steveh_131
Grandmaster
I have concerns about tyranny coming from either 'winger'.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Military buget cut proposals would take US to 1940 troop levels.
- Thread starter funeralweb
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I have concerns about tyranny coming from either 'winger'.
2ADMNLOVER
Grandmaster
NK nuclear capable missiles getting caught trying to pass through the Panama canal , the Chinese fielding a "blue water" navy with nuclear capable subs , sending their spy ships into / near our waters , the Ruskies parking warships down in Cuba , having large scale war games and flying Black Jacks around the Caribbean from Nicaraguan air base wouldn't have anything to do with that "paradigm their stuck in " , would it ?
The " cold war " ain't no where near over yet .
Exactly what a possible enemy does when they sense weakness. Another example of the fact that elections have consequences, and we're liable to be paying for it.
Trooper
Shooter
Frankly I think one of the best ways to get Americans straightened out would be for us to have a war on US soil. So lets have a draw down. Then lets someone really kick our butts, a series of attacks that really shows how weak we are, how soft we are. Maybe a million dead. Something so big that it shakes Americans to their core, destroys their comfort zone.
I do not know any other way to force us to harden up, to move away from all the BS that the left is pushing.
I do not know any other way to force us to harden up, to move away from all the BS that the left is pushing.
Trooper
Shooter
Even the masses can be tyrants. The founders were as concerned about mob rule as they were kings.
Is it better to have strong beliefs or just believe in nothing? Those who believe in nothing will believe whatever is told them. Some believe that even libertarians are a threat as they believe in principles. Thus even libertarians can be tyrants of a type.
The service members and ex-service members get their panties so twisted at the very thought of any cuts that they seem unable to carry on a reasonable discussion on the subject. And I'll reiterate that I'm actually fairly open-minded on the subject. I'll admit my lack of knowledge of some military matters and am willing to consider both sides, if anyone would present theirs in a way that isn't packed with sarcasm or logical fallacies.
Yes, the defense budget needs an enema...
The problem with how they're doing it in my eyes is that cutting pay and benefits for members is changing the government's side of a contract after you've completed your's. The civilian benefits commission is scheduled to present their recommendations for pay and medical cuts this spring. Most active duty and retired folks do get a little bent when there is serious talk of cutting the compensation package after they provided 20+ years of service being told they would earn them. The cuts they are proposing aren't just for the new folks who join after the change (as was how they implemented the cuts for the civil service people) but are retroactive. They will apply to us after we've fulfilled our part of the bargain.
And in case anyone missed it, the flag officer's who are supporting the cuts aren't going to be affected. As a matter of fact, in '07 they were given special retirement that actually has them making more in retirement than they did while active. In the case of a Four star retiring with forty years their base pay was $181k but will get a retirement pay of ~$231K. This special compensation was deemed necessary to retain experienced senior officers during the wars. Despite the fact that the wars are winding down, the special compensation was retained in this last budget deal. Pensions continue to grow for military brass
As far as where the money is still going and the hinky politics of the defense/government love affair, even systems that the military doesn't want anymore continue to get funded. Half a billion $$$ for the Abram's tanks no one want's. Why? Because if the places that have those contracts and do the work are in your district, do you want to vote to kill those jobs and put thousands of people out of good paying work in this economy? The Abrams is but one of many examples of defense spending being driven more by bringing money to your people than providing the military the tools it needs. Abrams Tank Pushed By Congress Despite Army's Protests
Reducing manning levels is a very good way to save money, as people are expensive. But you must be willing to reduce the missions to match. The problem if you don't get rid of some of the missions is that those people who are left still have to get those jobs done. Sailors doing 8 or 10+ years in a row on a ship with no shore rotation makes for a very difficult life. That instructor (shore billet) that they used to get to give them 3 years on land in between is now being done by that contractor. That makes it very hard to motivate folks to stay in. Contractors are useful and provide the flexibility to make short term manning adjustments that civil service and Military folks can't provide. There are, however, certain jobs that just can't be done by contractors. The last decade has shown us that as many jobs that were contracted out earlier in the wars were taken over by the military again after some high profile failures. They've now designated many jobs as "inherently government activities" to avoid a repeat of those incidences.
I know it doesn't seem like a problem now but just a decade ago they were paying re-enlistment bonuses of up to $60K to keep people in certain specialties around. The difference is that back then we had a thriving economy and the technically trained folks were being actively recruited by industry. If we ever have a good economy again, you will lose those folks fast and you can't "grow" them over night. Some enlisted jobs in the military have well over a year of training just to become an "apprentice" who isn't even capable of operating the system they trained on without direct supervision. When that supervisor gets tired of having been deployed for the last decade and gets out you will have a multi million $$$ system you can't even use. If you don't think that's real ask Master Chief (OSCM). It has happened before. More than once.
