"The military will first try buying out contracts or offering bonuses for people to leave, while working to keep those with valuable specialties such as cyber warfare and acquisitions, according to Travis Sharp, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington policy group, who attended a Pentagon briefing for analysts last month. "

At least they are offering severance.

However I don't know if the current world situation is the right time to be removing troops.

On another note:

Almost criminal what this Conmander in Chief is willing to do. Not only allowing Congressional dems to gut the future fighting forces, but this prick is actually going after TRICARE and pensions...

"President Obama proposed new TRICARE co-pays and fees, as well as a review of military retirement benefits, in his fiscal 2013 budget unveiled Monday.

The administration provided new details on Defense Department personnel cuts first proposed in January.

The budget includes new TRICARE co-pays, additional increases to TRICARE Prime enrollment fees, initiation of standard and extra annual enrollment fees, and adjustments to deductibles and catastrophic coverage caps."

Too bad the Republicans didn't control at least one house of Congress and put their votes where their mouths are on this, eh?

SUCKERS

#3 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2012-02-14 09:55 AM | Reply | Flag: Derp-a-derp

Considering it has not been voted on quite yet... you look somewhat like an idiot.

"Republicans in Congress already have signaled they will challenge the Pentagon reductions when lawmakers take up the proposed fiscal 2013 budget that President Barack Obama sent to Congress today. "

Won't this also add to the unemployment rolls as the active duty military men don't have other jobs to return to?

Too bad the Republicans didn't control at least one house of Congress and put their votes where their mouths are on this, eh?

SUCKERS
#3 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2012-02-14 09:55 AM

Errr... You do understand this was the Obama budget, and has nothing to do with House repubs...

That said, Reid already declared it DOA in the Senate...

You do understand cuts were required by the Republicans as part of their childishness during the back-and-forth on raising the debt ceiling?

Considering it has not been voted on quite yet... you look somewhat like an idiot.

Posted by ExpsRedemption

Somewhat?

"part of an effort to save $487 billion over a decade"

Doesn't the Pentagon lose 10s of billions of $$ every year that they are unable to account for? Why wouldn't they start by plugging that hole first?

"You do understand cuts were required by the Republicans as part of their childishness during the back-and-forth on raising the debt ceiling?"

I understand the dems put the military on the chopping block, and the so called CiC was the one who pushed it to satisfy his base...

Doesn't the Pentagon lose 10s of billions of $$ every year that they are unable to account for? Why wouldn't they start by plugging that hole first?

#9 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2012-02-14 10:17 AM

We already know there are $200 billion dollars wasted annually in duplicate government programs. The fact this POS is going after TRICARE and military pensions reflects his respect for the military...

The fact this POS is going after TRICARE and military pensions reflects his respect for the military...

#11 | Posted by crispee_oc

He doesn't give a shit. They aren't part of his base.

"We already know there are $200 billion dollars wasted annually in duplicate government programs."

There's no need to expand the scope of the argument in order to assign blame. My point was that there is plenty of money to be found within the Pentagon that would more than cover this budget goal without having to resort to forced retirements.

"Almost criminal what this Conmander in Chief is willing to do. Not only allowing Congressional dems to gut the future fighting forces, but this prick is actually going after TRICARE and pensions..."

Crispee pretends Republicans didn't vote for the compromise which is now going to cost the Pentagon. Crispee, did Republicans vote for it or not?????

There's no need to expand the scope of the argument in order to assign blame. My point was that there is plenty of money to be found within the Pentagon that would more than cover this budget goal without having to resort to forced retirements.

#13 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

So we shouldn't assign blame? Tell that to the fine men and women that will be affected by Obama's Budget.

Republicans are more concerned about the oath they signed with Grover Norquiest than about the oath of office they took. Party before country, as always.

"Almost criminal what this Conmander in Chief is willing to do. Not only allowing Congressional dems to gut the future fighting forces, but this prick is actually going after TRICARE and pensions..."

