4Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteI cut 101%
101% of $450 billion goal
Category
Cuts
Pct.
Benefits
$111
24%
Salaries
$88
19%
Personnel
$73
16%
Weapons
$8
2%
Nuclear, Missile
-
-
Operations, Maint.
$174
38%
The Future Military: Your Budget Strategy - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.comThe Future Military: Your Budget Strategy
The Pentagon has committed to $450 billion in reduced spending over the next 10 years, but may have to come up with a total of $1 trillion in cuts if Congress follows through with deeper reductions. Make your own plan to reduce the budget by choosing some of the most common, interesting or provocative cuts that have been proposed by various parties.
I cut 101%
101% of $450 billion goal
Category
Cuts
Pct.
Benefits
$111
24%
Salaries
$88
19%
Personnel
$73
16%
Weapons
$8
2%
Nuclear, Missile
-
-
Operations, Maint.
$174
38%
I only Managed 65%
Cutting 15% of ground forces
Attrition of Pentagon Civilian staff
Cutting the number of people based overseas.
I have left long lead items off the chopping block. They are just as important as investing in R&D IMO.
Ego Numquam
I only cut 304 billion/67%
Benefits 6.7 2%
Salaries 16 5%
Personnel 73 24%
Weapons 46 15%
Nuclear 43 14%
Operations,Maint 120 39%
The "All or nothing" choices are brutal. You should be able to cut some parts of programs without gutting the whole thing. Case in point, "close defense department elementary/secondary schools" When there are viable alternatives then cut. If not then the school should stay but these decisions must be case by case, not all or nothing.
Last edited by bonehead; 13 Jan 13, at 23:16.
Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.
I did 118% by cutting troop levels. what exactly are the problems with cutting troop levels so much? I mean other then the fact you are simply firing people, I don't see how it can be that bad.
all current weapons projects would be kept. but the main reason I did not cut anything else was simply lack of knowledge. So if someone would educate me on the subject I would be most
appreciative.
I did pretty good I suppose
102% of $450 billion goal
Benefits $78 17%
Salaries $16 3%
Personnel $73 16%
Weapons $44 10%
Nuclear, Missile $39 9%
Operations, Maint. $208 45%
Among the community of nations, Pakistan today stands out on one hand as a petty thug brandishing a dangerous weapon, and at other times as a concubine, sleeping with anyone willing to pay for her expensive tastes. ~ Tarek Fatah
Horse puckey!!!!
This freaking site ignores the primary cost - cut the fucking missions!!!!!
Chimo
Your cuts
$543billion
121% of $450 billion goal
CategoryCutsPct.
Benefits $119 22%
Salaries $16 3%
Personnel $220 41%
Weapons $51 9%
Nuclear, Missile $39 7%
Operations, Maint. $981 8%
"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."
There's a whole laundry list of problems with deep troop cuts, but to get you started:Originally Posted by wellman
Because you'll wind up with 10 missions and only enough troops to cover 5 of them.
Among the community of nations, Pakistan today stands out on one hand as a petty thug brandishing a dangerous weapon, and at other times as a concubine, sleeping with anyone willing to pay for her expensive tastes. ~ Tarek Fatah
149% 669 Billion
Category
Cuts
Pct.
Benefits
$295
44%
Salaries
$88
13%
Personnel
$73
11%
Weapons
$8
1%
Nuclear, Missile
-
-
Operations, Maint.
$206
31%
That I can live with...we prioritize.
Sending troops into harms way without the training, materials, weapons, support, follow up care afterwards is where I draw the line. War isn't cheap and our troops are not disposable.
Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.
Cut pay and benefits for troops and increase combat pay. Our troops are not disposable but neither do they deserve the level of pay they get when not actually fighting. A married E-1 stationed at Ft Leonard Wood gets over $2700 a month in direct compensation plus another 6-800 a month in indirect compensation. $42000 a year in direct and indirect compensation, plus the GI Bill for an 18yo kid with no real skills or responsibilities... That is more than a lot of cops get paid and the cops face a lot more danger day in and day out. Its breaking our military budget.
Break that down for me.
I'm getting different numbers.
I'll also disagree with cops facing more danger day in and day out. Most cops will go their whole career without ever drawing a weapon.
Its not the base pay thats killing the military budget. Its health care.
Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?
A soldier joins the service early in their life and puts in their 20 yrs, then starts to draw retirement - they might be > 40 years old, and then draw retirement pay and benifits for another 40 yrs. In civiliain life, retirement starts at 65 or so - most likely they'll only draw retirement for less than half the time. There's a big difference in how much they cost (and both are expensive). Can we afford it? I believe we'd need to make any changes going forward, it wouldn't be fair to break the contract already made with soldiers already in the system.
If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."
base pay + separate rations + housing allowance (used Ft Leonard Wood)= direct compensations
used average price of a civilian family health insurance plan to get an idea of indirect compensation.
And outside of a combat zone most troops don't even see a weapon... I've got no problem boosting pay when the danger is actually present, but paying an 18yo kid better than his parents when he is stateside.... come on.I'll also disagree with cops facing more danger day in and day out. Most cops will go their whole career without ever drawing a weapon.
Its personnel costs overall. Base pay is part of the problem as is health care and other types of compensation.Its not the base pay thats killing the military budget. Its health care.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: