HORRORS!!! Obama Proposes DEFENSE-Spending CUTS!!

[HankHill]

What does this have to do with anything? Who cares what you call it? We are still there and have to pay for it.

Anyway, what will get cut in future weapons development. Which I think is a travesty. We need to continually remain on the cutting edge in my opinion.

Libs always have to label stuff, it's what they do.

And I agree, if we do not stay cutting edge, our edges will get cut!

 

[pocketfullofshells]

What does this have to do with anything? Who cares what you call it? We are still there and have to pay for it.

Anyway, what will get cut in future weapons development. Which I think is a travesty. We need to continually remain on the cutting edge in my opinion.

it was a ref to a other thread...and cutting edge is nice, but we are well above any nation that we are enemies with, and money is needed in other areas. what about being cutting edge in education or something as well? Cutting edge in health care ( For all) ...Cutting edge in Environmental issues....Cutting edge is nice, but when you outspend the next 3-5 nations combined, to fight in afghanistan....is it spent wisely? also you know there is a huge amount of Military wasteful spending and pork that can be cut and not risk being cutting edge.

 

[BigRob]

it was a ref to a other thread...and cutting edge is nice, but we are well above any nation that we are enemies with, and money is needed in other areas. what about being cutting edge in education or something as well? Cutting edge in health care ( For all) ...Cutting edge in Environmental issues....Cutting edge is nice, but when you outspend the next 3-5 nations combined, to fight in afghanistan....is it spent wisely? also you know there is a huge amount of Military wasteful spending and pork that can be cut and not risk being cutting edge.

There is also a huge amount of education spending waste and health care waste that can be cut and not jeopardize that either. Why cut the military? Why not cut it all, or cut it equally?

I think that we must continually maintain cutting edge tech in military because you never know where the next conflict will arise. If we structure our forces to fight an enemy in Afghanistan, then we are vulnerable to basically every other situation.

I think we must maintain cutting edge weapons and technology to combat any potential scenario that might arise. Otherwise, all our spending leaves us nothing but unprepared.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

There is also a huge amount of education spending waste and health care waste that can be cut and not jeopardize that either. Why cut the military? Why not cut it all, or cut it equally?

I think that we must continually maintain cutting edge tech in military because you never know where the next conflict will arise. If we structure our forces to fight an enemy in Afghanistan, then we are vulnerable to basically every other situation.

I think we must maintain cutting edge weapons and technology to combat any potential scenario that might arise. Otherwise, all our spending leaves us nothing but unprepared.

one we are not cutting edge in our education or health care...and we dont outspend the next 3-5 nations combined...

2. Spending just to be cutting adge, and having no real use for them, does not make for a good military, its makes for bloated budgets. Spend billions for a new air superiority fighter? would it be better ? sure, but thing the current ones are so far advanced no one even uses there air force to fight us anymore so its a waste.

You dont need to spend just to spend, so you can have the best buy 2000 times and fail at so many other areas.

 

[Andy]

we are fighting 2 wars? realy cuz we where told Iraq is not even a occupation now But of course even if its not even a occupation let alone a war now, its wrong to suggest we start pulling out.

But we are slowly, as Bush planned, pulling out as we as our presence becomes less required. That doesn't mean you de-fund our troops still deployed, no matter what you call their presence.

 

[Andy]

one we are not cutting edge in our education or health care...and we dont outspend the next 3-5 nations combined...

There is very little correlation between spending on education, and educational results. Typically educational results are more determined by the focus of education on important topics, and the effect of consumer demand for results.

For example, the Slovak Republic spends just $15,000 and has an average student score just below 500. Whereas, the US spends about $80,000 and averages 475. Sweden is possibly the only country that spends as much as the US, but their students do considerably better on tests.

Even in the US, private schools routinely spend less money on education, and have far better results than overly funded public schools. In Washington D.C. for example, the total cost per student is roughly $25,000/yr. In other words, the same as the elite private school Chelsea Clinton went to. Yet D.C. has one of the worst test results of any district in the US. Most expensive, least results?

