Obama administration asks for 10% military budget cut

[Guest Hueypilot812]

"We're the Obama Administration, and we're here to save you from the Bush Administration. After 8 years of war, constant deployments and worn out equipment, we're going to start by cutting your budget. Those 47-year old C-130Es should keep on ticking for another 8-9 years, shouldn't they? Next time you have to shut down one of those 1950's era T56 turboprops and land on three engines, just keep chanting 'Yes we can!' over and over. It worked for us."

[Chip]

"We're the Obama Administration, and we're here to save you from the Bush Administration. After 8 years of war, constant deployments and worn out equipment, we're going to start by cutting your budget. Those 47-year old C-130Es should keep on ticking for another 8-9 years, shouldn't they? Next time you have to shut down one of those 1950's era T56 turboprops and land on three engines, just keep chanting 'Yes we can!' over and over. It worked for us."

You don't need no stinking engines!! That plane is powered by Hope! No way it would crash!!

[Vertigo]

Odd that the Pentagon advisory board came out with the need to cut the defense budget back in November last year but Bush refused to act on it instead passing it off to Obama to take care of.

Pentagon board says cuts are essential

[Young Crow]

Odd that the Pentagon advisory board came out with the need to cut the defense budget back in November last year but Bush refused to act on it instead passing it off to Obama to take care of.

Pentagon board says cuts are essential

Did you read the article? It says the board recommended cuts in new system procurement, to free up money to be used on repairing the attrition in equipment used in the wars.

This is significantly different than a 10% cut in Defense-related spending, although whether total or on supplemental bills is still yet to be seen.

Disclaimer - I didn't really care who won the election, or who is in charge. I'd just rather everybody be more honest. That includes not quoting or summarizing things either out of context or completely wrong.

[zrooster99]

I do not think a 10% budget cut will significantly impact our readiness

Really!? 50 billion won't impact readiness? Not even a little, huh? You're a genius.

By the way, what is an insignificant impact on readiness?

[Vertigo]

Did you read the article? It says the board recommended cuts in new system procurement, to free up money to be used on repairing the attrition in equipment used in the wars.

This is significantly different than a 10% cut in Defense-related spending, although whether total or on supplemental bills is still yet to be seen.

Disclaimer - I didn't really care who won the election, or who is in charge. I'd just rather everybody be more honest. That includes not quoting or summarizing things either out of context or completely wrong.

Reread the very first paragraph of that article... it is you who are in fact misrepresenting the article.

the Defense Department's current budget is "not sustainable," and he must scale back or eliminate some of the military's most prized weapons programs.

How is THAT taking something out of context? Slashing spending does not equal redistributing spending.

Edited February 1, 2009 by Vertigo

[Guest Hueypilot812]

I think everyone here knows that $55 billion isn't going back into the taxpayer's pockets...it's only going to be spent on another pet project. I might be able to stomach the cuts if all government programs were going to get some kind of across-the-board cut, so our deficit would be lower, but that's not the case. Instead, that $55 billion is likely going to be shoveled into a "stimulus" program, or some social entitlement program. I would bet on the 2010 budget being the same or larger than the current 2008 budget (overall outlays, not just defense). This is the problem with these kinds of "budget reductions". They aren't really reductions.

Another thing to consider...cutting defense procurement only hurts our economy more. Everyone can whine about the defense industry and how it's such a large part of the American economy, but it is part of the economy nonetheless. Like it or not, Boeing and Lockheed, et al, are huge employers of American workers, and are among America's few remaining manufacturers. Axe programs like the F-35, C-130J and other non-aviation systems and people may get laid off. What this economy needs now is a manufacturing and production stimulus, not trillion dollar bank loans. We're rapidly becoming a nation that produces nothing, and that in the long term isn't sustainable.

For what it's worth, the thing that truly brought this country out of the Great Depression wasn't bank bailouts or the WPA, it was a highly energized manufacturing spree brought on by World War II. I'm not saying we need a war to get out of this economic downturn, but we need something to make America productive again. Unfortunately I think Obama is going down the wrong road...cut defense spending, cut critical defense manufacturing jobs, but spend more money on government nanny programs that make people dependent on the government handouts.

[Chuck17]

Two words: Missile Defense.

