Panetta planning to reduce military pay

[JD Barleycorn]

Without a budget (for the last four years) it is hard to know if this is true but according to CNN he either going to freeze miltary pay or remove some benefits also reducing pay. This is your guy again. You have to support him, embrace him, and love him because he is of Obama and Clinton.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...t-For-Military

[i'va biggen]

Dumb fuck he is leaving,made a speech that if our lawmakers don't quit blaming each other and do something there will be huge cuts.

[CuteOldGuy]

You mean, there is NOWHERE else to cut in the defense budget? Really?

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Without a budget (for the last four years) it is hard to know if this is true but according to CNN he either going to freeze miltary pay or remove some benefits also reducing pay. This is your guy again. You have to support him, embrace him, and love him because he is of Obama and Clinton.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...t-For-Military

Truly you are a moron. Or at least you play one on here.

Do you think he writes his own budget? Congress tell DoD to cut very large sums, but also tells them that all the ways to save money (cancelling programs and closing bases) they can't do because of pork issues--both dem and rep. So what big ticket item is left?

Are you advocating he bounce checks instead?

As to being anyone's guy, did the soldiers vote him in as a union boss or something? But when appointed he had very significant bi-partisan support. He was brought out of retirement specifically because he is first and foremost a realist--faced with a budget, he will meet it. And whether you agree with his cuts or not, he at least doesn't play too many shell games with illusionary cuts. His message has been quite consistent since he was confirmed--actually, even in his congressional testimony before being confirmed.

Go back to your babbling insults devoid of substance. Every time you pretend to know what is happening in DC below the front page news, all you do is demonstrate how foolish and clueless you are.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You mean, there is NOWHERE else to cut in the defense budget? Really?

Actually, about the only things congress will allow--and have the requisite dollars attached--are pay, benefits (and they won't make a scratch if sequestration hits), and direct readiness issues (spare parts, fuel, and depot scheduled overhalls, etc.)

Generally some (or many) bi-partisan congressmen will scream if acquisition $ stop flowing into their districts, or if unneeded bases are closed.

[CuteOldGuy]

That is why we MUST stop electing Republicans and Democrats. Cutting military pay is a foolish way to limit defense spending. There are plenty of areas to cut, before cutting their pay.

[JD Barleycorn]

Brought out of retirement??? Wasn't he the head of the CIA when he got tapped to be the Defense Secretary? Congress has not told anyone to do anyting because they have not passed a budget in four years (thanks to the democrats in the Senate). Sequestration was the idea of the White House (Pantyshield's boss) and not Congress. You are blaming the wrong people but it is the common military person who is going to get hurt.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Congress has not told anyone to do anyting because they have not passed a budget in four years (thanks to the democrats in the Senate).
They may not have passed a budget, but the appropriations bills--and others--tell DoD and others what they must/can't do. They can put damn near anything in those bills, and they often do. DoD has many forts/bases they would be happy to close, consolidate, etc. But they are in a district that depends upon the gov't jobs and Congress has disallowed any such closures. Even if you want to move an organization of 20 people from Fort A to Base B you have to notify Congress so they can say yes or no. TX and CA are the worst, and it's funny how united they can be across party lines on these issues. How many C130Js has DoD bought for years, even though they keep striking them from the budget--and Congress keeps putting them in; been going on for year be it Dem or Rep presidents & Congress. Army, Navy, all suffer.

Sequestration was the idea of the White House (Pantyshield's boss) and not Congress. You are blaming the wrong people but it is the common military person who is going to get hurt.

Agree with you it's the people who get hurt. The E-2 who's family is on food stamps and he's deployed. One of the reasons it gauls me when some on here rant about everyone on food stamps is a welfare cheat.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

That is why we MUST stop electing Republicans and Democrats. Cutting military pay is a foolish way to limit defense spending. There are plenty of areas to cut, before cutting their pay.

Don't disagree with that. There are several reforms that can and should be implemented but too much $$$$ buying votes to not allow it. For example, Dems (mostly but not alone) killed any attempt by Rumsfield to bring the civilian personnel system out of the 1800s. It wasn't a perfect system but it was fundamentally far better than what they are stuck with now. Would have allowed significant dead-wood removal, where the current system makes that near impossible.