Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Varus from a Liberal on Cuts to Military Spending.Follow

#1 Jun 03 2010 at 7:42 PM Rating: Good
***
3,053 posts
Quote:
Pentagon Told to Save Billions for Use in War
By THOM SHANKER
Published: June 3, 2010

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has ordered the military and the Pentagon’s civilian bureaucracy to find tens of billions of dollars in annual savings to pay for war-fighting operations, senior officials said Thursday.



While I hate the waste and abuse of contractors for the Defense Dept, I for one am glad that we are willing to spend enough for the men and women who serve our country.

What is worst is when we send them off to war without proper equipment and they die because someone doesn't want to spend money for a bullet proof jacket or armor on a Humvee.

So lets hope that in trying to control costs for 2 wars, those we send to the battlefields won't find they don't have the equipment they need, while Gates has the bureaucrats in Washington looking for ways to save billions from the Defense Budget.

Edited, Jun 3rd 2010 9:42pm by ElneClare
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#2 Jun 04 2010 at 6:04 AM Rating: Good
This is long overdue. Less bean counters (more effective ones perhaps), and more soldiers returning home.
#3 Jun 04 2010 at 6:09 AM Rating: Good
Lubriderm the Hand wrote:
This is long overdue. Less bean counters (more effective ones perhaps), and more soldiers returning home.


Fewer bean counters, you syphilitic wastrel.

Anyone promising you "efficiency savings" is probably lying through their teeth.
#4 Jun 04 2010 at 6:11 AM Rating: Good
No need to be hurtful.
#5 Jun 04 2010 at 9:24 PM Rating: Excellent
They can stop doing no-bid contracts with companies that do inferior work, like Haliburton.
#6 Jun 08 2010 at 6:26 AM Rating: Good
Actually, the cut is more likely to mean less military personnel, not less contracted money.

Also, they're looking to NJP us Marines, we were already told that.
#7 Jun 08 2010 at 6:39 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
NJP


?

I'm not down with your fancy marine lingo.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#8 Jun 08 2010 at 7:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Non-Judicial Punishment.

I'm close friends with the Googlewebz.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 Jun 08 2010 at 7:52 AM Rating: Good
ChiodosSaryrn wrote:
Also, they're looking to NJP us Marines, we were already told that.

Ain't that a *****, when they actually go by what they're authorized to do in the UCMJ? I hate it when cops enforce civilian laws.
#10 Jun 08 2010 at 7:06 PM Rating: Decent
Perhaps you missed the point of my post. They're looking for reasons to take rank (dumb ones like a 5mph over the limit ticket) which means thousands of dollars not spent on us.

If you think being demoted at your job for going 5mph over the speed limit is fair, then good on you. I'm just glad I've always walked the straight and narrow.
#11 Jun 08 2010 at 7:18 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,453 posts
ChiodosSaryrn wrote:
Perhaps you missed the point of my post. They're looking for reasons to take rank (dumb ones like a 5mph over the limit ticket) which means thousands of dollars not spent on us.

If you think being demoted at your job for going 5mph over the speed limit is fair, then good on you. I'm just glad I've always walked the straight and narrow.


Just demand a court-martial every time they bring you up for NJP. Its your right, they can't turn you down. They either go to the expense of a trial in which they have to prove the charges (and for which they have to provide you an attorney), or they drop the charges. Unless its actually serious, they'll drop the charges.
#12 Jun 08 2010 at 7:23 PM Rating: Decent
I won't get into details about why that's a bad idea. I'll just say that they have ways of making you do things in their favor.
#13 Jun 08 2010 at 7:34 PM Rating: Good
***
2,453 posts
ChiodosSaryrn wrote:
I won't get into details about why that's a bad idea. I'll just say that they have ways of making you do things in their favor.


If you're a gutless ***** that won't stand up for his rights they do.
#14 Jun 08 2010 at 7:36 PM Rating: Decent
Can I ask if you've ever served?
#15 Jun 08 2010 at 7:52 PM Rating: Good
***
2,453 posts
ChiodosSaryrn wrote:
Can I ask if you've ever served?


Sure, go ahead. Ask.
#16 Jun 08 2010 at 8:08 PM Rating: Good
I'm at the edge of my seat here, chums.
#17 Jun 08 2010 at 8:12 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,453 posts
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
I'm at the edge of my seat here, chums.


Well, I won't keep you in suspense any longer.

Yes, I spent six years in the Navy. Was brought up on charges four times. Two were righteous and I took my lumps at NJP, and two were bogus and I demanded, received and was acquitted at, two courts martial. When two more instances of being threatened with NJP arose, I assured the command that I would be demanding a court martial in both instances, and in both cases they never bothered to proceed.
#18 Jun 08 2010 at 9:06 PM Rating: Decent
Perhaps you weren't aware, the Marine Corps may be a department of the Navy but it's run much differently. People are allowed to have opinions in the Navy; In the Marine Corps they like to give extra attention to those that ask why.