Chuck

Edited February 2, 2009 by Chuck17

[WABoom]

My squadron alone has 5-7 plasma tv's and they aren't used for squat! I love it though, nice tv's, but no cable!!!! I could come up with a 10 percent cut easily and I would only be thanked, appreciated, and hailed a hero by my AF brethren for getting rid of ridiculous items such as ORI's!!!!

[StoleIt]

Watching the unemployment percentages for February and Aerospace/DOD contractors are getting something like a 27% lay off.

I am sure axing the -22 and other airframes, development, etc will only steepen the spiral we got ourselves into. The KC-X contract would probably really really help Boeing out since I believe all the airlines are bailing on their orders. Hell to keep some of our very limited manufactoring capability alive I am actually beginning to think a new Air Force One isn't so bad.

Take the 5.2 Billion Obama was gonna give to Acorn and use it to actually keep these people working!!!!

[HERK_Nav]

. If you take out $55B in DoD spending, that's $55B out of very high paying technical jobs building very high-tech equipment. What are you going to replace those jobs with? $20B worth of construction workers?

Just remember to take your reflective belt when you get out. It may be worth something when you have to take that construction job.

[Guest CAVEMAN]

Really!? 50 billion won't impact readiness? Not even a little, huh? You're a genius.

By the way, what is an insignificant impact on readiness?

Genius:

Do you think we will not be able to do our job tomorrow and fight the fight when $50 billion is cut from the DOD budget? When you think of a $50billion cut on the budget, think about all the services and not just AF alone taking the heat.

There are a lot of projects out there that deserve the axe. Why continue to waste money on useless projects in the name of providing jobs. Unfortunately, DOD projects are one of the few industries left. We need to bring our industries back and that is what it boils down to.

Yes, I am a genius.

[Guest Krabs]

For the edification of the forum:

No Time To Cut Defense

By Robert Kagan

Washington Post

Tuesday, February 3, 2009; Page A15

Pentagon officials have leaked word that the Office of Management and Budget has ordered a 10 percent cut in defense spending for the coming fiscal year, giving Defense Secretary Robert Gates a substantially smaller budget than he requested. Here are five reasons President Obama should side with Gates over the green-eyeshade boys.

· It doesn't make fiscal sense to cut the defense budget when everyone is scrambling for measures to stimulate the economy. Already, under the current Pentagon budget, defense contractors will begin shutting down production lines in the next couple of years -- putting people out of work. Rather than cutting, the Obama administration ought to be increasing defense spending. As Harvard economist Martin Feldstein recently noted on this page, defense spending is exactly the kind of expenditure that can have an immediate impact on the economy.

· A reduction in defense spending this year would unnerve American allies and undercut efforts to gain greater cooperation. There is already a sense around the world, fed by irresponsible pundits here at home, that the United States is in terminal decline. Many fear that the economic crisis will cause the United States to pull back from overseas commitments. The announcement of a defense cutback would be taken by the world as evidence that the American retreat has begun.

This would make it harder to press allies to do more. The Obama administration rightly plans to encourage European allies to increase defense capabilities so they can more equitably share the burden of global commitments. This will be a tough sell if the United States is cutting its own defense budget. In Afghanistan, there are already concerns that the United States may be "short of breath." In Pakistan, the military may be tempted to wait out what its members perceive as America's flagging commitment to the region. A reduction in defense funding would feed these perceptions and make it harder for Obama's newly appointed special envoy, Richard Holbrooke, to press for necessary changes in both countries.

· What worries allies cheers and emboldens potential adversaries. The Obama administration is right to reach out and begin direct talks with leaders in Tehran. But the already-slim chances of success will grow slimmer if Iranian leaders believe that the United States may soon begin pulling back from their part of the world. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's spokesman has already declared that the United States has lost its power -- just because President Obama said he is willing to talk. Imagine how that perception would be reinforced if Obama starts cutting funding for an already inadequately funded force.

Similarly, the Obama administration is right to want to begin negotiations with Russia over missile defense and arms control. But it is a poor opening gambit to announce a cut in American defense spending before negotiations even begin. If Russian leaders believe that the United States is looking for a way out of weapons systems -- missile defense in particular -- they will negotiate accordingly. They might ask why they should make a deal at all.

