Obama administration struggles to illustrate pain from sequester - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39821505]So how else do we solve the worlds problems? Pray to the gods to help? Science tells us what reality is, and we can use that knowledge in so many ways it's unbelievable. It's not just sending a rover to Mars or cutting up rats in a lab.[/QUOTE] Here's the thing about world problems - the US isn't "the world". So what if the US loses some science programs to keep their people afloat in tough times, there's plenty of other nations in the world with far better science departments anyway.

[QUOTE=KingdomBanned;39821638]Like what? If we cut out budget in half we'd still have more invested in defense than all the world super powers combined, and who would attack us? We're allys with almost every other military power in the world.[/QUOTE] Complacency, and an experience gap. A few years pass, and since there is no money for training rotations really anymore, then things go unlearned. Then the next conflict arises and we find ourselves not as technically and tactically proficient as we could be, as well as under equipped for the mission at hand, resulting in more loss and accidents than we could have otherwise avoided. Also keep in mind that the total military spending was cut to 4% of the GDP, that's it. So you need to keep in mind that we have what seems to be incredible military spending, but it is not that much compared to the GDP. China doesn't spend as much as us on their forces, and it shows in their technology and benefits and whatnot. Britain is tiny compared to the US as well. We always were on the up and up in terms of technology, so that is a factor as well. Anyways, as a whole, the armed forces will suffer in terms of proficiency and readiness to take on whatever mission that we might be sent on. Hell, they had trouble getting my troop home from deployment due to money issues. It is getting terrible. Also, tuition assistance is being threatened, so education will suffer as well. These generalized cuts do nothing good overall. Specific areas could have been cut and still met the requirements, and we would have retained effectiveness. However, this did not happen, so we are stuck. [editline]6th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Van-man;39821692]So, should a country not help it's own citizens before it can help others? not to mention stopping silly wars and only mind [B]REALLY[/B] important matters? You sound like those people who only went into the military because they though it was solid employment.[/QUOTE] Where did I ever say anything like that? I said bring us home from deployment (Afghanistan, specifically) and things become cheaper, not to mention cutting a lot of expensive stuff that we really don't want nor need. Also, I joined the military for my own reasons, top #1 reason being that I really wanted to help other people and serve my country.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39821755]Here's the thing about world problems - the US isn't "the world". So what if the US loses some science programs to keep their people afloat in tough times, there's plenty of other nations in the world with far better science departments anyway.[/QUOTE] Or we can stop trying to weigh which is more important and tackle both... there are undoubtedly ways. Either way, we're in a shithole right now, and someone's gonna get stepped on before any progress gets done, and that's the sad truth. P.S. the world is competitive.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39821755]Here's the thing about world problems - the US isn't "the world".[/quote] It's a pretty big part of it. [quote]So what if the US loses some science programs to keep their people afloat in tough times, there's plenty of other nations in the world with far better science departments anyway.[/QUOTE] Does it not suggest that the US would eventually have some serious catching up to do if they neglect funding for the sciences for many years whilst other countries continue research? And a lot of world problems can be solved or alleviated through some basic scientific research. It's why we have computers and water filtration systems.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39821993] Does it not suggest that the US would eventually have some serious catching up to do if they neglect funding for the sciences for many years whilst other countries continue research?[/QUOTE] This isn't the Cold War era when nations keep their scientific research to themselves and try to "keep ahead" of the competition of other countries.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39822015]This isn't the Cold War era when nations keep their scientific research to themselves and try to "keep ahead" of the competition of other countries.[/QUOTE] No, that's the patent office's job nowadays :v: Seriously though, privately funded research is pretty much bad, unless done by a not-for-profit organisation. Also let's not forget how much the US contributes in general.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39822015]This isn't the Cold War era when nations keep their scientific research to themselves and try to "keep ahead" of the competition of other countries.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but your academia becomes a joke if it has to subsist on tiny incomes because "we need to do some new economic policies brb". Research routinely suffers from budget cuts, especially if it's to do with human behavior or the climate (especially if it reveals reality to be different from how you envisioned it).

we always need to continue science. We can't live on the earth forever. Just needs a balance.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;39821766]Complacency, and an experience gap. A few years pass, and since there is no money for training rotations really anymore, then things go unlearned. Then the next conflict arises and we find ourselves not as technically and tactically proficient as we could be, as well as under equipped for the mission at hand, resulting in more loss and accidents than we could have otherwise avoided. Also keep in mind that the total military spending was cut to 4% of the GDP, that's it. So you need to keep in mind that we have what seems to be incredible military spending, but it is not that much compared to the GDP. China doesn't spend as much as us on their forces, and it shows in their technology and benefits and whatnot. Britain is tiny compared to the US as well. We always were on the up and up in terms of technology, so that is a factor as well. Anyways, as a whole, the armed forces will suffer in terms of proficiency and readiness to take on whatever mission that we might be sent on. Hell, they had trouble getting my troop home from deployment due to money issues. It is getting terrible. Also, tuition assistance is being threatened, so education will suffer as well. These generalized cuts do nothing good overall. Specific areas could have been cut and still met the requirements, and we would have retained effectiveness. However, this did not happen, so we are stuck. [editline]6th March 2013[/editline] Where did I ever say anything like that? I said bring us home from deployment (Afghanistan, specifically) and things become cheaper, not to mention cutting a lot of expensive stuff that we really don't want nor need. Also, I joined the military for my own reasons, top #1 reason being that I really wanted to help other people and serve my country.[/QUOTE] We need to worry about our domestic problems first, then worry about military once we get out of our rut.

[QUOTE=draugur;39821031]Continue the cuts then! Also his whole bullshit firefighters and EMT's losing their jobs shit, those are STATE employees... Granted states to get a lot of federal funding, but they shouldn't rely on it so much, states should have to stay above the debt as well.[/QUOTE] Why should state employees be given special benefits/immunity from downsizing?

[QUOTE=KingdomBanned;39822147]We need to worry about our domestic problems first, then worry about military once we get out of our rut.[/QUOTE] The military is a pretty big domestic issue as well, you can't afford to not worry about it currently.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;39822184]The military is a pretty big domestic issue as well, you can't afford to not worry about it currently.[/QUOTE] Why is it needed? Why not replace the military with a Federal Health Service, similar to the British model?

[QUOTE=SKEEA;39822184]The military is a pretty big domestic issue as well, you can't afford to not worry about it currently.[/QUOTE] Why do we need a military right now? A lot of countries are turning too diplomacy now-a-days then throwing guns at each other.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39822214]Why is it needed? Why not replace the military with a Federal Health Service, similar to the British model?[/QUOTE] I believe that the UK has armed forces, last I checked. If you don't know why the US needs a military, then you have probably ignored all of our history. In an ideal, perfect world, we wouldn't need one. However, as it stands now, our military is one hell of a deterrent, and a potent fighting force to be called upon when needed. Now, you may argue that we are involved with a lot of stuff overseas. This is true. However, who else would step in and answer the call when things happen in the world? The UN and NATO stepped in with Libya, among other things, with a good contingent being United States forces. What we need to worry about currently is cutting away the chaff within the armed forces, and being more efficient in operations, not arbitrarily slashing budgets willy nilly thinking that it will solve the problem.

[QUOTE=Maloof?;39822162]Why should state employees be given special benefits/immunity from downsizing?[/QUOTE] Well I'm pretty damn sure Firefighters and ambulance crew could easily save the life of someone you know. A platoon of soldiers fighting a pointless war on the other hand... Although that doesn't mean those two services should be pampered, but they're still vital

[QUOTE=SKEEA;39822332]I believe that the UK has armed forces, last I checked.[/quote] It's a lot smaller than Americas. [quote]If you don't know why the US needs a military, then you have probably ignored all of our history. In an ideal, perfect world, we wouldn't need one. However, as it stands now, our military is one hell of a deterrent, and a potent fighting force to be called upon when needed. Now, you may argue that we are involved with a lot of stuff overseas. This is true. However, who else would step in and answer the call when things happen in the world? The UN and NATO stepped in with Libya, among other things, with a good contingent being United States forces.[/QUOTE] Yes I know about your history, I read it lots. What does a country with nuclear capabilities, a stable political and social system, high rates of economic growth, bajillions of allies and trading partners, plus the support of varied international organizations to help tackle various ills in the world need a large and powerful standing army for? What is it going to do with it? [quote] What we need to worry about currently is cutting away the chaff within the armed forces, and being more efficient in operations, not arbitrarily slashing budgets willy nilly thinking that it will solve the problem.[/quote] What's odd is how you are saying this when it's your job under threat as a result of these cuts. Maybe they really are cutting the chaff, such as you?

