- 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
re: Budget Cuts Leave 101st Airborne Crippled
Posted on 3/9/17 at 1:30 pm to upgrayedd
Posted on 3/9/17 at 1:30 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
I suspect that there's enough waste in the system that we could keep the budget the same and increase our capabilities by 30% if we made some simple changes.
Revamp procurement and reduce/eliminate the utilization of contractors would be a good starting point.
2
Posted on 3/9/17 at 1:31 pm to DCtiger1
quote:
The Zumwalt is a disaster though, it has no role and the price of stealth far outweighs benefits over the arleigh-burke class destroyers.
You're talking about a ship that has been active for what, a year? Then comparing it to a ship that has had over a decade of service.
It was a radical new design for a destroyer. It's not a new role, it was supposed to replace Arleigh-Burke. As it stands, it serves as a test bed to see what kind of advantages it presents over the last generation. I mean, it's supposed to mount rail guns in the future and rail guns are no where near ready for combat applications. The ship design is far ahead of its time.
This post was edited on 3/9/17 at 1:31 pm
Posted on 3/9/17 at 1:31 pm to Darth_Vader
They need to learn how to do more with less
Posted on 3/9/17 at 1:37 pm to yellowfin
Well nearly half of the budget goes to maintenance. There's tons of waste but that's the cost of maintaining such a large entity like the US military.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 1:40 pm to Aubie Spr96
While it is true that the DoD wastes a lot of money (which needs to be addressed ASAP) I do have an issue with this graph.
The difference between the U.S. and all those other countries is how spread out all of our resources are. We have interests all across the globe and I personally believe we should be the one's in charge of protecting those interests. So I do believe we need to spend a disproportionate amount on defense.
So, if for some reason we got into a war with China and they tried to interfere with the shipping lanes they could bring a lot of resources to bear in that particular area. So even if we spend more doesn't necessarily we could defeat a large enemy on their home turf given how thinned out we are.
And to reiterate, I agree about the waste. The DoD did their own study of wasteful spending and then tried to cover up the results because there was so much waste they were worried about getting hit with budget cuts.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 1:44 pm to 20MuleTeam
quote:
Not saying there aren't problems but this propagandistic bullshite to get a bigger money grab
Here's my 2 cents worth when comparing Dem strategy to Rep strategy.
Dems - if we get in trouble we'll use a nuke. Let's spend military money on social issues.
Reps - let's build up our military so we don't have to use a nuke as a last resort to keep our asses from being blown to smithereens budget be damned.
'Bout sums it up imo.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 1:46 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:Oh, I definitely agree.
1. Where does the US rank in education spending in the world?
2. Where does the US rank in education in the world?
The point of those two questions is that just because our government is throwing mountains of money at something doesn't mean that something is working.
I was speaking from ignorance though, it was an honest question. I guess my greater point, and probably not specific to the 101st but just overall, if we're crippled in spots or we're not ready for a full scale war, it really seems to boil down to just a gross mismanagement of funds. I can't think of what else it would be.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 1:47 pm to theGarnetWay
quote:Solid explanation, thanks!!!
The difference between the U.S. and all those other countries is how spread out all of our resources are. We have interests all across the globe and I personally believe we should be the one's in charge of protecting those interests. So I do believe we need to spend a disproportionate amount on defense.
So, if for some reason we got into a war with China and they tried to interfere with the shipping lanes they could bring a lot of resources to bear in that particular area. So even if we spend more doesn't necessarily we could defeat a large enemy on their home turf given how thinned out we are.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 1:51 pm to shel311
It's just my 2 cents. Yeah, we spend a lot more China. But China doesn't have a massive Fleet in the Middle East nor does it have a massive presence in Europe or across the Pacific. So if we have to scare off against China in the South China Sea they'll really be able to focus down on that area a lot quicker than we could and could even use mainland weaponry.
Again, not that we couldn't give them a beating in the long-term... but it would be costly. Especially if we want to maintain our commitments elsewhere.
And I'm all for our European and Asian allies to start paying more for their own defense, but I'm a strong believer in the US leading the way.
As much distrust as American have in their own government to get things done and protect American interests, I have even less trusts in foreign governments to do so allies or not.
Again, not that we couldn't give them a beating in the long-term... but it would be costly. Especially if we want to maintain our commitments elsewhere.
And I'm all for our European and Asian allies to start paying more for their own defense, but I'm a strong believer in the US leading the way.
As much distrust as American have in their own government to get things done and protect American interests, I have even less trusts in foreign governments to do so allies or not.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 1:53 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
B. Private Contractor professional helicopter mechanic
I don't know in detail, about our military, but I am curious as to whether or not these private contractors truly have the US military in the best interest.. of course, if not, that leaves us vulnerable.
On an episode of American Greed, this guy who ran a company that made bullet proof vest ended up getting busted. The material that was supposed to be used to make the vest were substituted for cheaper material that was making the vest less protective, as a result, there were casualties and/or more serious injuries..
Posted on 3/9/17 at 2:22 pm to DCtiger1
quote:
Revamp procurement and reduce/eliminate the utilization of contractors would be a good starting point.
Yep.
Also, why does every branch need their own camo pattern. Seems like the Navy has a different uniform for every day of the week.
This post was edited on 3/9/17 at 2:28 pm
Posted on 3/9/17 at 2:47 pm to DCtiger1
quote:
reduce/eliminate the utilization of contractors would be a good starting point.
GTFO...now you are fricking with MY money...contractors provide stability and continuity..and knowledge
Joe Blow Sailor changes commands every 3-4 years...and he has to be trained all over again on something new...contractors stay...and the knowledge they have...since most were Joe Blow Sailor at one time...is priceless....
not to mention...the contractor isn't taken care of for LIFE...the service member is....believe me.....its cheaper to hire contractors who love their country than it is to provide all of the befits to service members forever..that is unsustainable.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 2:50 pm to SthGADawg
quote:
its cheaper to hire contractors
In most instances, no it isn't. I don't really care about your money considering it is MY money that is funding the spending.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 2:59 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
Also, why does every branch need their own camo pattern. Seems like the Navy has a different uniform for every day of the week.
I agree 100%.
Back in the 80's, this was the army BDU...
And this was the Marine BDU....
Only difference was the Marines rolled up their sleeves in a fricked up manner and they didn't have this band on their kevlars.
quote:
Seems like the Navy has a different uniform for every day of the week.
And what in the actual frick is this shite supposed to be?
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:04 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
And what in the actual frick is this shite supposed to be?
Exactly. Plus they have these.
Not to mention their work uniforms as well as their summer and winter uniforms.
Maybe that's why people frick with them about being gay. They get to play dress up all the time.
This post was edited on 3/9/17 at 3:12 pm
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:04 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
And what in the actual frick is this shite supposed to be?
I laugh every time I see that stupid camo as well
quote:
Can someone clarify for me if the 16 is being completely removed from both army and marines? Man our guys looked good back then.
This post was edited on 3/9/17 at 3:07 pm
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:08 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
And what in the actual frick is this shite supposed to be?
Truth be told those uniforms seem like they would make it harder to find sailors in the water if they're in need of rescue.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:08 pm to DCtiger1
quote:
National Defense is sort of the original intention of the federal government.
You are deluding yourself if you think that our military in its current form is for national defense. We could EASILY cut our defense budget in half and still defend this country. The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans do most of the fricking working anyway.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:10 pm to rmnldr
quote:
laugh every time I see that stupid camo as well
The AF retro Nam tiger stripe is terrible too but at least it kinda blends in.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:10 pm to Aubie Spr96
The US military/political doctrine hasn't been about protecting the homeland since around the Barbary wars
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News