The President's budget won't effect anyone, it will never be passed through Congress but the Pentagon cuts have already been voted on and approved by both houses and the President, Republicans can't pretend to be blameless for cuts they voted for.

"There's no need to expand the scope of the argument in order to assign blame."

My point being TRICARE is one of the few Gov run systems which works. But going after retired military pensions imo is almost criminal.

Keep in mind this is the CiC, and no others that I can think of have not only given up their power to Congress, but encouraged more cuts...

Pentagon May Oust Troops Involuntarily to Meet Budget Plan

So? According to cons the deficit is the biggest threat to America.

The military budget consists largely of coporate welfare. Could cut some of that bullshit instead of taking from servicemen.

#19 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY at 2012-02-14 10:41 AM | Reply |FLAG:

You really want to repeat your derp session from yesterday?

The military budget consists largely of coporate welfare. Could cut some of that bullshit instead of taking from servicemen.

#20 | Posted by Sully at 2012-02-14 10:44 AM

Military welfare collecting corporations are a large part of the republican base SULLY, the troops are not.

The troops aren't a large part of the Republican base? Jesus, you are a fucking retard.

The troops aren't a large part of the Republican base? Jesus, you are a fucking retard.
#23 | Posted by wisgod

He should have written "ba$e."

'He should have written "ba$e."

#24 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2012-02-14 11:00 AM | Reply | Flag:'

Obama takes money from them too.

Obama takes money from them too.
#25 | Posted by Sully

Not disputed. That doesn't take away from the point that regular working class military guys are not anybody's base in this context.

Not disputed. That doesn't take away from the point that regular working class military guys are not anybody's base in this context.

#26 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2012-02-14 11:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

Well... they do give more money to Ron Paul than any other candidate.

"That doesn't take away from the point that regular working class military guys are not anybody's base in this context."

They tend to vote GOP but for what reason I couldn't tell you. The GOP is neither stronger on defense nor do they treat the personnel any better.

Agreed that neither party cares all that much about them. Once any demographic pre-pledges its vote to one party, that party will eventually take it for granted and the other party will write them off. Party membership is not in the interest of any voter. If they can't take your vote for granted, politicians may actually have to earn your vote.

Well... they do give more money to Ron Paul than any other candidate.
#27 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

Not disputed. That doesn't take away from the point that regular working class military guys are not anybody's base in this context.
#26 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

If they can't take your vote for granted, politicians may actually have to earn your vote.
#28 | Posted by Sully

I remember telling that to the Obama campaign in '08. I can still remember their laughter over the phone.

"they do give more money to Ron Paul than any other candidate."

#29 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2012-02-14 11:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

Right... they seem to be a strong part of Ron Paul's base supporters.

#31 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2012-02-14 11:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

Thanks for the obvious. You ride in to the battle with your forte once again.

They tend to vote GOP but for what reason I couldn't tell you.

I can. Because they work for a living. They do what has to be done without a bunch of negotiated rules about how long their lunch break is and how many hours they're allowed to work. They like Paul because he doesn't like war and neither do they. They distrust Democrats because Democrats praise them in one breath (or not), and then weaken them fiscally. Nobody in the military wants war, but if you go, you damned well better have what you need to kill and not BE killed.

What Mustang said.

'Won't this also add to the unemployment rolls as the active duty military men don't have other jobs to return to?"

Yep, just like all the teacher cuts across the nation (desired) would add to the unemployment rolls. (No, I'm not opening the old argument about the two jobs being equivalent or whatever; I'm pointing out only the economic issue.)
+++++

"I can. Because they work for a living."

Yeah? I do too. As does every Democrat and every liberal I know personally.

"They do what has to be done without a bunch of negotiated rules about how long their lunch break is and how many hours they're allowed to work."

Irrelevant. Just being a union member doesn't make one a liberal or a Democrat or anti-Republican.

"They like Paul because he doesn't like war and neither do they. They distrust Democrats because Democrats praise them in one breath (or not), and then weaken them fiscally. Nobody in the military wants war, but if you go, you damned well better have what you need to kill and not BE killed."

