NationStates Jolt Archive

Here we are involved in combat in two countries, using reserves and Guard in a manner they were never designed to be used, and he wants to cut the reserves and fighter aircraft?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183086,00.html

Saturday, January 28, 2006
•
Bush Offers Stick to Iraq, Carrots to Americans
WASHINGTON — President Bush will use his new budget to propose cutting the size of the Army Reserve to its lowest level in three decades and stripping up to $4 billion from two fighter aircraft programs. The proposals, likely to face opposition on Capitol Hill, come as the Defense Department struggles to trim personnel costs and other expenses to pay for the war in Iraq and a host of other pricey aircraft and high-tech programs. Bush will send his 2007 budget to Congress on Feb. 6.

The proposed Army Reserve cut is part of a broader plan to achieve a new balance of troop strength and combat power among the active Army, the National Guard and reserves to fight the global war on terrorism and to defend the homeland.

The Army sent a letter to members of Congress on Thursday outlining the plan. A copy was provided to The Associated Press.

Under the plan, the authorized troop strength of the Army Reserve would drop from 205,000 — the current number of slots it is allowed — to 188,000, the actual number of soldiers it had at the end of 2005. Because of recruiting and other problems, the Army Reserve has been unable to fill its ranks to its authorized level.

Army leaders have said they are taking a similar approach to shrinking the National Guard. They are proposing to cut that force from its authorized level of 350,000 soldiers to 333,000, the actual number now on the rolls.

(Story continues below)

ADVERTISEMENTS
Advertise Here

Some in Congress have vowed to fight the National Guard cuts. Its soldiers and resources are controlled by state governors unless Guard units are mobilized by the president for federal duty, as Bush did after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

"I remain convinced that we do not have a large enough force," Rep.Ike Skelton, D-Mo., said in a letter to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Proposals to cut funding in two key jet fighter programs were described by defense analysts and congressional aides, some of whom spoke on condition of anonymity because the reductions have not been announced.

One plan would eliminate funding for an alternative engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, the military's next-generation combat plane.

The second would cut money for F-22 fighters during 2007. But it is actually a contract restructuring that would add that money back — and more — over the long run by stretching out the program for an additional two years and buying up to four more planes. The new plan calls for buying 60 aircraft through 2010, rather than 56 in the next two years.

The Joint Strike Fighter engine is being built by General Electric and England-based Rolls Royce, and the plan to dump them as suppliers has triggered intense lobbying, including a handwritten note from British Prime Minister Tony Blair to Bush.

On the homefront, the close to $2 billion cut would hit General Electric engine plants, and possibly jobs, in Ohio and Massachusetts and a Rolls Royce plant in Indiana.

"This is a big question for GE," said Loren Thompson, military analyst with the Lexington Institute think tank. "They could get shut out of the fighter engine business over the next 10 years."

The proposal would benefit Connecticut-based Pratt & Whitney, which got the original contract for the Lockheed Martin aircraft, and delivered its first engine last month.

GE spokesman Dan Meador said the alternate engine program provides competition for Pratt & Whitney, helping to drive down costs while also providing a back-up if problems arise.

"It's very important to GE and Rolls Royce, and we're performing well," he said.

Defense officials, however, said the Pratt & Whitney engine has performed well and within budget, and noted that a number of other jet fighter programs — including the F-22 — have just one engine maker. Pratt & Whitney also makes the engines for the F-22.

Do me a favor and read the WHOLE article, and understand the complexity of the issue, instead of just saying "Bush wants to cut defense". It's called RESTRUCTURING and if we don't do it occassionally, we spend WAY more money than we should.

Did you even read the part where the restructuring gets us an extra 4 F-22's? Or the part where the money saved from the National Guard could be spent on the Active Duty military, who should be doing the fighting anyways?

I'm as big of a military spender as you'll ever see, and I think it's a good idea. Sounds like Rolls Royce, G.E., and the State Governors just have a bug up their asses because they don't get to keep their budgets. BOO HOO

It's one of two things:

1.) bush wants war, but gets rid of the troops he needs

or

2.) the president keeps a trend: if at first you don't succeed, lower the bar
*cough no child left behind cough*

i like lowering the bar. atta boy, aim low

Nationstates needs to offer reading comprehension courses. :rolleyes:

Nationstates needs to offer reading comprehension courses. :rolleyes:

was that about me?
i might need it :p

not about the lowering the bar part, though. that's common practice.
now we're "on target" for troops. we were short. problem solved! /sarcasm

You're compressing horses?!? :confused:

You're compressing horses?!? :confused:
Where do you think these come from?

http://www.gmpl.co.nz/custom/uploads/images/Vet%20with%20miniature%20pony%20-%20101610_W.jpg

Nationstates needs to offer reading comprehension courses. :rolleyes:
Commie pinko. With yer fancy book-learnin' and all...

Commie pinko. With yer fancy book-learnin' and all...
I read 3 just last night! :D



What? Playboy has articles damnit!

was that about me?
i might need it :p

not about the lowering the bar part, though. that's common practice.
now we're "on target" for troops. we were short. problem solved! /sarcasm
It's called investing the money where it will do the most good. If we only have a certain number of National Guard, we shouldn't fund it for 50,000 extra. We should take that money and put it where it will do more good.

Besides, I thought everyone would be happy we're refocusing our fighting strength towards the Active Duty units, instead of Nat Gaurd, who shouldn't be doing anything outside our borders.

Do me a favor and read the WHOLE article, and understand the complexity of the issue, instead of just saying "Bush wants to cut defense". It's called RESTRUCTURING and if we don't do it occassionally, we spend WAY more money than we should.

Did you even read the part where the restructuring gets us an extra 4 F-22's? Or the part where the money saved from the National Guard could be spent on the Active Duty military, who should be doing the fighting anyways?

I'm as big of a military spender as you'll ever see, and I think it's a good idea. Sounds like Rolls Royce, G.E., and the State Governors just have a bug up their asses because they don't get to keep their budgets. BOO HOO

I did read the whole article. It said nothing about increasing active force strength to compensate for reductions in the reserves and Guard. The result will be fewer troops available. :( Now, if the proposal called for increasing the active forces to make up for the cuts in the reserves, that would be a different story. The military is streached to thin as it is.

Where do you think these come from?

http://www.gmpl.co.nz/custom/uploads/images/Vet%20with%20miniature%20pony%20-%20101610_W.jpg

Yay Shetland Ponies! :)

Where do you think these come from?
*sniptastic*
Er . . . . Graham Meadows?

I did read the whole article. It said nothing about increasing active force strength to compensate for reductions in the reserves and Guard. The result will be fewer troops available. :( Now, if the proposal called for increasing the active forces to make up for the cuts in the reserves, that would be a different story. The military is streached to thin as it is.


The proposed Army Reserve cut is part of a broader plan to achieve a new balance of troop strength and combat power among the active Army, the National Guard and reserves to fight the global war on terrorism and to defend the homeland

So what does this say to you?

It's called investing the money where it will do the most good. If we only have a certain number of National Guard, we shouldn't fund it for 50,000 extra. We should take that money and put it where it will do more good.

Besides, I thought everyone would be happy we're refocusing our fighting strength towards the Active Duty units, instead of Nat Gaurd, who shouldn't be doing anything outside our borders.

I agree with what you are saying but there is no increase in active forces to make up for the cuts in reserves and Guard.

Isn't there a bridge in Alaska no one will use that needs to be built with these cuts?

Isn't there a bridge in Alaska no one will use that needs to be built with these cuts?

Don't forget the Transportation Museum in PA. :(

Originally Posted by article
The proposed Army Reserve cut is part of a broader plan to achieve a new balance of troop strength and combat power among the active Army, the National Guard and reserves to fight the global war on terrorism and to defend the homeland

So what does this say to you?

I know you weren't asking me, but I'm gonna answer anyway. It could mean almost anything. It says it's going to "balance troop strength and combat power". That isn't a very specific statement. It could mean that they're only going to cut National Guard and Reserve strength and then consider it "balanced". Who knows?

I know you weren't asking me, but I'm gonna answer anyway. It could mean almost anything. It says it's going to "balance troop strength and combat power". That isn't a very specific statement. It could mean that they're only going to cut National Guard and Reserve strength and then consider it "balanced". Who knows?

It also could mean, "We are going to have longer and more frequent deployments for the active forces because we don't have enough of them and we cut the reserves and Guard." :(

It also could mean, "We are going to have longer and more frequent deployments for the active forces because we don't have enough of them and we cut the reserves and Guard." :(

Or to be more precise: "We are going to have longer and more frequent deployments for the active forces because we don't have enough of them and we cut the reserves and Guard but we'll call it a restructuring rather than a cutback to stop people from complaining."

It's one of two things:

1.) bush wants war, but gets rid of the troops he needs

or

2.) the president keeps a trend: if at first you don't succeed, lower the bar
*cough no child left behind cough*

i like lowering the bar. atta boy, aim low
You need to move to Massachusetts. That's how they think there, apparently. :rolleyes:

Or to be more precise: "We are going to have longer and more frequent deployments for the active forces because we don't have enough of them and we cut the reserves and Guard but we'll call it a restructuring rather than a cutback to stop people from complaining."
OR it could actually mean: "We are going to cut National Guard and Reserve troop strength because having to constantly utilize them overseas not only leaves us short for things like Katrina, it is very disruptive to the lives of individual guardsmen and reservists as well as to those organizations where they work ( including emergency services ), and it's ineffective from a readiness and trainng standpoint." YA THINK??? :p

Another hint that the guy who posted this didn't read the whole thing is the "ADVERTISE HERE" that was left in the middle of the article.

