Arizona's New Immigration Law

Personnel costs are huge in the military, and this is my biggest problem. If we define our military responsibilities as world policemen our budget probably is not gonna be reduced a lot. But if we define the scope in terms of national defense, you could go to an extremely reduced Army/Marine (boots on the ground are not needed if we are not extending our reach) with a heavy reserve component. I doubt many US citizens would not pick up arms if a Mexican or Canadien ;) force attempted a land invasion of the US. Air Force and Navy and Space Defense forces are vital to our national defense, and thus can't really be touched, although in this area procurement should be put on a 3 year moratorium, only maintaining on going equipment, no new products or gizmos (except satellites cuz I need my MTV). We have a commanding lead in nearly every fighting system and production capacity to meet any threat in the next 3 years.

BUT as Rainy said, this part can't happen without Obama getting blasted as being soft, any more then Republicans can cut social programs without being blasted as being uncaring.

The US public needs a re-invention of understanding government's role, but most politicians, mainstream media, and internet blogging, lives and dies off the Republican/Democratic framework


Because they are uncaring.

Because they are uncaring.

:rofl: and thus the proletariat has spoken

Personnel costs are huge in the military, and this is my biggest problem. If we define our military responsibilities as world policemen our budget probably is not gonna be reduced a lot. But if we define the scope in terms of national defense, you could go to an extremely reduced Army/Marine (boots on the ground are not needed if we are not extending our reach) with a heavy reserve component. I doubt many US citizens would not pick up arms if a Mexican or Canadien ;) force attempted a land invasion of the US. Air Force and Navy and Space Defense forces are vital to our national defense, and thus can't really be touched, although in this area procurement should be put on a 3 year moratorium, only maintaining on going equipment, no new products or gizmos (except satellites cuz I need my MTV). We have a commanding lead in nearly every fighting system and production capacity to meet any threat in the next 3 years.

BUT as Rainy said, this part can't happen without Obama getting blasted as being soft, any more then Republicans can cut social programs without being blasted as being uncaring.

The US public needs a re-invention of understanding government's role, but most politicians, mainstream media, and internet blogging, lives and dies off the Republican/Democratic frameworkNo problem with reducing our "boots on the ground" count, but it would have to be done gradually through attrition not involuntary separations. A lot more could be done "behind the scenes" with special forces and intel services, but our politicans don't have the stomach for that either.

Can't put a moratorium on procurement, production on major weapons systems can't be started and stopped on a dime. You also don't cut R&D, many developments from military R & D have gone on to have application in the civilian sector.

That being said, if a 5% cut (and I mean cut, not less of an increase) across the board to all gov't agencies/programs was implemented and spending levels kept constant until our national debt was at least halved and a balanced budget ammendment put in place, I'm on board.

Personnel costs are huge in the military, and this is my biggest problem. If we define our military responsibilities as world policemen our budget probably is not gonna be reduced a lot. But if we define the scope in terms of national defense, you could go to an extremely reduced Army/Marine (boots on the ground are not needed if we are not extending our reach) with a heavy reserve component. I doubt many US citizens would not pick up arms if a Mexican or Canadien ;) force attempted a land invasion of the US. Air Force and Navy and Space Defense forces are vital to our national defense, and thus can't really be touched, although in this area procurement should be put on a 3 year moratorium, only maintaining on going equipment, no new products or gizmos (except satellites cuz I need my MTV). We have a commanding lead in nearly every fighting system and production capacity to meet any threat in the next 3 years.

BUT as Rainy said, this part can't happen without Obama getting blasted as being soft, any more then Republicans can cut social programs without being blasted as being uncaring.

The US public needs a re-invention of understanding government's role, but most politicians, mainstream media, and internet blogging, lives and dies off the Republican/Democratic framework

Keep in mind that our strong military provides a strong sense of security for our allies. Cutting back but so much could send a message that may not be so received. I don't think it's so simple to say "sucks to be you" (not that you did) and scale back our force projection.

I think the SecDef has recently been vocalizing cutting back, anyway. Whatever it is, it probably won't be substantial.

I understand what you are saying Sammy, but I think that is evidence of a military establishment that has in fact become too entrenched and bureacratic. As for stopping and starting on a dime, I am not naive enough to say $0 funding level, but, I am saying you keep a highly scaled back operation in place for 3 years, while the government is reduced overall. As for boots on the ground forces, if you gave a transitional 1-3 years converting army personnel from military purposes to civilian you could revert to a reserve force with a Professional Officer corps that would be trained in rapid response to aggression. We would also put our "partners" on watch in Europe and SEATO that they have the primary "boots on the ground" responsibility for defending their soil. Is that more risky, more likely that a ground war starts somewhere, probably, but we are spending a TON both in financial capital and human capital to act as a tripwire against world wars.

AND at the same time this human capital is wasted if not being used in some military diversion, thus politicians from Clinton-Somalia, Bush-Iraq, Obama-Afghanistan, etc etc have to find outlets for this capital does not involve having military assets sit unused on US soil.

Keep in mind that our strong military provides a strong sense of security for our allies. Cutting back but so much could send a message that may not be so received. I don't think it's so simple to say "sucks to be you" (not that you did) and scale back our force projection.

I think the SecDef has recently been vocalizing cutting back, anyway. Whatever it is, it probably won't be substantial.
While the moves would have to be in concert with our allies to prevent havoc, as much as possible, it should not be a debatable question as much as a firm resolve with assurances.

No problem with reducing our "boots on the ground" count, but it would have to be done gradually through attrition not involuntary separations. A lot more could be done "behind the scenes" with special forces and intel services, but our politicans don't have the stomach for that either.

Can't put a moratorium on procurement, production on major weapons systems can't be started and stopped on a dime. You also don't cut R&D, many developments from military R & D have gone on to have application in the civilian sector.

That being said, if a 5% cut (and I mean cut, not less of an increase) across the board to all gov't agencies/programs was implemented and spending levels kept constant until our national debt was at least halved and a balanced budget ammendment put in place, I'm on board.

Makes too much sense to come from the corporate structue of any entity, especially the gubmint.

While the moves would have to be in concert with our allies to prevent havoc, as much as possible, it should not be a debatable question as much as a firm resolve with assurances.

As far as allies, I consider those that get money from us to survive not allies but client states. Besides, nobody can survive attacking any one of our allies except for maybe Karzi because his head is as good as gone.

As far as allies, I consider those that get money from us to survive not allies but client states. Besides, nobody can survive attacking any one of our allies except for maybe Karzi because his head is as good as gone.

I was thinking more so of europe/seato, but as far as those who we basically pay to stay at peace, egypt/israel, pakistan/india, and a few others, they are not allies but devils ya gotta deal with. I wouldn't consider to many pure client states as Soviet Union had back in the day. We generally encourage and expect that most of our allies to be productive high GDP equals, but we have continued to bear an unproportionate share of the military expenses. Of course by doing that, it gives our voice much more say in world affairs.

As a CS teacher once told me, everything is about trade-offs.

Why change what happeend to our traditonal values, tradional way of doing the border thing? I thought it was about keeping our heritage the same. Why the radical change at the border? It worked for the founding fathers it should work for us, right?

I think you are quoting the wrong person as I do not recall making those statements.........but, something must change, right? You don't think that our border and current immigration policies are working?