Army Slides Show Cuts to Readiness, Support, Reset

[Forever_frost]

RD,
Are you saying the constitution authorizes more spending than those enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 and the IRS amendment?

[Ruffdaddy]

I'm asking you to detail why you believe, constitutionally, that all other non defense spending must me entirely eliminated before any defense spending is cut.

Detail it out. Maybe it will force you to teach yourself how ludacris that idea even is.

[Forever_frost]

I believe I did. Because it is not an enumerated power of the federal government and thus, has no right or obligation to exist. Before you can cut something that is mandated to exist you must first remove everything that isn't.

If you're driving at night and your alternator goes out, do you turn off your radio, CD player, unplug your cell phone and turn off the dome light before or after you turn off your headlights?

[Ruffdaddy]

Dude you make absolutely no sense. Your analogy is piss poor.

An analogy that lines up with your way of thinking is more along the lines of saying you must remove your appendix before you can fix a heart problem.

By your logic, defense can spend as stupidly as possible, which they do, until all other expenses are cut. Do you even the shit you write?

[Forever_frost]

Not really. You have only so much power in the battery. You need the lights to perform the main function of the vehicle which is to get you home. Everything else is discretionary and secondary. You're saying you cut the headlights off and run the hazards while leaving all the interior lights on. I'm saying you shut everything off before you touch the headlights.

I'm saying the constitution requires defense. There are things that can be cut, but they account for 25% of the total budget. This is cutting 50% of the cuts from a required expense. Since these cuts are being made because of budget shortfalls, you're looking at a small piece of the pie being forced to maintain a war footing, defend our assets in other countries and maintain a readiness to fight at a significantly reduced asset level.

I make perfect sense. How about we cut foreign aid, call back the weapons sent to Egypt, cut all funding of the IMF and UN, then start getting rid of redundant federal agencies first? You've also provided nothing showing me I'm wrong. I point to the Constitution. What do you have?

[Ruffdaddy]

Not really. You have only so much power in the battery. You need the lights to perform the main function of the vehicle which is to get you home. Everything else is discretionary and secondary. You're saying you cut the headlights off and run the hazards while leaving all the interior lights on. I'm saying you shut everything off before you touch the headlights.

I'm saying the constitution requires defense. There are things that can be cut, but they account for 25% of the total budget. This is cutting 50% of the cuts from a required expense. Since these cuts are being made because of budget shortfalls, you're looking at a small piece of the pie being forced to maintain a war footing, defend our assets in other countries and maintain a readiness to fight at a significantly reduced asset level.

I make perfect sense. How about we cut foreign aid, call back the weapons sent to Egypt, cut all funding of the IMF and UN, then start getting rid of redundant federal agencies first? You've also provided nothing showing me I'm wrong. I point to the Constitution. What do you have?

You only make sense to yourself or someone equally illogical.

I already said the biggest issue with sequestration is that the defense should only be affected by about 25%. Stop repeating myself back to me as if you're telling me something.

Your analogy does not make sense because it doesn't deal with the fact that you're saying to address everything, regardless of how well it is functioning, before you fix the defense problems. We do not need to spend as much as we do. Why would we keep spending this way on it?

You address the issues that are most problematic and impactful to budget first. Your interpretation of the constitution with that regard is wildly extrapolated to attend to your agenda.

[Forever_frost]

Because we are currently fighting multiple wars and R&D takes time and money.

Interpretation? What interpretation? I'm telling you exactly what it says. There is no interpretation. Congress holds 18 enumerated powers and beyond that, the 10th amendment states that they hold no further authorities. Anything not covered in those powers belongs to the state and thus should not be federally funded.

[4eyedwillie]

It says that the army should be paid for but it doesn't say how big the army should be. Since you are such a strict constitutionalists I guess you really think they should just have muskets? Per the constitution as long as one squad is being paid for that's enough. Defense is technically supposed to be accomplished by the militia that is trained by the army.

[4eyedwillie]

Because we are currently fighting multiple wars and R&D takes time and money.

Interpretation? What interpretation? I'm telling you exactly what it says. There is no interpretation. Congress holds 18 enumerated powers and beyond that, the 10th amendment states that they hold no further authorities. Anything not covered in those powers belongs to the state and thus should not be federally funded.

One of those is the power to make laws. Which you don't accept.

[Forever_frost]

It says that the army should be paid for but it doesn't say how big the army should be. Since you are such a strict constitutionalists I guess you really think they should just have muskets? Per the constitution as long as one squad is being paid for that's enough. Defense is technically supposed to be accomplished by the militia that is trained by the army.

Not true. Armies and Navy. That means enough soldiers and sailors to defend the country. If you can do that with a squad, then by all means. I'd like to meet this squad. Strict constitutionalist. The founders said we are to have all the weapons of war which at the time was musket, rifle and cannon. If you would like to discuss the founders, I am fully prepared as long as you are.

Show me where the militia is to be trained by the Army. The Founders feared a standing army and the militia was to be every able bodied man not in active duty service. You don't even have an argument which is amusing that you think you're qualified to pop up in this conversation but I'll humor you. Provide proof of your statements.

I fully support the power to make law. As long as it's law based on a constitutional authority granted to the federal government