And that trend isn't rare either. Here locally in Ohio, not too long ago a report surfaced about several school districts that had their funding greatly increased, yet a year later, the test scores dropped noticeably. Just in Columbus Public alone, the cost per student is $9,500 per year. Yet an elite private school, within Columbus Public area, is only $7,000 per year and they vastly better results.

Main point is this... increasing funding for education doesn't work.

2. Spending just to be cutting adge, and having no real use for them, does not make for a good military, its makes for bloated budgets. Spend billions for a new air superiority fighter? would it be better ? sure, but thing the current ones are so far advanced no one even uses there air force to fight us anymore so its a waste.

Not true. We have ignorant in believing that the world has not advanced simply because we haven't. In 2004, we engaged in a military exercise with Indian Air Force.

Reportedly, the exercise found mention in the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee in March when Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper stated that the results of Cope India were "very revealing". He did not elaborate. Earlier, Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) said in a Feb. 26 House Appropriations defense subcommittee hearing that U.S. F-15Cs were defeated more than 90 percent of the time in direct combat exercises against the IAF!

In comparison to Russian built, modern Su-30MKI, our F-16s designed in the 70s are aging and getting quickly outdated. The Su-30 has better weapon payloads, better aerodynamic efficiency, have better radar detection and jamming, and has an increased attack angle that reaches nearly 180 degrees, as opposed to the F-16 40 degree angle of attack. In point of fact, the Su-30 surpasses the F-16 in nearly every possible area.

Not to say we don't have some rough equals, like the F-18E/F is which more update though still behind. The problem is, those are rarities. Most of our fleet is made up of F-15 and F-16 jets from the 70s. Which is why they were used against the IAF in the above article, and were shot down 90% of the time.

Of course, with Bailout-Barack in charge, you won't see us updating our military to keep up with the rest of the world. We've been lulled into a stupor by the pacifist left, into thinking we're greater than we are. The rest of the world isn't smoking pot and having Woodstock get togethers. They are building better weapons and preparing for war. We sadly, won't likely wake up to this until a major military action crushes us.

You dont need to spend just to spend, so you can have the best buy 2000 times and fail at so many other areas.

Oh I agree with that. Let's cut spending on every unconstitutional program in the federal budget. Then we can focus on the things our government is supposed to do... like defense.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

There is also a huge amount of education spending waste and health care waste that can be cut and not jeopardize that either.

Whoops!!!

Another example-free "conservative"-Absolute.

​

 

[BigRob]

one we are not cutting edge in our education or health care...and we dont outspend the next 3-5 nations combined...

Does not mean there is not billions in waste in both systems.

2. Spending just to be cutting adge, and having no real use for them, does not make for a good military, its makes for bloated budgets. Spend billions for a new air superiority fighter? would it be better ? sure, but thing the current ones are so far advanced no one even uses there air force to fight us anymore so its a waste

We absolutely have a need for the F-22 (which is what I assume you are talking about here). Not only for a deterrence role, but also for practical air missions.

It does not matter if China (for example) is going to fight us in an air battle. What matters is that our planes are so superior they know that attacking Taiwan (for example) will result in the loss of hundreds of Migs. Thus deterring any potential aggression.

I further agree with Andy above. Our planes are not all that ahead of potential foes.

You dont need to spend just to spend, so you can have the best buy 2000 times and fail at so many other areas.

I do not believe that government spending is the reason we fail in education and health care. I think health care is so expensive because of the government, and we have been throwing money at education for decades with no results.

 

[BigRob]

Whoops!!!

Another example-free "conservative"-Absolute.

​

Ok, here is one. The GAO said 1 out of every 10 dollars spent on Medicare is lost of wasted.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Does not mean there is not billions in waste in both systems.



We absolutely have a need for the F-22 (which is what I assume you are talking about here). Not only for a deterrence role, but also for practical air missions.