· Cuts in the defense budget would have consequences in other areas of the budget, most notably foreign aid. Some Republicans have already begun to grumble about foreign aid and development spending. If the Obama administration begins by cutting defense, it will be much harder to persuade Republicans to support foreign aid.

· Finally, everyone knows the U.S. military is stretched thin. Some may hope that Obama can begin substantially drawing down U.S. force levels in Iraq this year. No doubt he can to some extent. But this is an especially critical year in Iraq. The most recent round of elections is only one of three: District elections are in June and all-important parliamentary elections are in December. The head of U.S. Central Command, Gen. David Petraeus, is unlikely to recommend a steep cut with so much at stake.

Moreover, any reduction of U.S. forces in Iraq is going to be matched by an increase of forces in Afghanistan. The strain on U.S. ground forces, even with reductions in Iraq, won't begin to ease until the end of next year. And that assumes that the situation in Iraq stays quiet, that there is progress in Afghanistan, that Pakistan doesn't explode and that no other unforeseen events require American action.

At a time when people talk of trillion-dollar stimulus packages, cutting 10 percent from the defense budget is a pittance, especially given the high price we will pay in America's global position. The United States spends about 4 percent of GDP on defense. In 1962, the figure was 9 percent. Some unreconstructed anti-Cold Warriors from the 1980s may see the Obama revolution as a return to the good old days of battling against Ronald Reagan's defense spending. But that's not the way Barack Obama ran for president. He didn't promise defense cuts. On the contrary, he called for additional forces for the Army and Marines. He insisted that the American military needs to remain the strongest and best-equipped in the world. In his inaugural address, President Obama reminded Americans that the nation is still at war. That being so, this is not the time to start weakening the armed forces.

Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, writes a monthly column for The Post.

[Guest CAVEMAN]

Our European friends have not done much in recent time, what makes you think they will do more now. I am not buying that. Our economy is suffering and we are making efforts to keep job at home but they instead turn around and cry "protectionist". I hope EU members can say that with a straight face. How many EU forces do we have in Afghanistan or Iraq? Spain pulled out its soldiers after the train bombing few years ago. Britain is probably the only one with troops in Iraq. We need to start cutting some people off US tit.

Pakistan is a useless ally. They are playing "Where is Osama" with our money and will never find him. They have a porous border and have not done much in recent time to stop the movement of Taliban fighters. Tell me why these people need substantial aid from us?

I hope our enemies are emboldened by a 10% cut in our Defense budget. If the 90% is not enough to destroy them, then we have problems. Why are people talking as if we are closing the assembly lines. Should we spend ourselves dry at the expense of a robust defense program. We will more than survive. We are not just going to fund programs that should be scrapped because we want to stimulate the economy.

We need to start bringing people home from Iraq. That is why we have trained the Iraqi Police and Iraqi Army. If they cannot stop the violence now, they will not be able to do it when we eventually pull out. Helping them get through an election is not the goal. They have to be able to live "peacefully" amongst themselves. Enough of this hand holding. I may be wrong and might have to eat my words but Iraq is not going to be like a Germany or Japan.

Fvck Russia. Do we really need to prove anything to them? Their show of force in Georgia a few months ago should remind everyone that they are still bleeding.

I disagree with Kagan big time on this one.

[Guest Krabs]

I hope our enemies are emboldened by a 10% cut in our Defense budget.

That's interesting.

If the 90% is not enough to destroy them, then we have problems.

That's even more interesting. We already have problems, so I guess 90% of the current budget won't be enough.

Why are people talking as if we are closing the assembly lines.

First of all, this sentence ought to end with a question mark. Second, when you slash contracts from 800 products to 183 products, the assembly lines for said product won't stay open nearly as long. The assembly lines certainly don't stay open if the contract for said product gets axed. Jobs also don't materialize when/if the U.S. gives KC-X contracts to foreign companies. Quick Googling yields: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/sto...s/RATE11218.xml or http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/or...0,1072840.story or my personal experience with friends who have had job offers at places like Hawker Beechcraft rescinded over the past two months due to the economy.

Should we spend ourselves dry at the expense of a robust defense program.

Again, most keyboards come equipped with this --> ? though you may have to press a shift button to use it. And no, we should not spend ourselves dry at the expense of protecting ourselves, spending ourselves dry is the job of bailouts and the new "stimulus package." Without all that money tied up in that pesky little national defense thing, we can spend even more on climate change research!

We will more than survive. We are not just going to fund programs that should be scrapped because we want to stimulate the economy.

Who is we in this context? <--(There's an example of a question mark for you.) Is it "we" as American civilians, or is it "we" as the American military? One of those groups goes to places where it is an opposing people's job to make sure they DON'T survive, literally. That same group typically also likes to get stuff that will help them survive. Stuff costs money. Spending money typically helps economies, whether it's on airplane parts, beer, and red meat or hackey sacks, organic soymilk, and hybrid cars.

We need to start bringing people home from Iraq. That is why we have trained the Iraqi Police and Iraqi Army. If they cannot stop the violence now, they will not be able to do it when we eventually pull out. Helping them get through an election is not the goal. They have to be able to live "peacefully" amongst themselves. Enough of this hand holding. I may be wrong and might have to eat my words but Iraq is not going to be like a Germany or Japan.

I feel like I should direct you here: http://www.flyingsquadron.com/forums/index...showtopic=14830 if for nothing else than a laugh. Regardless, you get the impression we should probably stay there to make sure things get sorted out at the moment.

Fvck Russia.

Agreed. Russian chicks can be pretty hot sometimes -- Maria Sharapova can come beat me at tennis anytime...but I digress.

Do we really need to prove anything to them?

There's that punctuation I was talking about! No, we don't need to prove anything to them. However, we may need to fight them again someday.

I disagree with Kagan big time on this one.

That's your choice, and I think we all expected as much. EDIT:: It wouldn't be nearly as much fun here if you didn't disagree.

Edited February 6, 2009 by Krabs

[Guest CAVEMAN]

That's interesting.

Yes it is.

That's even more interesting. We already have problems, so I guess 90% of the current budget won't be enough.

What problems are you talking about. Are you guessing or you are stating. You need to make up your mind here. There is nothing official yet that states where this 10% is going to come out from.

First of all, this sentence ought to end with a question mark. Second, when you slash contracts from 800 products to 183 products, the assembly lines for said product won't stay open nearly as long. The assembly lines certainly don't stay open if the contract for said product gets axed. Jobs also don't materialize when/if the U.S. gives KC-X contracts to foreign companies. Quick Googling yields: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/sto...s/RATE11218.xml or http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/or...0,1072840.story or my personal experience with friends who have had job offers at places like Hawker Beechcraft rescinded over the past two months due to the economy.

Obviously the assembly lines will not stay open. The question you should ask is whether we need 800 of said items. Again, keeping the assembly line open should not be at the expense of our budget if we do not have a need for said items. Allowing non-US companies to bid on DoD contract is a policy issue that needs to be addressed. Remember we also like to spend less for those items.

Sorry about your friends but the economy down-turn did not start two months ago.

Maybe we need to start producing more non-military items at home here. That might help the situation.

Again, most keyboards come equipped with this --> ? though you may have to press a shift button to use it. And no, we should not spend ourselves dry at the expense of protecting ourselves, spending ourselves dry is the job of bailouts and the new "stimulus package." Without all that money tied up in that pesky little national defense thing, we can spend even more on climate change research!

Everyone wants some TARP. Get over it, the climate change folks want some TARP. Like you said earlier, it is better for them to work for it than to get it free. They are also going to help boost the economy.

Who is we in this context? <--(There's an example of a question mark for you.) Is it "we" as American civilians, or is it "we" as the American military? One of those groups goes to places where it is an opposing people's job to make sure they DON'T survive, literally. That same group typically also likes to get stuff that will help them survive. Stuff costs money. Spending money typically helps economies, whether it's on airplane parts, beer, and red meat or hackey sacks, organic soymilk, and hybrid cars.

I am sure the American military is in need of uniforms, weapons and food. What else do you want to add to the list. Aircrafts are falling from the sky; our maintenance guys do not have parts to fix them. We are already having a car wash rally on base to buy a few hoses that we need. The fuel shop guys are having a bake sale pretty soon to help with the fuel cost. Everyone gets 1 sortie per month. I could go on about this but we are in big trouble. We might need to start giving people F-16 rides to support our training needs.

I feel like I should direct you here: http://www.flyingsquadron.com/forums/index...showtopic=14830 if for nothing else than a laugh. Regardless, you get the impression we should probably stay there to make sure things get sorted out at the moment.

