- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 7/29/14 at 9:16 am to samson'sseed
The problem isn't as simple as cutting budgets. It's the damn whole process of government entities and how they do "business". And this not going to change anytime soon because the government employees thing generating paper and creating more policies and procedures is the cure for any problem. 
I have worked for government contractors to DOE, DoD, and Dept. of Homeland Security in various contract related position and when you see the shite that goes on, you want to just bang your head over and over.
I have worked for government contractors to DOE, DoD, and Dept. of Homeland Security in various contract related position and when you see the shite that goes on, you want to just bang your head over and over.
Posted on 7/29/14 at 9:19 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Army doesn't want tanks; Congress insists
That story disgusted me.
Military: "Look guys, we really, really don't need these tanks."
Deficit Hawk Ohio Republican: "National defense requires you to need them. I know this plant is in my district, but that really has nothing to do with it. It's all about national defense."
frick them.
Posted on 7/29/14 at 10:05 am to samson'sseed
The U.S. should reduce it defense spending. However, the reductions should be based on a re-assessment of our legitimate needs, and not just a knee jerk reaction. Are we willing to pare the military back to pre-WWII type levels that required several years of war to raise, equip and train a military capable of winning the war? What delays in fighting capability are we willing to tolerate? It's not like our industrial capacity to mass produce modern weapons can be turned on with the flip of a switch.
What is your argument for how we should reduce our military? What mission changes do we make? The devil is in the details.
What is your argument for how we should reduce our military? What mission changes do we make? The devil is in the details.
Posted on 7/29/14 at 10:06 am to FalseProphet
quote:
Army doesn't want tanks; Congress insists
This type of scenario is a lot more common than people think: the SR-71 (in the mid-90s) & A-10 (now) come to mind.
Posted on 7/29/14 at 10:18 am to Quidam65
quote:
And even for a "shim", it's not like one off the shelf. It's specially designed to meet military specs.
An elephant is a mouse built to military specs.
It is a pathetic excuse. The spec for a "shim" needn't be such that it costs so much. And, the price charged is often in excess of the "spec" cost.
Posted on 7/29/14 at 10:19 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
Why don't we cut welfare?
Posted on 7/29/14 at 10:19 am to navy
quote:
Why don't we cut welfare?
I don't know.
Let's!
Posted on 7/29/14 at 10:23 am to navy
We def should cut some wellfare, but that is pocket change compared to the pentagon budget
Posted on 7/29/14 at 10:30 am to Gray Tiger
quote:
samson'sseed = Rex lite
Actually:
samson'sseed = DA
Posted on 7/29/14 at 10:33 am to notiger1997
quote:
We def should cut some wellfare, but that is pocket change compared to the pentagon budget
Still ... I'd rather have overpriced helicopter parts to show for it ... and maybe a bad-arse helicopter to go blow shite up and kill terrorist dogs ... with welfare, what do you get in return ... nothing ... just more mouths and tongues looking to suckle some more from the John Q. Teat.
Posted on 7/29/14 at 10:34 am to Godfather1
You could reform the entire acquisition process, and I bet you'd barely make a dent in the defense budget.
The real meat and potatoes is in training and personnel (especially healthcare...Hello, single payer TriCare!) costs. I'll start paying attention to someone who wants to cut the defense budget when they take aim at TriCare, pensions, and force size.
The real meat and potatoes is in training and personnel (especially healthcare...Hello, single payer TriCare!) costs. I'll start paying attention to someone who wants to cut the defense budget when they take aim at TriCare, pensions, and force size.
Posted on 7/29/14 at 10:42 am to navy
quote:
Still ... I'd rather have overpriced helicopter parts to show for it .
quote:
and maybe a bad-arse helicopter to go blow shite up
I'm ready to cut BOTH. I don't think it should be "this OR that"
Posted on 7/29/14 at 10:43 am to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
I'll start paying attention to someone who wants to cut the defense budget when they take aim at TriCare, pensions, and force size.
You might end up with some unwanted attention from people taking aim at you.
I am practical on cuts ... there should be nothing sacred ... everything should be on the table to be looked at.
I have no problem taking a strain to get my children out from under the massive (primarily now) Obama-debt.
Posted on 7/29/14 at 11:09 am to samson'sseed
Why half? Cut it out entirely, buy us all "Prayer Rugs" and learn to pray facing the East. Save those tax dollars to send to Palestinians and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Posted on 7/29/14 at 12:02 pm to samson'sseed
quote:
The DOD agreed to pay Bell helicopter $13.4 billion for parts worth $4.4 billion.
Are the specs the same? I am not saying your comparisons are not true, but there are differences between a bolt to hold a helicopter blade in place and the same bolt you buy at Home Depot.
Posted on 7/29/14 at 12:12 pm to samson'sseed
quote:
If the Pentagon was forced to live within a smaller budget, they would be forced to actually pay fair price.
Do you think this is the only bureaucracy that participates in this practice? Something tells me you don't feel that HHS, EPA, DOE, or FDA should take any sort of real cut, let alone 50%.
Posted on 7/29/14 at 12:24 pm to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
The real meat and potatoes is in training and personnel (especially healthcare...Hello, single payer TriCare!) costs. I'll start paying attention to someone who wants to cut the defense budget when they take aim at TriCare, pensions, and force size.
You are uninformed if you really believe soldier benefits are the meat of the defense budget.
Posted on 7/29/14 at 12:42 pm to 13SaintTiger
quote:
You are uninformed if you really believe soldier benefits are the meat of the defense budget.
No he's not. Entitlements are the single biggest cost. Especially if you account for retirees.
Posted on 7/29/14 at 12:59 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
I am retired military and would gladly take a 25% cut in my pension and benefits IF all other federal agencies including federal retirees did the same. This would have to include Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid recipients as well. If we need to share the wealth then share the pain as well. But I won't hold my breath for any of that to happen. Way too many votes tied up in it, and with votes come power.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News