn't even want.
.
Streamline defense spending and call it a day. I recall hearing a thing on the F-22 and how they keep buying more because it helps each Senator's state that votes on it. I'd have to look it up but basically if the plane is made in 7 states, you can bet that anyone in Washington from those 7 states is going to say "Buy more planes!" whether they're needed or not. Not factor any tanks, weapons, and other military items in and we're spending alot more than necessary.
Sorry guys but I disagree. While earmarks are just a small part of the problem, they do account for many millions every single year being wasted, but even more importantly they are used as a perk and re-election tool by congress people from both parties. The surest way to make our elected reps understand we want change is to force them to cut this type thing. Then once you have their attention you can move on to bigger things.
I think of all congress critters as brainless zombies. The first shot was Nov 2, now is time for the double tap.
I think of all congress critters as brainless zombies. The first shot was Nov 2, now is time for the double tap.
Similar threads