Despite public resentment, I am sure some people felt we should have stayed in Vietnam when we pulled out. The cost and benefit is not adding up my friend. It is not going to make Iraq safer. We are training the IP and IA to protect Iraq from external threat. The internal issues are going to be there. Getting them through an election season is not a strategic goal. Let them learn to fight and protect themselves.

Agreed. Russian chicks can be pretty hot sometimes -- Maria Sharapova can come beat me at tennis anytime...but I digress.

Try www.russianmailorderbrides.com. Just make sure they do not have crabs.

There's that punctuation I was talking about! No, we don't need to prove anything to them. However, we may need to fight them again someday.

So what are you saying. We know we might need to fight Russia someday. That fact has not changed since the fall of USSR. Is this some new revelation

That's your choice, and I think we all expected as much. EDIT:: It wouldn't be nearly as much fun here if you didn't disagree.

Is baseops the AF opinion group. I am happy I can bring fun.

Edited February 7, 2009 by CAVEMAN

[Guest Hueypilot812]

I disagree with cutting the budget. Here's why:

1. Cutting 10% from the DoD budget, with Obama and other spend-o-matic Dems in control, will NOT affect our national debt, since they will simply transfer the money from the DoD to another agency that does not spend money on US-produced equipment. The money will likely be handed out to people in the form of "social programs", or spent on "research" or some other special-interest pork program.

2. Keeping the assembly lines WILL aid America, and it will NOT adversely affect our national economy. First and foremost, our situation now is grave because as a nation, we do not actually MAKE anything anymore. We are by-and-large a service-based economy, and stimulating the manufacturing sector is what we need right now.

3. In 1990, the rules changed for our military. The Soviets began to collapse, and Desert Storm happened. This did two things for us, neither of them good. First, it gave Congress and other politicians to start sweeping cuts in defense spending. Our spending is down by 30-40% from 1980s rates, even after Bush Jr injected money into the DoD. Second, since 1990 our military has been involved in continuous deployments, wearing our equipment out. So in essense, we stopped buying new stuff in any real quantities about 18 years ago, but doubled or tripled our ops tempo. What's wrong with that picture?

4. The modest rise in defense spending starting in 2001 didn't do much to help the problem of worn out equipment. Why? Because most of that money got poured into operational budgets, and paying for OEF and OIF. We did get a few handouts, but they didn't amount to much. Sure, we got 10-20 new C-17s out of the deal, and a few other small examples, but it's not enough to sustain the forces.

5. As we speak, Boeing, Cessna, Lockheed and many of the major aircraft manufacturers are laying people off. The scene is similar for manufacturers of other defense products as well. Injecting new spending in an area that produces benefits is better than injecting spending in areas that are black holes. For example, which do you think would be better for our economy? Putting $100 billion into purchasing aircraft, tanks and ships that are made in US factories by US workers, employing not just the ones that put the equipment together but also thousands of others that work for subcontractors and parts factories? Or spending that $100 billion on social welfare programs that produce no goods and have zero impact on our economy or trade deficits?

The anti-military spending folks will have you believe that the billions we spend on defense is a waste, and that money should be spent "on Americans". What they really mean is they feel that money should be thrown at American families in the guise of refund checks, food stamps, welfare, free healthcare and other things that do NOTHING to stimulate our economy. What many people don't understand is that spending that money on the DoD procurement programs is exactly what produces jobs and industry in this country. Lockheed and Boeing are NOT going to be able to produce products for export (either military or civilian) if they lose their primary customer...the US government.

So sure, let's cut the "wasteful" DoD spending and throw all that money down a black hole, where it will never do anything other than give people a pittance of a handout. That's the illusion of government "help". It's always short term and does nothing to help our nation over the long term. It's how our country has gone from one of the greatest producers of goods in the world to a service and social welfare-based economy that has to borrow from China. Everyone blames the corporations for shipping jobs overseas, but really, it's our fault, because we want to pay people $100K a year to attach doors onto a car on an assembly line.

Our economy is headed for the sh!tter if we don't wake up and realize that we need to stop throwing money at people and invest in industry instead. Buying more C-130Js, F-22s, F-35s, KC-767s (yes, I'm for Boeing) and other aircraft is a good start.

