US Army Details Plans to Cut 40,000 Soldiers Across Bases Worldwide - Polidicks

[QUOTE=SKEEA;48180884]It's not that there aren't, it's just that the military is much more effective at this because they form the basic tenets at being in the military, as well as being legally enforceable if you violate them.[/QUOTE] It still seems like a better idea overall to use programs actually targeted towards this with the end-goal being the resolution of the social problem. Using the armed forces as a tool to solve issues such as that isn't really a good solution.

I'd be a lousy bum if it weren't for the Navy. 4 years after joining I'm an E-5, completing my education, physically fit, disciplined, and a member of the most prestigious Corps in the entire Navy. I'm incredibly proud to say I'm a Hospital Corpsman and Sailor, I'd be pretty devestated if my career suddenly came to an end because of force reduction policy. Rah yut yut kill etc

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48180928]It still seems like a better idea overall to use programs actually targeted towards this with the end-goal being the resolution of the social problem. Using the armed forces as a tool to solve issues such as that isn't really a good solution.[/QUOTE] It's not the only tool. It is just a tool to use if you see fit. We are an all volunteer force. How many social programs will also pay you and give you technical job skills?

[QUOTE=SKEEA;48181076]It's not the only tool. It is just a tool to use if you see fit. We are an all volunteer force. How many social programs will also pay you and give you technical job skills?[/QUOTE] Apprenticeships usually do.

[QUOTE=Nikota;48180780]Anti-Poverty programs don't end up working, the opposite tends to happen as it creates dependencies and incentives people to stay on handouts as they end up getting less in money/benefits if they try and work their way out a lot of the time.[/QUOTE] that's a hotly contested claim among academics that has yet to be definitely proven by empirical evidence. furthermore it's just flat-out wrong to paint all welfare programs with a broad brush and act as if there's no possible mechanism that can reduce disincentives and still provide adequate assistance. one first step towards that end would be simplification, since america's welfare system is ridiculously complex.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48169747]Iunno about that, there's a lot of countries which don't really need big active armies doing things. Considering that the USA has a military presence (such as bases or troops) in a vast number of countries around the world, It wouldn't hurt for them to scale back a bit.[/QUOTE] Other countries are not part of the power trinity between Russia and China. The US must maintain higher military presence as a form of deterrence for their own nation and those they're aligned with. They're also [I]expected[/I] to fix everyones fucking problems when something bad happens.

I guess it is a good thing that I am getting out this year then.

[QUOTE=wauterboi;48180717]You sound like those people that complain about those [I]totally lazy welfare recipients[/I]. Sure, if someone's going to mope and groan and not even try to get a new job, they are lazy. But how do you make that distinction, and how is it relevant? How do you quantify it? It's useless banter.[/QUOTE] Naw, I support welfare completely. I dont support people who are in a bad situation and give up. Hard to fix a problem when you give up.

[QUOTE=Flumbooze;48177938]692 million dollars doesn't seem like that much.[/QUOTE] Billions. With a B