[QUOTE=SKEEA;39822332]I believe that the UK has armed forces,[/QUOTE] Yeah, and it is nowhere unnecessarily as big as ours.

[QUOTE=KingdomBanned;39822380]Yeah, and it is nowhere unnecessarily as big as ours.[/QUOTE] It also is a tiny country compared to us. Not arguing that we need cuts, but I just wish that they made them in the right places in the military instead of just across the board reductions in everything in the hope that it will somehow fix everything.

Let's just dismantle the military and not tell any of the other countries

[QUOTE=SKEEA;39822409]It also is a tiny country compared to us. Not arguing that we need cuts, but I just wish that they made them in the right places in the military instead of just across the board reductions in everything in the hope that it will somehow fix everything.[/QUOTE] But the percentage of spending they have is smaller.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;39822409]It also is a tiny country compared to us.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure what that has to do with it. Small countries can pack a hell of a punch.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39822375]It's a lot smaller than Americas. Yes I know about your history, I read it lots. [B]Awesome, history is extremely interesting.[/B] What does a country with nuclear capabilities, a stable political and social system, high rates of economic growth, bajillions of allies and trading partners, plus the support of varied international organizations to help tackle various ills in the world need a large and powerful standing army for? What is it going to do with it? [B]That is a question that is way beyond my pay grade. This would be a better question to ask someone who actually makes decisions. Also, remember this. Not many conflicts can be solved without boots on the ground.[/B] What's odd is how you are saying this when it's your job under threat as a result of these cuts. Maybe they really are cutting the chaff, such as you? [B]My job really isn't under threat. My job is going to be around for a long, long time. Even if they decided to reduce the numbers in my career field, they would just reassign me, or cut those with more time in service than me. [/B][B]However, what they did do is restrict what we are capable of, and make it so that it is harder to accomplish the mission. Well, people in my job are very resourceful, we will manage. Adapt and overcome.[/B] [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=SKEEA;39822454]That is a question that is way beyond my pay grade. This would be a better question to ask someone who actually makes decisions. Also, remember this. Not many conflicts can be solved without boots on the ground. [/QUOTE] Yes they can. Open borders, diplomacy, and a state focus on reducing violence is especially influential enough to prevent or reduce wars. Wars, which have been in decline for decades. [quote]My job really isn't under threat. My job is going to be around for a long, long time. Even if they decided to reduce the numbers in my career field, they would just reassign me, or cut those with more time in service than me.[/quote] What about wages, or special benefits gained from military service?

[QUOTE=SKEEA;39822454] Not many conflicts can be solved without boots on the ground.[/QUOTE] Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39821132]a lot of science funding is private, isn't it?[/QUOTE] no most real groundbreaking research comes out of public universities, and the feds give direct grants to tons of organizations for medical research. iirc the fed gov't is the largest funding body for cancer research.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39822486]Yes they can. Open borders, diplomacy, and a state focus on reducing violence is especially influential enough to prevent or reduce wars. Wars, which have been in decline for decades. [B]Well, when an idealistic world happens, let me know. Until then, I will continue to serve the people of my country proudly.[/B] What about wages, or special benefits gained from military service? [B]Wages are not under threat, rather they just decreased the cost of living adjustment by a little bit this year. Also, incentive pays, such as language, flight, and other pays are probably going away. Veteran's benefits and tuition assistance are also looking like they are getting a cut. It makes things hard for service members to do support families. Keep in mind that our pay is not really great at all[/B] [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=SKEEA;39822554]Well, when an idealistic world happens, let me know. Until then, I will continue to serve the people of my country proudly. [/QUOTE] Yeah the only option is to prepare for a war that won't happen against enemies that don't exist with money you don't have.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;39822554] Well, when an idealistic world happens, let me know. Until then, I will continue to serve the people of my country proudly.[/QUOTE] Well first of all, we are currently becoming more peaceful as time goes on, there have been a lot less wars since around the end of the Cold War. Also please don't serve us please

[QUOTE=KingdomBanned;39822488]Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha[/QUOTE] Could we have conducted the Gulf War without boots on the ground? How about OIF? The answer is no, you can't do everything with a few high altitude bombing runs.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;39822554][/QUOTE] Isn't it something like $1500 per month when deployed? I think my buddy averaged it out and based upon the average hours he worked, he was making less than $3 a hour during his deployment.