And my final rant for this chapter:
It would be nice to believe that if the immense growth of some federal agencies ever became a concern that the standing Army would defend us mere citizens. History has a sadder tale to tell.... Not everything in history books is what we would be led to believe and our heros sometimes are remembered to be "taller" than they were:
This isn't the first time in our country's history we've come out of major war into a fractured economy. WW I led into the great depression and many returning vets couldn't find work and the compensation they were given after the war wasn't to be paid to them for almost another decade. That doesn't help feed a family and times were tough so they demanded payment early. It was called the bonus army and they gathered in DC, at the national mall, to pressure the government to act. After months of protest, the government did act-
General Douglas MacArthur took 6 tanks and a cavalry regiment and drove them out, burning the camp afterwards. When one of the marchers, a Sergeant that had save his life in combat during the war, tried to talk to him he had him removed saying he "didn't know the man". An aide of MacArthur's, Major Dwight Eisenhower did have concerns over the actions against the marchers, his concerns were that the General, as Chief of staff, should not be seen directly attacking unarmed protester and instead he should lead the charge............... Bonus Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes, the defense budget needs an enema...
The problem with how they're doing it in my eyes is that cutting pay and benefits for members is changing the government's side of a contract after you've completed your's. The civilian benefits commission is scheduled to present their recommendations for pay and medical cuts this spring. Most active duty and retired folks do get a little bent when there is serious talk of cutting the compensation package after they provided 20+ years of service being told they would earn them. The cuts they are proposing aren't just for the new folks who join after the change (as was how they implemented the cuts for the civil service people) but are retroactive. They will apply to us after we've fulfilled our part of the bargain.
And in case anyone missed it, the flag officer's who are supporting the cuts aren't going to be affected. As a matter of fact, in '07 they were given special retirement that actually has them making more in retirement than they did while active. In the case of a Four star retiring with forty years their base pay was $181k but will get a retirement pay of ~$231K. This special compensation was deemed necessary to retain experienced senior officers during the wars. Despite the fact that the wars are winding down, the special compensation was retained in this last budget deal. Pensions continue to grow for military brass
As far as where the money is still going and the hinky politics of the defense/government love affair, even systems that the military doesn't want anymore continue to get funded. Half a billion $$$ for the Abram's tanks no one want's. Why? Because if the places that have those contracts and do the work are in your district, do you want to vote to kill those jobs and put thousands of people out of good paying work in this economy? The Abrams is but one of many examples of defense spending being driven more by bringing money to your people than providing the military the tools it needs. Abrams Tank Pushed By Congress Despite Army's Protests
Reducing manning levels is a very good way to save money, as people are expensive. But you must be willing to reduce the missions to match. The problem if you don't get rid of some of the missions is that those people who are left still have to get those jobs done. Sailors doing 8 or 10+ years in a row on a ship with no shore rotation makes for a very difficult life. That instructor (shore billet) that they used to get to give them 3 years on land in between is now being done by that contractor. That makes it very hard to motivate folks to stay in. Contractors are useful and provide the flexibility to make short term manning adjustments that civil service and Military folks can't provide. There are, however, certain jobs that just can't be done by contractors. The last decade has shown us that as many jobs that were contracted out earlier in the wars were taken over by the military again after some high profile failures. They've now designated many jobs as "inherently government activities" to avoid a repeat of those incidences.
I know it doesn't seem like a problem now but just a decade ago they were paying re-enlistment bonuses of up to $60K to keep people in certain specialties around. The difference is that back then we had a thriving economy and the technically trained folks were being actively recruited by industry. If we ever have a good economy again, you will lose those folks fast and you can't "grow" them over night. Some enlisted jobs in the military have well over a year of training just to become an "apprentice" who isn't even capable of operating the system they trained on without direct supervision. When that supervisor gets tired of having been deployed for the last decade and gets out you will have a multi million $$$ system you can't even use. If you don't think that's real ask Master Chief (OSCM). It has happened before. More than once.
And my final rant for this chapter:
It would be nice to believe that if the immense growth of some federal agencies ever became a concern that the standing Army would defend us mere citizens. History has a sadder tale to tell.... Not everything in history books is what we would be led to believe and our heros sometimes are remembered to be "taller" than they were:
This isn't the first time in our country's history we've come out of major war into a fractured economy. WW I led into the great depression and many returning vets couldn't find work and the compensation they were given after the war wasn't to be paid to them for almost another decade. That doesn't help feed a family and times were tough so they demanded payment early. It was called the bonus army and they gathered in DC, at the national mall, to pressure the government to act. After months of protest, the government did act-
General Douglas MacArthur took 6 tanks and a cavalry regiment and drove them out, burning the camp afterwards. When one of the marchers, a Sergeant that had save his life in combat during the war, tried to talk to him he had him removed saying he "didn't know the man". An aide of MacArthur's, Major Dwight Eisenhower did have concerns over the actions against the marchers, his concerns were that the General, as Chief of staff, should not be seen directly attacking unarmed protester and instead he should lead the charge............... Bonus Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
CathyInBlue
Grandmaster
My response to this thread—
is this thread, https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/general-political-discussion/334387-large-standing-army.html
is this thread, https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/general-political-discussion/334387-large-standing-army.html
Trooper
Shooter
The idea of the 2nd amendment was that instead of having a professional warrior class (military, and police, as the military was the police back then) that the whole of society would be trained to be warriors. Training would be at the local level where leaders would be appointed by the community. Often the most educated man in the community back then was the minister thus he was the leader. The local unit trained at least twice a year, often after church. The unit was also the sheriff's posse, the fire brigade (like our volunteer firemen) and served the community in other ways.
