I think Rand Paul is correct regarding the military. I'd start with removing our military from the ME and seeing where it goes.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...too-large/

Quote:Is our military budget too small, or is our mission too large? Since 2001, the U.S. military budget has more than doubled in nominal terms and grown over 37% accounting for inflation. The U.S. spends more than the next eight countries combined.

It’s really hard to argue that our military is underfunded, so perhaps our mission has grown too large. That mission includes being currently involved in combat operations in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Niger, Libya, and Yemen. We have troops in over 50 of 54 African countries. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost over a trillion dollars and lasted for over 15 years.

Unfortunately, none of these wars have been authorized by Congress, and Afghanistan and Iraq have gone far beyond their original authorizations. And when all combined, these wars are draining our treasury. A country can only remain strong as long as it remains solvent.

In Afghanistan, we spend about $50 billion each year. Where does the money go? For troops and weapons, of course, but billions have also been spent on roads, bridges, and schools for Afghanistan. Seems a shame that bridges, roads, and schools crumble here while we persist in nation-building abroad. Maybe it’s time to do some nation-building at home.

This oughta be interesting.

I hope it is interesting. We need to control spending. There is no way around it. I saw the gov't sites showing a surplus in January 2018. How much of that was due to one time repatriation of money from profits made abroad by our U.S. MNC's? While I'm sure the repatriation efforts will continue for the balance of the year, that does not make this our "new normal". If significant sums of military spending goes into nation building, that is beyond the scope of the mission. It's wrong and needs to stop.

We STILL have a spending problem and our gov't STILL will CROWD OUT other corporations who could put that money to MUCH BETTER USE than our gov't so that they can build ACTUAL WEALTH. Not shouting - just emphasizing.

When GWB was campaigning in 2000, he said that he would reduce the size of the federal government and get us out of the nation building business. He then proceeded to go to the opposite extreme on both. And no, I don’t give him a free pass because of 9/11.

(02-16-2018 04:48 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I hope it is interesting. We need to control spending. There is no way around it. I saw the gov't sites showing a surplus in January 2018. How much of that was due to one time repatriation of money from profits made abroad by our U.S. MNC's? While I'm sure the repatriation efforts will continue for the balance of the year, that does not make this our "new normal". If significant sums of military spending goes into nation building, that is beyond the scope of the mission. It's wrong and needs to stop.

We STILL have a spending problem and our gov't STILL will CROWD OUT other corporations who could put that money to MUCH BETTER USE than our gov't so that they can build ACTUAL WEALTH. Not shouting - just emphasizing.

But the military is a sacred cow. Every other area of government is open to scorn, and slashing of budgets, can't do anything right, etc.. But the DOD bureaucracy is immune. At least for every Republican politician other than the libertarians.

At last something Rand Paul and I agree on.

Here’s the problem. At Bretton Woods at the end of WWII, we basically bribed the western world by agreeing to protect them and their trade routes in exchange for their following us in fighting the Cold War. The problem is that we didn’t plan on what to do after we won. We still haven’t addressed that 25 years after winning that war. The solution is to get our allies to pick up most of the load. But when Trump tries that, he gets accused of “breaking up NATO.”

His bull in a china shop approach is most of the problem. A real statesman would do a better job of presenting his case. Trump may very well be right, but he's far to obnoxious for even our allies to openly agree with him.

We don't import very much oil from the Middle East. Most of what we protect is headed to Europe and Asia.

The US ambassador to Iraq told Saddam we didn't consider Arab-Arab disputes our business and he invades Kuwait and we made it our business, helped by fake propaganda such as the story about stealing incubators and dumping Kuwait babies out to take them.

We go to war and then since Saddam is still in power, Saudi Arabia is worried about future attacks by him and they offer the US places to base troops.

Bin Laden, rich and motivated, is offended that US troops "occupy" the country and are present at Islamic holy sites and declares war in 1996.

The terror campaign reached its peak on 9/11.

The result is now we not only have troops in Saudi Arabia but we've added Iraq and Afghanistan and the UAE and Oman and Turkey and Pakistan some of those not particularly stable and places where there are plenty of disgruntled people who aren't happy we are on the side of the current government.

We need to scale back.

No one can make a case that prudent reductions in our overseas military empire is not warranted. Of course...We all know that it is the Industrial Military Complex and its deeply embedded influence in Washington that keeps us continually expanding it. Ike warned us. We never listened.