There was a guy with a legitimate back problem in my first duty station. Everyone called him names and told him to suck it up. When he left, he was two ranks lower because he was not allowed to lift anything over 5 pounds thus being "unable to perform his job", but the real reason is because he continued to go to medical for his back and do what you would consider is the right thing.

If they want their money, they'll get their money out of you.

Edit: By the way, you sound like such a keeper. I'm sure you're on the cutting edge of knowing what to do what with multiple NJPs in only six years.

Edited, Jun 8th 2010 11:09pm by ChiodosSaryrn
#19 Jun 09 2010 at 4:09 AM Rating: Good
***
2,453 posts
ChiodosSaryrn wrote:
Edit: By the way, you sound like such a keeper. I'm sure you're on the cutting edge of knowing what to do what with multiple NJPs in only six years.



The people I worked for sure thought I was. I was highly recommended for promotion and retention with every eval, and was promoted five times. I was also the only electrician to qualify as engineering officer of the watch, and the youngest, most junior man aboard to qualify as OOD. My evals were consistently 3.8 or 4.0 in every category except Military Bearing, in which they were 3.6 - 3.8, and the only comment that anyone ever posted about that was "fails to utilize a certain amount of tact at times".

Doing what I was told without knowing why was never my strong suit. Nor was taking **** from people who outranked me and were giving me **** simply because they did not like me. None of the charges against me ever originated with people with or for whom I worked. In addition. All four of the charges that were either dropped or of which I was exonerated came while under the command of a man who embezzled the crew's welfare and recreation fund money (and possibly other moneys as well), failed to follow certain required engineering practices regarding the ship's reduction gear (which was not owned by the USN, but was leased from General Electric, hence the very strict requirements), and then falsified logs about the reduction gear and ordered others to do so as well. He did everything he could to make the lives of those who refused to sign the fake logs miserable. I was one of them.

Both of the righteous NJPs centered on fighting. In the first, the other guy was the aggressor and received a far more severe punishment than I did. He received a reduction in rate, loss of a half month's pay for two months and was restricted to the ship for 30 days. I got extra duty for two weeks (ie: I had to work an extra two hours every day).

In the second, I went after a guy that was messing with my food. My punishment was to become his boss for six months. Which pretty much endorses my actions without condoning them. They knew they guy was a complete douche, and were not exactly upset with me for kicking his ***.
#20 Jun 09 2010 at 7:12 AM Rating: Default
Again, the difference between the branches. You can get stuff after NJP, Marines only lose stuff.
#21 Jun 09 2010 at 7:19 AM Rating: Excellent
I asked a friend of mine about your claims and he suggested there's a reason you say what you do. It has nothing to do with the Corp and everything to do with you. Mostly learn to take a hint with a little bit of this guys just a little bitter about something mixed in.
#22 Jun 09 2010 at 7:22 AM Rating: Decent
Yes, I'm sure it has something to do with someone who's never gotten in trouble and sees the messed up crap that goes on for the sake of the dollar.

If your "friend" is old Corps, then things were different back then. If he's new, then he's in denial.
#23 Jun 09 2010 at 7:50 AM Rating: Excellent
ChiodosSaryrn wrote:
Yes, I'm sure it has something to do with someone who's never gotten in trouble and sees the messed up crap that goes on for the sake of the dollar.

If your "friend" is old Corps, then things were different back then. If he's new, then he's in denial.

He's a 17 year First Sergeant. Got on his bus 3 days after we graduated and is a lifer. You're right though. He has a spot free record for his entire service.
#24 Jun 09 2010 at 7:55 AM Rating: Decent
Then that's what it is. I'm not saying he was wrong, maybe even 10 years ago. People in charge of me used to tell me it was different in the 90s. All I'm saying is this isn't the same Corps it was before, where drinking and driving was pretty much mandatory, since you were out of bounds in Vegas with 3 hookers and needed to get back to Pendleton in 8 hours.
#25 Jun 09 2010 at 8:03 AM Rating: Excellent
ChiodosSaryrn wrote:
Then that's what it is. I'm not saying he was wrong, maybe even 10 years ago. People in charge of me used to tell me it was different in the 90s. All I'm saying is this isn't the same Corps it was before, where drinking and driving was pretty much mandatory, since you were out of bounds in Vegas with 3 hookers and needed to get back to Pendleton in 8 hours.

So, your complaint is what, that the Corps. has changed, he's changed with it and doesn't have any patience for new guys with attitude problems? If "Old Corps" was more permissive it should be the old guys who have the beef.
#26 Jun 09 2010 at 1:08 PM Rating: Decent
Who said anything about having a problem? The OP hopes that the money will be taken away from contractors, when the truth is the Marine Corps has reached capacity (202,000) and was given I believe a 10 billion dollar paycut. Where do you think the extra money comes from that we'll need when we went up 32,000 people in the last 3 1/2 years?
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 358 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (358)