So what about Rumsfeld and Bush and all the recorded lacks of supplies and weaponry in the Iraq War? Hm.

Good. This is what happens when you cut spending. Maybe they will go out and get real jobs.

Good. This is what happens when you cut spending. Maybe they will go out and get real jobs.

Posted by JOE at 2012-02-14 12:24 PM | Reply

Folks don't seem to realize that the money spent on employing men in the military is taken from the current and future economies where it could be used to pay people to produce something.

Taxing americans to pay folks to protect germany from ???? and having that money spent in germany hardly makes anyone here wealthier (aside from the export of our inflation).

Bastiat's essay on What is Seen and What is Not Seen (birth of the broken window fallacy) explains military expenditures at a level even drudgies should be able to grasp...

#36 | Posted by pragmatist at 2012-02-14 12:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Right. And the democrats fought tooth and nail to avoid laying off teachers by all means possible... and yet... here we are, involuntary removal of active duty troops during a time of crisis in the world...

It makes me feel as though somewhere the democrats were just repeating empty rhetoric rather than real concern.

39--I wasn't defending anyone. I was pointing out that someone noted the unemployment rolls problem with military cuts but (as far as I know) didn't have that concern regarding teacher cuts.

The comparison is about citizens (DR denizens) who say it about one group of cuts but not the other. (Maybe you said it about teachers, too; I don't know. My memory tells me that on one brought it up, except maybe me... : ) ) The comparison on a legislative level is probably not worth discussion, given that teacher cuts are implemented at a state/district level and military cuts (if they go through, which they won't) are implemented at a national level.

""Taxing americans to pay folks to protect germany from ???? and having that money spent in germany hardly makes anyone here wealthier (aside from the export of our inflation).""

Germany is a platform for actions in the Middle East and Africa. Landstuhl is the first stop for many of the combat casualties of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is also the site of many multi-national training areas. We arent there to protect Germany anymore, it's evolved way past that, and has many benefits.

""Right. And the democrats fought tooth and nail to avoid laying off teachers by all means possible... and yet... here we are, involuntary removal of active duty troops during a time of crisis in the world...""

Not to steal your thunder, but the first to go are going to be the unfit and unwilling. There is quite a bit of dead weight in the military, especially after the swell due to the conflicts in the Middle East. This may not have the affect on readiness you may think.

Obama can make any recommendation to TRICARE and retirement benefits he wants. Congress wont approve it.

Good. This is what happens when you cut spending. Maybe they will go out and get real jobs.

#37 | Posted by JOE

What real jobs you talking about Joe? Civil engineering? Healthcare? Support for indigents? Education? Security/Policing the streets?

Taxing americans to pay folks to protect germany from ???? and having that money spent in germany hardly makes anyone here wealthier (aside from the export of our inflation).

#38 | Posted by SHEEPLESHEPERD

You really believe that the US presence in Germany is to protect the Germans?

Really?

Won't this also add to the unemployment rolls as the active duty military men don't have other jobs to return to?

#5 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-02-14 10:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

Not necessarily.

People usually leave the military with marketable skills.

The unemployment rate may be high, but that is mostly for Obama-caliber voters.

There is plenty of demand for technical skills taught in the military.

Related:

Vernon "There is plenty of demand for technical skills taught in the military."

Unfortunately a large percentage of those troops to be forced out released are combat infantry whose only skills would relate to Blackwater [or whatever their new name is) and they can only absorb a small percentage of the best if they need any at this time.

Unfortunately a large percentage of those troops to be forced out released are combat infantry whose only skills would relate to Blackwater [or whatever their new name is) and they can only absorb a small percentage of the best if they need any at this time.

most of my clients don't need a lot of skills.

they need workers who have had a fucking job and haven't been sitting on their ass collecting 99 weeks of unemployment.

they will teach the skills to someone who wants to work.

THAT we are in short supply of.