I of course advocate for a measured and gradual decrease in our military spending by at least 40% over then next couple of decades starting by shifting the security burden of the nations we defend back to them. As long as we are willing to continue to pay this bill there is no incentive for these countries to spend on their own defense.

(02-16-2018 05:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here’s the problem. At Bretton Woods at the end of WWII, we basically bribed the western world by agreeing to protect them and their trade routes in exchange for their following us in fighting the Cold War. The problem is that we didn’t plan on what to do after we won. We still haven’t addressed that 25 years after winning that war. The solution is to get our allies to pick up most of the load. But when Trump tries that, he gets accused of “breaking up NATO.”

It is not surprising that these nations spend so much on social programs. It is time to end most of our occupations overseas...or...minimally make those we protect pay for the entire bill and then some. We are not getting a good ROI today with most of this.

(02-16-2018 04:39 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I think Rand Paul is correct regarding the military. I'd start with removing our military from the ME and seeing where it goes.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...too-large/

Quote:Is our military budget too small, or is our mission too large? Since 2001, the U.S. military budget has more than doubled in nominal terms and grown over 37% accounting for inflation. The U.S. spends more than the next eight countries combined.

It’s really hard to argue that our military is underfunded, so perhaps our mission has grown too large. That mission includes being currently involved in combat operations in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Niger, Libya, and Yemen. We have troops in over 50 of 54 African countries. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost over a trillion dollars and lasted for over 15 years.

Unfortunately, none of these wars have been authorized by Congress, and Afghanistan and Iraq have gone far beyond their original authorizations. And when all combined, these wars are draining our treasury. A country can only remain strong as long as it remains solvent.

In Afghanistan, we spend about $50 billion each year. Where does the money go? For troops and weapons, of course, but billions have also been spent on roads, bridges, and schools for Afghanistan. Seems a shame that bridges, roads, and schools crumble here while we persist in nation-building abroad. Maybe it’s time to do some nation-building at home.

There’s some good insight/info here.

Where’s the magic balancing point?

How wide is the abyss between isolationism and interventionism?

Libertarian vs. neo-con/Reagan conservatism? 3 very different approaches, all with some merit, all with natural flaws.

Me? I’ll go with Ronaldus Maximus. In Teddy’s words, “Speak softly, carry a big stick”., or

“Peace through strength”.

How many wars did the warmonger Reagan get us in to, or allow to fester unfettered?

Yea.

“Of all the wars in my lifetime, none have been started because the United States was too powerful.” (Pp).

Strength and truthiness in those words...

(02-17-2018 10:06 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 04:39 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I think Rand Paul is correct regarding the military. I'd start with removing our military from the ME and seeing where it goes.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...too-large/

Quote:Is our military budget too small, or is our mission too large? Since 2001, the U.S. military budget has more than doubled in nominal terms and grown over 37% accounting for inflation. The U.S. spends more than the next eight countries combined.

It’s really hard to argue that our military is underfunded, so perhaps our mission has grown too large. That mission includes being currently involved in combat operations in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Niger, Libya, and Yemen. We have troops in over 50 of 54 African countries. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost over a trillion dollars and lasted for over 15 years.

Unfortunately, none of these wars have been authorized by Congress, and Afghanistan and Iraq have gone far beyond their original authorizations. And when all combined, these wars are draining our treasury. A country can only remain strong as long as it remains solvent.

In Afghanistan, we spend about $50 billion each year. Where does the money go? For troops and weapons, of course, but billions have also been spent on roads, bridges, and schools for Afghanistan. Seems a shame that bridges, roads, and schools crumble here while we persist in nation-building abroad. Maybe it’s time to do some nation-building at home.

There’s some good insight/info here.

Where’s the magic balancing point?

How wide is the abyss between isolationism and interventionism?

Libertarian vs. neo-con/Reagan conservatism? 3 very different approaches, all with some merit, all with natural flaws.

Me? I’ll go with Ronaldus Maximus. In Teddy’s words, “Speak softly, carry a big stick”., or

“Peace through strength”.

How many wars did the warmonger Reagan get us in to, or allow to fester unfettered?

Yea.

“Of all the wars in my lifetime, none have been started because the United States was too powerful.” (Pp).

Strength and truthiness in those words...

I think we should have a military so strong that no one dares fck with us. IMO we are WAY past that now. Prudent, gradual reductions would not affect our strength. I think there even is a case to be made that it would make us more safe due to not stirring up animosity from those we occupy. We should continue to be the dominate naval and air power in the world...but...having brick and mortar infrastructure and troops on the ground all over the place is not garnering us a good ROI now.