The Swiss had a similar system. The founders referred to Switzerland as our sister republic. Even today Switzerland has mandatory service in a reserve system. At one time the Swiss could brag of having a 15 million man army (do not think it is that large now). Big difference was that the Swiss have their military take their military weapons home with them. No armory thus less government control over military weapons.
It is not enough that we own weapons. We are not well trained as warriors. Very few are trained in hand to hand combat or the use of edged weapons. Very few Americans are competitive athletes. Too many baby themselves, are over weight and lack physical conditioning. Or are practiced in working in small teams.
We may not need a professional army. But we do need citizens who are warriors.
When the Detroit bankruptcy case happened, and the big thing was that the city wanted to get out of paying pensions for retired city workers, firemen, policemen, sanitation workers, not many people seemed to side with the city workers. In every story I read on the internet, comments were more in the vein of "Over-payed city workers are crying because they won't get their sweet pensions". Not sure about Detroit, but many city workers won't get Social Security, since the City is allowed to pay into the pension fund in lieu of paying into SS. So, when the pension is cut, there's nothing to fall back on.
Now, retired military personnel comprise a large voting block and that may help their case, but in my experience, there will not be very much support in the civilian community to preserve military pensions. I will expect that the politicians will first pick out a few choice retired servicemen, those with the highest pension rates that they can find, so they can suggest that all retired military people retire young and get a sweet pension for life. Then they talk about how much tax money that must be spent to "placate" the greedy pensioners, and what good things that could be done with that money if they didn't have to support some guy who retires at 45 and goes off and gets another job anyway. That's what they're doing in Detroit and the people are eating it up, even lots of posters here on INGO did on one thread; including (ironically) probably some retired military folks. That's how their doing it with state employees in some states, like Rhode Island, to get support for cutting pensions, and it's working there too.
The one thing the politicians see is that they can save boat-loads of cash by cutting pensions and benefits and the best part is that, other than the ones affected, not many other tax-payers seem to have a problem with it.
Shadow8088
Expert
- Jul 24, 2012
- 972
- 28
The main reason we did as well as we did in WWII, we could out-produce every single country on the planet. Once the war machine started, there was no stopping it. Still think we could do the same now? NOPE!
On top of that, we got almost the entire United States populace behind the decision to make war. People grew victory gardens, they lived on rationed cheese, they LOVED their country enough that they would do without so we could feed and supply our troops. Again, still think we could do the same? HELL no.. We're so divided in this country I doubt you could get opposing sides to agree on whether or not the sky is blue, and most have giant self-entitlement issues...
Also; kind of important, but often overlooked, when the US entered WWII, we were the worlds leading petroleum producer.
You persist in trying to compare an apple to a flock of crows...The Second Amendment verbalizes a right that has always existed, whether or not it has been recognized by governments..the right to defend self, against crime and oppression.
Whether or not the new government should maintain a standing army was a matter of much dissension between the Federalists, and the Anti-Federalists.
We do KNOW at this stage in the game that we need a military force, instantly ready.
Trooper
Shooter
No, once the left gets rid of the military they will move to disarm the police and the public. They see weapons as the tools of men, especially lower class men.
Because, the Swiss have Universal Healthcare.
That's not a good argument, we are never getting into a shooting with the Chinese or the Russians because that'd literally be the end of the world. A few hundred thousand troops won't make a difference.
I'm more worried about the crippling debt than I am we'd ever need the standing army we have.
It's a new world, a knowledgable public is much more important than having 'warriors'. A computer virus can do more damage to a countries infrastructure than any number of 'warriors'
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
Cameramonkeywww.thechosen.tv
Members online
- El Conquistador
- wildcatfan
- INgunowner
- Ingomike
- sassdan
- rhamersley
- Brad69
- FreeLand
- 2tonic
- MrSmitty
- Rio
- Tactically Fat
- AndreusMaximus
- Riflemen14
- Cavman
- Robert B.
- KLB
- Cameramonkey
- tv1217
- Mark-DuCo
- 1775usmarine
- sixGuns
- pharmboy
- jrogier62
- mkgr22
- TheSpookyCat
- Bill2905
- indyblue
- bwframe
- Magyars
- dweezil
- Jeffforpresident
- FN USA
- red_zr24x4
- GasTube138
- archer_advice
- 257robertsimp
- flightsimmer
- shawnfox12
- rwilken50
- indiucky
- wtburnette
- Indianajeff
- Lwright
- tonto
- b.sauls24
- DCR
- HKFaninCarmel
- Kirk Freeman
- kotaoz