It does not matter if China (for example) is going to fight us in an air battle. What matters is that our planes are so superior they know that attacking Taiwan (for example) will result in the loss of hundreds of Migs. Thus deterring any potential aggression.

I further agree with Andy above. Our planes are not all that ahead of potential foes.



I do not believe that government spending is the reason we fail in education and health care. I think health care is so expensive because of the government, and we have been throwing money at education for decades with no results.

actuly I was talking about going past the f-22, realy we should be building more f-22's as a cost savings issue as long term cost of them would outwight keeping the f-15 in service longer and keeping trying to update them. And my point was that not evry program we have to be cutting edge is realy needed...the Military itself often would agree, half the projects are pork projects for jobs for some congressmen. I am sure you have heard the cases where we build 6 new destroyers....that the navy said they did not need or want...but it fed some pork so they got built....

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Ok, here is one. The GAO said 1 out of every 10 dollars spent on Medicare is lost of wasted.

That's what you heard, huh?

​

 

[Andy]

That's what you heard, huh?

​

More like read the documented evidence of it.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

More like read the documented evidence of it.

Show me, Skippy.

​

 

[Bunz]

Just a few things, firstly, being an airplane nerd myself, the F-22 is the most amazing flying machine out there we could use a thousand of them. The manuevers it is capable of, throw in the supercruise ability, and then make it disappear from the radar screen, and there is nothing even close to it right now. One will shoot down 6 SU30s before they know what the heck is going on.

As for COPE INDIA, well there is no question we had our JV and C teams there. Also, the F-15Cs that were made to look like mere target drones now have the ability to have helmet mounted missle aiming capability, which is why the SU-30s were able to do what they did.

As for missile defense, much of it is based in my home state, and it was pointed out earlier that it would not defend against an attack from Russia, that is true to a certain extent. It wont be able to defend an all out attack, say 100 ICBMs coming over the pole. But it can defend and has been successful in shooting down I believe 3 or 4 incoming missiles at the same time.

As for cutting the military budget, well not sure what to say, except I remember that Cheney said Iraqi oil would be paying for this war. Id like to start collecting on that to start with. We also need to make sure we collect for all of the infastructure and public buildings we built for the Iraqis. They are sitting on a big surplus, and I think it might be time for a good ole Chicago shakedown.

 

[Andy]

Show me, Skippy.

​

http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/bg1840.cfm

Medicare wastes more money than any other federal program, yet its strong public support leaves lawmakers hesitant to address program effi*ciencies, which cost taxpayers and Medicare recip*ients billions of dollars annually.

For example, Medicare pays as much as eight times what other federal agencies pay for the same drugs and medical supplies.[6] The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently com*pared the prices paid by Medicare and the Depart*ment of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care program for 16 types of medical equipment and supplies, which account for one-quarter of Medicare’s equip*ment and supplies purchases. The evidence showed that Medicare paid an average of more than double what the VA paid for the same items. The largest difference was for saline solution, with Medicare paying $8.26 per liter compared to the $1.02 paid by the VA.

And the VA system isn't all that great either.

http://www.rd.com/your-america-insp...is-wasting-your-tax-dollars/article50629.html

That's because a 2003 Dartmouth Medical School study found that up to 30 percent of the $2 trillion spent in this country on medical care each year—including what's spent on Medicare and Medicaid—is wasted. And with the combined tab for those programs rising to some $665 billion this year, cutting costs by a conservative 15 percent could save taxpayers about $100 billion. Yet, rather than moving to trim fat, the government continues such questionable practices as paying private insurance companies that offer Medicare Advantage plans an average of 12 percent more per patient than traditional Medicare fee-for-service. Congress is trying to close this loophole, and doing so could save $15 billion per year, on average, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

So the according to Dartmouth, the CBO is wrong. It's not $1 in $10 wasted, it's $3 in $10 wasted.