[Guest CAVEMAN]

Huey:

You sound like a great American and I have no reason to believe otherwise. Everyone is definitely concerned about the economical situation. What I find interesting is that everyone has their $0.02 approach. Quite frankly, I do not think much will change. This 10% is suppose to be an increase not a cut-back. If we were not in jeopardy during the Bush Administration, I doubt things will change.

1. Cutting 10% from the DoD budget, with Obama and other spend-o-matic Dems in control, will NOT affect our national debt, since they will simply transfer the money from the DoD to another agency that does not spend money on US-produced equipment. The money will likely be handed out to people in the form of "social programs", or spent on "research" or some other special-interest pork program.

Everyone in Washington eats pork. Politicians order pork when their favorite lobbyist takes them out to eat!!

I think Bush started the pork sharing celebration. McCain and Obama both supported the idea during the Campaign season. Either way you look at it, money is still going to be spent. Families on welfare will spend them on goods and services so will the government agencies that perform research.

2. Keeping the assembly lines WILL aid America, and it will NOT adversely affect our national economy. First and foremost, our situation now is grave because as a nation, we do not actually MAKE anything anymore. We are by-and-large a service-based economy, and stimulating the manufacturing sector is what we need right now.

From the few that are left.

4. The modest rise in defense spending starting in 2001 didn't do much to help the problem of worn out equipment. Why? Because most of that money got poured into operational budgets, and paying for OEF and OIF. We did get a few handouts, but they didn't amount to much. Sure, we got 10-20 new C-17s out of the deal, and a few other small examples, but it's not enough to sustain the forces.

The earlier we reduce our presence in Iraq and squarely face Afghanistan, the better things will get. We can slow down the wear and tear on our equipment while we use the new ones to supplement the aging fleet. We have to re-prioritize and push forward.

So sure, let's cut the "wasteful" DoD spending and throw all that money down a black hole, where it will never do anything other than give people a pittance of a handout. That's the illusion of government "help". It's always short term and does nothing to help our nation over the long term. It's how our country has gone from one of the greatest producers of goods in the world to a service and social welfare-based economy that has to borrow from China. Everyone blames the corporations for shipping jobs overseas, but really, it's our fault, because we want to pay people $100K a year to attach doors onto a car on an assembly line.

Corporations shipping their production lines to third world countries should be allowed. We are in a free market society and people should be able to charge what they feel is necessary for their product. If the union wants 100K for the wrench monkey, so be it. The more you look at this problem, you will realize WE got ourselves into this mess and not soley Democrats or Republicans.What do you think about unions?

Our economy is headed for the sh!tter if we don't wake up and realize that we need to stop throwing money at people and invest in industry instead. Buying more C-130Js, F-22s, F-35s, KC-767s (yes, I'm for Boeing) and other aircraft is a good start.

One industry is not enough. Bring all of them back and then we can talk. Bring back the power of the American Auto Industry. Bring back agriculture and textile.

[ClearedHot]

One industry is not enough... Bring back agriculture and textile.

Too late, Clinton killed them with NAFTA years ago.

My parents are farmers and NAFTA put them out of business. Open and free markets are great buzz words and sound like a great idea to bring cheap goods to everyone, HOWEVER the dirty little secret is that our competitors are not bound by the same environmental, OSHA, or work standards that we are. In the farming area they use chemicals like ethyl bromide which is now severely restricted in the U.S., farm workers in countries like Mexico have zero protection standards which allows Mexican companies to pay them obscenely low wages.

Who cares as long as we get cheap produce right….oh wait, that cheap stuff comes with salmonella and a host of chemicals that are just wonderful for the American food supply.

The truly ludicrous part of the projected 10% cut is that it will appeal to the masses…those darn defense companies are the evil empire led by people like Cheney who fought a war to make profits…absolute hogwash. The major defense contractors are publicly held companies, when they make a profit that is shared with investors…ANYONE can share the profits by investing via the stock market. Defense contactors are also one of the few areas for high tech or high skill workers in this country today. The so called stimulus program will not create long-term silled worker jobs (exception on the green enegry side perhaps - but that item may be removed), instead we will fund social programs which are not the solution.

We are destroying the middle class by outsourcing everything and cutting defense will just make it worse.

[Herk Driver]

Our European friends have not done much in recent time, what makes you think they will do more now. I am not buying that. Our economy is suffering and we are making efforts to keep job at home but they instead turn around and cry "protectionist". I hope EU members can say that with a straight face. How many EU forces do we have in Afghanistan or Iraq? Spain pulled out its soldiers after the train bombing few years ago. Britain is probably the only one with troops in Iraq. We need to start cutting some people off US tit.

You might want to go back and figure out why everyone (with few exceptions) has pulled out of Iraq. The few exceptions include less than 4,100 Brits, some Estonians and 1 or 2 other countries (can't recall right now). Prior to the SOFA there were more than 2,000 Georgians, several thousand Poles, 10% of the Estonian military...some countries only have a couple thousand in their total force. How many would you expect them to send? The Europeans are actually sending more troops to ISAF, as of late. 85% of the non-US troops in AFG are from Europe. Does that mean they are pulling their weight? No, but the numbers are on the rise and forecast to continue going up. BTW, Spain only pulled out of Iraq, not AFG after the train bombings.

[Guest CAVEMAN]

Too late, Clinton killed them with NAFTA years ago.

My parents are farmers and NAFTA put them out of business. Open and free markets are great buzz words and sound like a great idea to bring cheap goods to everyone, HOWEVER the dirty little secret is that our competitors are not bound by the same environmental, OSHA, or work standards that we are. In the farming area they use chemicals like ethyl bromide which is now severely restricted in the U.S., farm workers in countries like Mexico have zero protection standards which allows Mexican companies to pay them obscenely low wages.

Who cares as long as we get cheap produce right….oh wait, that cheap stuff comes with salmonella and a host of chemicals that are just wonderful for the American food supply.

My uncle was also affected by this, so I understand. I am by not means a Clinton lover.

We strengthen those economies at our own expense. I guess America has tits for ALL to suck.

Yeap, our competitors do us big time. When we try to implement any policy to remotely protect our market, we bet labeled as protectionist. I definitely agree.

Edited February 7, 2009 by CAVEMAN

[Guest Hueypilot812]

Corporations shipping their production lines to third world countries should be allowed. We are in a free market society and people should be able to charge what they feel is necessary for their product. If the union wants 100K for the wrench monkey, so be it. The more you look at this problem, you will realize WE got ourselves into this mess and not soley Democrats or Republicans.What do you think about unions?

One industry is not enough. Bring all of them back and then we can talk. Bring back the power of the American Auto Industry. Bring back agriculture and textile.

On the shipping jobs overseas, I do believe it's a corporation's decision to make. I believe you and I agree there, and I'm not saying it's corporate America's fault entirely. My opinion on unions is mixed, but pretty much falls on the side of being anti-union. There are SOME unions out there that actually do something positive for the workforce. Most professional white-collar unions (ie, pilot unions for example) tend to do a decent job of keeping workplace rules intact and advocating for fair pay and benefits. Most blue-collar unions I've noticed do not serve in our nation's interest. More often than not, they attempt to extort high pay and benefits for jobs that require little or no education or skill. Folks, if you're digging holes, taking out the trash or bolting doors onto a car, you don't need to make $100K a year for a job that doesn't require much responsibility. This is why third world nations are stealing the blue collar jobs at alarming rates...because their blue collar workers are fine with getting paid blue collar wages (or less). In some places, there are trash collectors and auto workers that make more than many medical professionals, and that's just wrong.

Finally, about the industry quote...I agree that this nation needs to revive multiple industries, but let's start simple right now and ramp up the few industries we still have, and defense is one of them. Textiles and autos won't come back until unionized workers realize that getting paid as much as a nurse or airline pilot to do menial labor is what got their jobs shipped overseas in the first place. A guy I know who went to college with me went on and got his degree in geology. He had goals of working for the petroleum industry or the environmental remediation sector. When I ran into him a few years after he graduated with his MS, he was working at a GM plant on the assembly line because it paid better. That's just ridiculous.

[Guest CAVEMAN]

You might want to go back and figure out why everyone (with few exceptions) has pulled out of Iraq. The few exceptions include less than 4,100 Brits, some Estonians and 1 or 2 other countries (can't recall right now). Prior to the SOFA there were more than 2,000 Georgians, several thousand Poles, 10% of the Estonian military...some countries only have a couple thousand in their total force. How many would you expect them to send? The Europeans are actually sending more troops to ISAF, as of late. 85% of the non-US troops in AFG are from Europe. Does that mean they are pulling their weight? No, but the numbers are on the rise and forecast to continue going up. BTW, Spain only pulled out of Iraq, not AFG after the train bombings.

