Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Kaslin

“The sequester is not to be feared, it is to be embraced. In fact, after the cuts take effect from this one, it would be nice to engineer another one. And another after that.”

Good, unless you consider gutting the military as a bad thing. You know the entitlements will keep on flowing while the things needed to support a healthy, vibrant country will be cut.


2 posted on 02/22/2013 6:24:19 AM PST by Captain PJ (Are we there yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Captain PJ

This article says that military spending will be 2007 levels. That’s not “gutting” the military. Maybe the article is wrong about asserting that sequester will take us to 2007 levels... or maybe I read it wrong. But if not, the sequester is just fine IMO.

It’s comical at times to see the very predictable reaction to slowing the rate of growth or even *gasp* actual cuts... stuck pigs. Like listening to unions if even a penny is taken from them. My gosh.


6 posted on 02/22/2013 6:46:25 AM PST by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Captain PJ
Nobody's gutting the military at this point. Military spending more than doubled between 2001 and today...while we were fighting two wars. The sequester will cut about 13%. That's not even a pinprick. The Pentagon is probably spending that much just on sensitivity training forcing decent Americans to live in close quarters with fags.

I say bring on the sequester and then do it again and again and again!

17 posted on 02/22/2013 7:29:07 AM PST by pgkdan ( "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." Thomas Jefferso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Captain PJ

“Good, unless you consider gutting the military as a bad thing.”

You could protect the country and even engage in a flat-out war for much less than the present budget. The cost of everything is higher because:
1. Purchases are spread like peanut butter across as many Senator’s districts as possible.
2. Defense allocations are on a year to year basis, not for the entire project. This means there’s no investment in automation. Everything is practically a custom make one-off.
3. Contracts require ridiculous set-asides for special interest groups.
4. Contracts require ludicrous “greenness.”
5. Congress wrote laws requiring the taxpayers to pay for attorneys for special interest individuals and groups that feel wronged so they can sue a company without spending their own money or even having a legitimate case.
6. Contracts require ludicrous tests that go WAY beyond reasonable. (Why would you test 200 hammers to destruction?)
7. The military diddles in every phase of the contract thus increasing costs.
8. The military keeps moving the target for their own political reasons. (A fighter plane must now be a bomber, a recognizance platform and a be able to plow 40 acres for planting in 15 seconds.) And, they want all of that demonstrated with the first model. You just went from a five year development effort to 15 years and then it’s obsolete and gets cancelled.
9. Oh, I almost forgot, EOE. You must have a certain percentage of highly compensated black executives and engineers. (I have known some who pulled their weight. But most of the ones I’ve known were there for decoration; sucking up charge numbers and contributing nothing. They usually head up the mandatory “diversity” program.)
The list goes on and on. But nothing will be done to correct these deficiencies because each deficiency has a constituency of its own who will argue loudly and persuasively (the Senator; “money talks.)


21 posted on 02/22/2013 7:39:57 AM PST by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson