Obama administration struggles to illustrate pain from sequester - Polidicks

[QUOTE=KingdomBanned;39822896]Why? It's in the middle east, why should we care what terrorist groups rise to power over there[/QUOTE] This is the single dumbest thing I've ever heard. "Why should we care about the human rights and suffering of other people." "It's just Africa, why should we care about how many warlords terrorize,rape and raze villages, that doesn't effect my life in a first world nation." By that same token we should have just let Germany win WWII and continue killing Jews, Gays, Gypsies, etc, it didn't effect us, our beef was with Japan whom attacked us, not Germany.

[QUOTE=draugur;39822922]This is the single dumbest thing I've ever heard. "Why should we care about the human rights and suffering of other people." "It's just Africa, why should we care about how many warlords terrorize,rape and raze villages, that doesn't effect my life in a first world nation."[/QUOTE] Our economy is falling in the toilet, we really need to worry about ourselves before we go and help others. Otherwise we'll end up dragging everyone else down. Plus I don't think this war on terrorism is really working out all that well.

[QUOTE=Ericson666;39822913]Maybe the local residents kindly want the US to piss off and go away. If the Americans lost the revolution, we'd probably be calling them extremist terrorists too[/QUOTE] They really liked us there in my region. We supported their local economy like nothing else, and kept them as safe as we could from harm.

[QUOTE=KingdomBanned;39822896]Why? It's in the middle east, why should we care what terrorist groups rise to power over there[/QUOTE] i'd like to imagine that the [I]military[/I] shouldn't care about it, ideally diplomats would be able to discourage the environment in the Middle East that leads to these kinds of groups gaining power. ofc with relations between the US and everywhere else being what they are after all that canoodling about that isn't likely to happen, but it's still definitely not the job of the military to intervene.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;39822939]They really liked us there in my region. We supported their local economy like nothing else, and kept them as safe as we could from harm.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure the US was more interested in their economy than the middle east's.

[QUOTE=OogalaBoogal;39822967]I'm pretty sure the US was more interested in their economy than the middle east's.[/QUOTE] I am just saying that the simple fact that we are there, and spending money (converted into Afghani currency) into the local economy really gave the locals a boost.

[QUOTE=Cone;39822954]i'd like to imagine that the [I]military[/I] shouldn't care about it, ideally diplomats would be able to discourage the environment in the Middle East that leads to these kinds of groups gaining power. ofc with relations between the US and everywhere else being what they are after all that canoodling about that isn't likely to happen, but it's still definitely not the job of the military to intervene.[/QUOTE] The keyword there is 'ideally' which I do agree, it shouldn't be our military's job to do this, but currently there is no one else who would, and there probably never will be because there is that mentality of people like KingdomBanned whom think that we shouldn't care about the suffering of people at the hands of terrorist organizations because it doesn't directly effect his life in a first world country. I do apologize for using you as part of my argument, it's not quite proper and please correct me if that's not the mentality you were trying to convey to me in your post. People do charity work for one of two reasons, A. to further a religious agenda, such as church mission trips or B. because they think they can profit from it, no "non-profit" organization is completely "non-profit."

Uh, you all realize that these are cuts in future projected spending, right? All these programs will not be receiving a cent less in funding than they did this year. In fact, most of these programs' budgets are still going to increase.

[QUOTE=draugur;39822995]The keyword there is 'ideally' which I do agree, it shouldn't be our military's job to do this, but currently there is no one else who would, and there probably never will be because there is that mentality of people like KingdomBanned whom think that we shouldn't care about the suffering of people at the hands of terrorist organizations because it doesn't directly effect his life in a first world country. I do apologize for using you as part of my argument, it's not quite proper and please correct me if that's not the mentality you were trying to convey to me in your post. People do charity work for one of two reasons, A. to further a religious agenda, such as church mission trips or B. because they think they can profit from it, no "non-profit" organization is completely "non-profit."[/QUOTE] The more we do overseas work, the more it'll cost, the more it'll cost our debt goes up, people get pissed, we go into bankruptcy, as our economy collapses the world economy will also fall with it I'm not saying that the military is the ONLY thing that's putting us into debt, however it's such an unnecessary thing that we could easily cut it, and that'll help lift ourselves up a little bit and put us back on track. There aren't a lot of other things that we can cut that won't make a lot of civilians angry.

[QUOTE=draugur;39822995]The keyword there is 'ideally' which I do agree, it shouldn't be our military's job to do this, but currently there is no one else who would, and there probably never will be because there is that mentality of people like KingdomBanned whom think that we shouldn't care about the suffering of people at the hands of terrorist organizations because it doesn't directly effect his life in a first world country. I do apologize for using you as part of my argument, it's not quite proper and please correct me if that's not the mentality you were trying to convey to me in your post.[/QUOTE] i feel that even the combined might of the US and the nations that work with it can't fix the problems in the Middle East in any way that we're likely to see in the next few decades. as far as i know, there simply is no quick fix that can be readied and deployed to soothe the numerous human rights violations in that region, and most certainly not one that involves military intervention - that's just going in the complete wrong direction. i agree that it will most likely be necessary to step in at some point in the future, but this is both a bad time to be doing it, and a bad way of going about it. so honestly, i'm not holding out too much hope that things in that area will work out within the next decade or so, especially not at the current rate. but, if we really do need to fix these issues in the Middle East (and we do, although i don't think that now is the time to do it), then all i can say for sure is that a military can only damage things further, and that, by proxy, diplomacy is what's needed.

[QUOTE=KingdomBanned;39823073]The more we do overseas work, the more it'll cost, the more it'll cost our debt goes up, people get pissed, we go into bankruptcy, as our economy collapses the world economy will also fall with it I'm not saying that the military is the ONLY thing that's putting us into debt, however it's such an unnecessary thing that we could easily cut it, and that'll help lift ourselves up a little bit and put us back on track. There aren't a lot of other things that we can cut that won't make a lot of civilians angry.[/QUOTE] I see where you're coming from, and I'm sure that both SKEEA and I agree that we should be cutting military spending, but we have to cut it in the right way, and in ways that don't fuck over actual people. I personally think we should be cutting congress's wages as well, but that's an ideal situation. That and we should be closing loopholes in the tax system, but again, that will probably not happen either. [editline]6th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Cone;39823230]i feel that even the combined might of the US and the nations that work with it can't fix the problems in the Middle East in any way that we're likely to see in the next few decades. as far as i know, there simply is no quick fix that can be readied and deployed to soothe the numerous human rights violations in that region, and most certainly not one that involves military intervention - that's just going in the complete wrong direction. i agree that it will most likely be necessary to step in at some point in the future, but this is both a bad time to be doing it, and a bad way of going about it. so honestly, i'm not holding out too much hope that things in that area will work out within the next decade or so, especially not at the current rate. but, if we really do need to fix these issues in the Middle East (and we do, although i don't think that now is the time to do it), then all i can say for sure is that a military can only damage things further, and that, by proxy, diplomacy is what's needed.[/QUOTE] The more we do now, the less we have to do later. To be honest, the work we've done in about a decade has mostly undone what we did back during the cold war. Going off the amount of time we waited since back then and what we've spent now, we'd be spending trillions more in the future when it gets a thousand times worse. It's better to solve a problem, or at least try to solve a problem before it becomes a tragedy. Though I do agree we need to find a better way of doing it, and for now, I believe we've about done all we can for now, it is time to bring the troops home, but I cannot discredit the good they've done in the region, especially considering that Russia, the other country to help us fuck the entire region over, has made no attempts to help anyone in the region.

"janitors at the U.S. Capitol would receive a pay cut due to the sequester cuts" when you lose 80 billion you just have to tighten your belt and cut the absolute minimum from the people that need it most idiots

[QUOTE=SKEEA;39821059]These sequester cuts really suck. They cut the flight budget from 40 million, to 3 million for the entire brigade I am in. Pretty much nothing can fly. Promotions slowed to a standstill, and good luck getting any schooling. Why couldn't they have reached a deal?[/QUOTE] This is the deal bro. This is the compromise.

The state of Utah receives the majority of its income from Hill Airforce Base. Cutting the defense budget to what it is now is really gonna fuck us over.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;39822874]Oh god the F-35. What a complete waste of time and money. It needs to die.[/QUOTE] I second this...and I work with their pilots, who (most of them) also think the project is going to hell.

[QUOTE=l33tkill;39824019]I second this...and I work with their pilots, who (most of them) also think the project is going to hell.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I have a few friends that are F-22 crew chiefs, and they literally cannot fathom why they keep putting money into the F-35. They are really mad about it.

[QUOTE=KingdomBanned;39822896]Why? It's in the middle east, why should we care what terrorist groups rise to power over there[/QUOTE] terrorist groups that exist only due to foreign meddling

[QUOTE=MaddaCheeb;39823948]The state of Utah receives the majority of its income from Hill Airforce Base. Cutting the defense budget to what it is now is really gonna fuck us over.[/QUOTE] If cuts need to be made where else should they come from?

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39824220]If cuts need to be made where else should they come from?[/QUOTE] If anything this just shows a state shouldn't rely on only 1 income source.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39821219]It's a pretty important priority.[/QUOTE] Depends on the science, cure for cancer? Yeh thats pretty important because cancers a bitch. But finding out how planets work hundreds of light years away? Doesnt really do jack shit for people on earth

[QUOTE=Madtoker;39824479]Depends on the science, cure for cancer? Yeh thats pretty important because cancers a bitch. But finding out how planets work hundreds of light years away? Doesnt really do jack shit for people on earth[/QUOTE] Right now our entire understanding of how everything on earth works is based on a model based on data from only one planet. Knowing how many different geologic systems function under varying conditions will help us gain a greater understanding of our planet's most valuable and rare resource - it's atmosphere. Right now we are driving towards an inevitable but far off future of creating an inhospitable planet - Only with more understanding of how things work on a planetary scale can we begin to look at making earth a sustainable colony and habitat for humanity rather than burning it out until there are no resources left to even get into orbit.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39822800]Do you honestly think somebody is going to invade the USA in this day and age? That's insane.[/QUOTE] Nobody would dare invade the US because we have an enormous military, so we should disband the military? Something's wrong with your logic here.

[QUOTE=rilez;39822780]Because that's something you honestly expect to happen in the 21st century? Come back down to reality please, and realize there are a thousand other things that could be cut from the military that don't affect service members; they're [B]people[/B] who don't deserve to get fucked around by our politicians.[/QUOTE] they're also people who are employed almost just for the sake of it at this point, doing a job that either doesn't need to be done or already can be done with less people and less funding, just so that they can continue to have a job regardless of whether they're needed [editline]7th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;39825364]Nobody would dare invade the US because we have an enormous military, so we should disband the military? Something's wrong with your logic here.[/QUOTE] that's not what he said though? nobody will invade the US because (even if we cut the military budget in half) we have a MASSIVE military, and because we're kind of a big deal on earth. we're friends with a lot of people who have really big militaries, we have nuclear weapons and destroying the USA would have a massive negative impact on the global economy

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39821183]People are losing jobs and you're worried about science funding. Good priorities.[/QUOTE] as a person who is going to be working in a scientific field someday that's pretty important to me

I'm genuinely waiting for someone to shout HOOAH at the end of their sentence, the jingoism here is thick enough to cut with a bayonet. The US military is bloated and filled with extraneous material - that needs to be cut off. There's way too much money being poured into the army while the rest of the things that need government funding are being cut to a greater degree. Across-the-board cuts on the military are probably a bad idea because the army does do some good stuff - not least of which is the industries it depends on to get its equipment, many of whom are being forced to turn workers away. The US has become so focused on the army that to cut it so dramatically has a huge knock-on effect on civilian businesses.

Trying to find a negative outcome to these cuts a few days after they happen is like trying to research global warming by comparing this week to last week Interestingly, with the cuts that's likely what future climate research in the united states is going to amount to

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;39825745]I'm genuinely waiting for someone to shout HOOAH at the end of their sentence, the jingoism here is thick enough to cut with a bayonet. The US military is bloated and filled with extraneous material - that needs to be cut off. There's way too much money being poured into the army while the rest of the things that need government funding are being cut to a greater degree. Across-the-board cuts on the military are probably a bad idea because the army does do some good stuff - not least of which is the industries it depends on to get its equipment, many of whom are being forced to turn workers away. The US has become so focused on the army that to cut it so dramatically has a huge knock-on effect on civilian businesses.[/QUOTE] This directly affects civilian DoD jobs too. I wish they'd cut stuff like the F35 program firstly.

There's really only 3 things I personally want to see out of the government: 1. Legalize and tax cannabis 2. End tax breaks for religious institutions 3. Get the hell out of this war

[QUOTE=KingdomBanned;39822935]Our economy is falling in the toilet,[/QUOTE] no

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;39825745]I'm genuinely waiting for someone to shout HOOAH at the end of their sentence, the jingoism here is thick enough to cut with a bayonet. The US military is bloated and filled with extraneous material - that needs to be cut off. There's way too much money being poured into the army while the rest of the things that need government funding are being cut to a greater degree. Across-the-board cuts on the military are probably a bad idea because the army does do some good stuff - not least of which is the industries it depends on to get its equipment, many of whom are being forced to turn workers away. The US has become so focused on the army that to cut it so dramatically has a huge knock-on effect on civilian businesses.[/QUOTE] Nobody in this thread, literally [i]nobody[/i], is saying that the military doesn't need to be cut. What is being objected to is unilateral across-the-board cuts on everything, when there are certain areas that deserve cuts more than others. This kind of indiscriminate cut is a bad thing, what we need are people to go through and trim where it's needed.