Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[RedKing]

I'm fine with filibusters because it gives them a chance not to act rashly as long as one person is willing to act as the voice of reason.

Or prevent any action as long as one insane person is willing to filibuster.

I'm kind of ambiguous on the concept. Especially since it means that it essentially takes 60 votes to get anything important passed, rather than 50.

Well everyone, it's time to give the army some more money. I kinda like having education benefits, you know?

http://www.armytimes.com/mobile/news/2013/03/army-army-to-suspend-tuition-assistance-030813

But what about the poor billionaires? Why should they see a 0.5% tax hike just so you can learn how to do something marketable in the civilian world? Not their fault you picked a career field that involves driving a tank and lobbing large explosives for miles.

[misko27]

I'm fine with filibusters because it gives them a chance not to act rashly as long as one person is willing to act as the voice of reason.

Or prevent any action as long as one insane person is willing to filibuster.

I'm kind of ambiguous on the concept. Especially since it means that it essentially takes 60 votes to get anything important passed, rather than 50.

No, not That pseudo-meaning of Filibuster. Traditional ones, where the only limit is how long you can keep talking. And yes they have been used for bad purposes, Ergo the Senator Strom Thurmond filibustering the Civil Rights act of 1964 for 24 hours.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Well everyone, it's time to give the army some more money. I kinda like having education benefits, you know?

Or maybe the army should learn how to make saner budget cuts. This is just their attempt to do as much damage as possible so they'll get their money back. I'm sorry Strife, but I really don't think they care about you guys that much.

[Nadaka]

Well everyone, it's time to give the army some more money. I kinda like having education benefits, you know?

Or maybe the army should learn how to make saner budget cuts. This is just their attempt to do as much damage as possible so they'll get their money back. I'm sorry Strife, but I really don't think they care about you guys that much.

Its more a case of stuff that they can cut quickly. Its going to take time to spool down their volume of procurement and development contracts.

[Zangi]

Well everyone, it's time to give the army some more money. I kinda like having education benefits, you know?

Or maybe the army should learn how to make saner budget cuts. This is just their attempt to do as much damage as possible so they'll get their money back. I'm sorry Strife, but I really don't think they care about you guys that much.

Seems a way to get the 'grassroots' mobilized against the budget cuts I suppose... manipulation is not beyond the top brass.  Either way, they get to keep the 'important' part...

[Sheb]

I'm with Nadaka on this one. There simply ain't that many stuff you can cute in an hurry. They're not going to fire-sale a carrier group. The problem is that your whole military needs to downsize, and that's not something that can be done in a hurry.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You could mothball the carrier group.

[Nadaka]

You could mothball the carrier group.

It costs hundreds of millions of dollars to mothball a carrier group, and that dramatically reduces our ability to mount any kind of military response.

[Sheb]

Yeah, and it's a pain in the ass if the spending cut are removed and you need to unmothball it.

Although you guys should really curb the number of carrier you have. It's getting ridiculous.

According to wikipedia, there is currently 22 carriers in service or in reserve. The US operates half of them. Out of the other 11, US allies operates 6 of them.

Now, you might think it's not ridiculous enough. Well, actually, what the US calls a carrier is significantly bigger than what the rest of the world calls a carrier. In the US Navy, the other carriers would be classified as Amphibious Assault Ships, of which the US has many more. (Okay, not all amphibious assault ships are comparable to foreign carriers, but by Wikipedia's count at least 9 are.)

You could scrap half of your navy and still have more than enough...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I don't think you understand the mindset of the US Navy. They'll be deploying their first railguns before 2015.

[MonkeyHead]

Then all they need is something to shoot them at.

Hell, the Royal Navy doesnt really have any aircraft carriers anymore - we share them with the French, who have carriers but not a signifigant number of aircraft desigend for carrier operations. Napoleon would have one of his legendary hissy fits.

Is this "horses and bayonets" all over again?

[Sheb]

I think the "sharing with the french" is a plan, not a reality yet.

And yes, I understand that the admirals want all their toys and yet more. I understand that they want every puddle to have its carrier group and are probably waiting eagerly the discovery of enough water on the moon that they can jsutify putting a fleet up there as well.

But this does not mean that the US government should give them the cash to. Your military is simply ridiculously oversized and should be cut in half.

[Nadaka]

And that shouldn't happen all at once. It takes time. Restructuring down by 50% will take the better part of a few decades.

[RedKing]

IIRC, they've already held off on the construction contract for the next John F. Kennedy.

Once you have a big ship project like a carrier in the works, it's not something you just put the brakes on.

They're right, something like tuition assistance is low-hanging fruit, and it doesn't directly compromise the core mission of the military -- to kill people and break things. Long-term, it'll hamper recruiting bigtime and cause morale problems and higher force attrition but I imagine the hope is that this'll all get sorted quickly and they'll get their money back.

Longer-term, I'd expect to see them start nixing expensive new toys. Hagel was a grunt (and the first ex-military SecDef to have been enlisted instead of an officer) so I think he'll direct budget authorities in the direction of increased support services. At least that's my hope.


And with all due respect to the European contingent here, your countries don't have to be able to project power into four theaters simultaneously (Atlantic, Mediterranean, Pacific, Persian Gulf/Indian Ocean). Europe, for the most part only needs to handle one or two of those (Atlantic/Baltic and Mediterranean). 

[Mephansteras]

I don't think you understand the mindset of the US Navy. They'll be deploying their first railguns before 2015.

Well, the whole point of having a Navy that big is that it prevents any credible invasion threats against the US. We control the Seas. We control the seas whether our Allies are on board or not. And as long as the US controls the Seas it CANNOT be invaded except by Mexico or Canada, neither of which is a threat (for various reasons).

The Navy and the Carriers are the single biggest projection of US power in the world, and it makes a huge difference in how much pressure the US can put on somewhere that works against US interests. Right now, if we really wanted to, we could blockade China. Their Navy can't compare, and they don't have the ability to truly repel the US Navy. It's one of the things they'd really like to change about the balance of world power.

I highly doubt that the US government will limit that capability, even if they reduce the ground forces by a good bit.