(02-16-2018 05:02 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-16-2018 04:48 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I hope it is interesting. We need to control spending. There is no way around it. I saw the gov't sites showing a surplus in January 2018. How much of that was due to one time repatriation of money from profits made abroad by our U.S. MNC's? While I'm sure the repatriation efforts will continue for the balance of the year, that does not make this our "new normal". If significant sums of military spending goes into nation building, that is beyond the scope of the mission. It's wrong and needs to stop.

We STILL have a spending problem and our gov't STILL will CROWD OUT other corporations who could put that money to MUCH BETTER USE than our gov't so that they can build ACTUAL WEALTH. Not shouting - just emphasizing.

But the military is a sacred cow. Every other area of government is open to scorn, and slashing of budgets, can't do anything right, etc.. But the DOD bureaucracy is immune. At least for every Republican politician other than the libertarians.

Well, that’s just not true.

Taking care of the people in uniform, yes. Part of that, a LARGE part, is making sure the equipment they’re riding in, on or flying doesn’t fall apart midstream. And they get fed.

What could good well change is all the procurement schit that goes in to that stuff. The endless, senseless maze of bureaucratic nonsense that ties up 60% of everyone’s time, energy and dollars, just to get a bus tire fixed.
But, gotta justify them budgets somehow. More socks and boots won’t fill that gap quick enough.

(02-16-2018 05:23 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  His bull in a china shop approach is most of the problem. A real statesman would do a better job of presenting his case. Trump may very well be right, but he's far to obnoxious for even our allies to openly agree with him.

Who’s the “real statesman” you’ve seen or would now prefer?

Who has, or would do a “better job of presenting”? What would that look like?

Biden, if he was interested.

(02-17-2018 04:37 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  We don't import very much oil from the Middle East. Most of what we protect is headed to Europe and Asia.

The US ambassador to Iraq told Saddam we didn't consider Arab-Arab disputes our business and he invades Kuwait and we made it our business, helped by fake propaganda such as the story about stealing incubators and dumping Kuwait babies out to take them.

We go to war and then since Saddam is still in power, Saudi Arabia is worried about future attacks by him and they offer the US places to base troops.

Bin Laden, rich and motivated, is offended that US troops "occupy" the country and are present at Islamic holy sites and declares war in 1996.

The terror campaign reached its peak on 9/11.

The result is now we not only have troops in Saudi Arabia but we've added Iraq and Afghanistan and the UAE and Oman and Turkey and Pakistan some of those not particularly stable and places where there are plenty of disgruntled people who aren't happy we are on the side of the current government.

We need to scale back.

So it’s OUR fault we were attacked, unprovoked, on 9/11, and the ME is now overrun with fatalistic lunatics?

Got it. Guess Pearl Harbor was our version of wearing a too short skirt on a public street after dark?

Got what we’s deserving.

Nah, this is a culture war, a battle of freedom vs. submission to a tyrannical, dictatorial, brutal cult of centuries past.

Thanks. I’ll take my chances on US.

Scale it all back!

The older I get, the more isolationist I get. Therefore I'm all for scaling back the mission.

Some things are thrown out there to appear as military waste, like the $50B for roads and bridges. What some don't understand is that we don't build those for them, we build those for us so that we can move and deploy faster. We do tend to replace the schools and hospitals that get destroyed - still trying to play the hearts and minds game.

I believe it's time for us to completely leave the Middle East. Redeploy those funds putting military bases in the U.S. Especially along the southern border.

I think there needs to be a balance point and the easiest savings would probably be in spending on advance technology weapons. Do we really need to be fully supplied or just ready supplied? I guess that depends on how long it takes to restock if we needed them.

Bases are a good thing, having bases where you are in a ready position to attack, is probably the biggest deterrent we have. A ton of the bases are controlling ports that are important if we need to be in that part of the world.

I don't know how many are needed and we might still be in WW2 mode of those that control the ports and bases are the ones winning. I would rather cut spending in other areas first and the scale back to the key bases that gives us the best chance to take back and we might need if conflict broke out. It's important to be strong but with in limits. How many trillions of dollars have been spent to get that base. Make no mistake, every country in this world fears the US Military might. And knowing they are already at your door is huge in what someone thinks they can get away with and what they actual do.

Finding the balancing point of cost by being there and cost to get there and retake..is the key to cutting spending