EastUS1 said:
OK. Being yourself an obviously well-trained and "battle-tested-warrior"....exactly where and in what branches should more "cuts to military spending" be made?
Never said that either
Yet another straw man up in flames
I do not have the access or expertise to make statements or draw conclusions on individual programs. Like the entire rest of government, we could talk about "eliminating fraud waste and abuse", but that never gets done and doesn't do enough.
I do know that we spend more on "defense" than twenty-something of the next highest spending countries. All but a couple of those twenty-something are our allies. We subsidize the military needs and provide the liom's share of "security" for nearly the entire free world and most of the rest of it.
It is my position and belief that we should not, and do not need a military capable of it.
I know that is heresy and sacrilege to you, and a page full of other perjoratives.
That doesn't matter. Your opinion is worth exactly as much as mine.
I'll go along with cuttimg spending enough to balance the budget plus provide enough surplus to pay down the debt in a reasonable period of time, say 15 years, like a "smart, if you must have one at all" mortgage.
Ideally, a deal could be worked out to allow the government to provide essential services and cut the rest. We have seen that concept fail repeatedly.
Givn that history of failure, I can live with cutting proportionately equally across the board. It's a terrible way to do business, but "we" are so far incapable of operating intelligently, we are going BK, and neither party has a chance in hell of fixing it.