Here is a BBC link to support the Spanish pull out in 2004: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3640459.stm

The Georgian pulled out when Russia invaded and they thought they needed to go back to fight. It was just intime for SOFA and I guess it worked out.

Here is a link for the Polish pull out that was slated for 2005: http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/05/1firstR_9.php

The Brits are probably the only ones left and they are strictly to the South.

"85% of non-US troops". But what percentage of the total troop strength is that? Where is the assurance they will continue to support when we eventually shift base to Afghanistan?

It seems to me that the EU views terrorist very differently from the US. They have very porous borders and have been living with these people for a while. Left to me, they have accepted this and are only supporting the US for strategic reasons.

Huey:

Let me just put this out there real quick. I am for the union. They are necessary evil. Without the unions, these corporate thieves will stick it to us like it is cool. I know some unions are worthless. But that is normal practice. Unions in NJ, Delaware and PA areas are just day light robbers.

Let me ask you this question, how do we prevent the cost of services in this country from skyrocketing? It is all free market and people can charge what they desire for services with the help of their unions.

Please do not mention elimination of income tax.

[Guest Hueypilot812]

The Brits are probably the only ones left and they are strictly to the South.

They aren't the only ones left. Aussies, Italians, Danes, Poles and a sprinkling of other smaller nations are still involved in OIF. I know because I've seen them here in the past few weeks and months. The Koreans are also still here, but to a lesser degree. Japan only recently wrapped up their involvement.

RE: the unions...I believe I stated there are unions that do their jobs, and they fill their role in a professional manner. It's the unions that act like thugs and mafia that I can't stand, and honestly, they are ruining it for everyone else. My father-in-law died not long ago, and he was a union worker in the midwest for a blue-collar industry. The union took care of most of the burial stuff, but I have to say I didn't feel comfortable hanging around them because it was very obvious that there was some serious power within that group, and they wield it much like that of a Russian mobster. That goes for many other large unions.

There are useful unions out there...among them is the professional union that represents the helicopter pilots along the Gulf of Mexico...those guys were getting paid $18K-$20K to fly helicopters around over water in marginal VFR weather, overloaded with a host of other issues. The pilots unionized, and pay went up to more reasonable levels (most start around $30k, and average helo pilot pay is now around $60-70k or more), and they started making the companies stand behind their pilots when clients would pressure them over a decision made based on weather or safety.

BUT, those unions haven't wholesale ruined entire industries like others have, like the auto industry, steel industry, and textile industries. Those unions, along with many others, were rolling in the money back in the 1960s and 1970s, but the good times came to an end when corporations discovered cheaper labor overseas. Those that couldn't ship labor overseas were at a competitive disadvantage, and the unions would not bend (unlike the pilot unions that agreed to pay cuts to keep the companies viable after 9/11...again, professional and well-run). So over time, the jobs disappeared as they were sent overseas or went away entirely when companies shuttered their doors.

So that's my overall view of unions.

[slacker]

Let me just put this out there real quick. I am for the union. They are necessary evil. Without the unions, these corporate thieves will stick it to us like it is cool.

Troll feeding-

Most unions have out lived their usefulness. They were a necessary evil at one point, now, they kill the very companies they feed off of. As a union matures, it turn malignant.

The problem with unions, is they always have to raise the bar in the employees' contract negotiation. Negotiate better benefits, more money for less work, etc. And as the union matures (i.e. UAW) the cost of the labor they provide is more than the market or the competition will allow, and the company fails. Installing seatbelts in a car is not an $70 an hour job, it might be a $20 an hour job. It probably doesn't warrant a giant pension/medical package either. Sorry, but this is the very reason the big 3 are failing. Near 100% pensions for retirees will kill ANY business over time, it just cannot be sustained. There are enough regulations and regulators in place now, (i.e.OSHA) that the abuses of the past are really not possible.

Caveman- Let me ask you this (although I already know the answer), are you in favor of a minimum wage? Why?

Edited February 7, 2009 by slacker