I think Fox news is terrible and would sooner live in a corcidiles mouth than have them as my main source of news.

Another hint that the guy who posted this didn't read the whole thing is the "ADVERTISE HERE" that was left in the middle of the article.

I think Fox news is terrible and would sooner live in a corcidiles mouth than have them as my main source of news.
Translation: "Fox news doesn't pitch the news the way I like. They're terrible people, and I refuse to watch news that doesn't match my preconcieved notions of the world."

OR it could actually mean: "We are going to cut National Guard and Reserve troop strength because having to constantly utilize them overseas not only leaves us short for things like Katrina, it is very disruptive to the lives of individual guardsmen and reservists as well as to those organizations where they work ( including emergency services ), and it's ineffective from a readiness and trainng standpoint." YA THINK??? :p
So you think that they're cutting nationalgaurd/reserves in order to be better prepared to meet internal disasters? Whilst the regular army is on a perma tour of duty in the middle east?

Translation: "Fox news doesn't pitch the news the way I like. They're terrible people, and I refuse to watch news that doesn't match my preconcieved notions of the world."

No. It would be better translated: Fox news doesn't pitch news from anything but a diehard conservative standpoint. Fox news is a lapdog of the republican party. Fox news barley even has the pretense of objectivity, or journalistic integrity. I refuse to watch news that is incredibly biased. In short, I do not use Fox news as my main way of informing myself about the world because it is not fair or balanced; much in the same way that I would never use most of the "alternative news casts".

The proposed Army Reserve cut is part of a broader plan to achieve a new balance of troop strength and combat power among the active Army, the National Guard and reserves to fight the global war on terrorism and to defend the homeland

So what does this say to you?

Usually what this means when Bush says it is, "I've cut funding and I'm full of it."

Like when Tiffany Whatshername at Kansas State asked him "recently the government cut 12.6 billion dollars from education. How does that help our future?" His response was, "Education was cut? What was cut? I couldn't hear. I don't think it was cut, I think it was part of a restructuring plan..."

When Bush says "restructuring" he means, "it has a structure that works, I'm going to make it into a structure that doesn't." "New Balance," means off kilter.

Dammit. I know that someone already wrote the Conservative Dictionary, but more and more it seems that I need to compile one myself.

Translation: "Fox news doesn't pitch the news the way I like. They're terrible people, and I refuse to watch news that doesn't match my preconcieved notions of the world."
Translated: "I like FOX news and if you don't like it, too bad you liberal, commie scum."

No. It would be better translated: Fox news doesn't pitch news from anything but a diehard conservative standpoint. Fox news is a lapdog of the republican party. Fox news barley even has the pretense of objectivity, or journalistic integrity. I refuse to watch news that is incredibly biased. In short, I do not use Fox news as my main way of informing myself about the world because it is not fair or balanced; much in the same way that I would never use most of the "alternative news casts".

It would be nice if "bias" accuratly described what's wrong with FOX news. Most of the news on television is conservativly biased. It won't outright lie, except in the case of the "Dean Scream," but it will give equal weight to grossly inadequatly defended corporate positions on issues. Or acting as though roughly as many people oppose abortion rights as support them.

Fox on the other hand will make up facts. They will take true facts and lie about them e.g. they said that Bush never claimed that he would fire anyone who leaked Valerie Plame's information. The presented a clip saying that anyone who "Commited a crime would be dealt with." True, he did say that. However, FOX said that he never said that anyone would be fired, however he did. It would be like me saying I never eat at Taco Bell and then offering a reciept for Wendy's as proof that I don't eat at Taco Bell, when all it proves is that I got a reciept for Wendy's.

MSNBC has a conservative bias. CNN has a conservative bias. FOX has conservative lies. And is, ironicly, liberal with them.

Translation: "Fox news doesn't pitch the news the way I like. They're terrible people, and I refuse to watch news that doesn't match my preconcieved notions of the world."

This is what psychologists call projection.

Bush stole the 2000 election, and while he was planning to steal the 2004 election said that he was afraid that Democrats were planning to steal the election.

The news has a conservative bias, so conservatives whine that it has a liberal bias.

Conservatives hate civil rights, freedom, America, puppies, and apple pie. So they complain about the ACLU, liberals, PETA, and environmentalists (who want to protect the Earth from which apples come).

Conservatives only like to hear "news" that tells them the lies they like to hear, so they complain about liberals who tell them that FOX news lies.

Conservatives are in control of every major industry, and the government. But they call liberals elitist.

This is what psychologists call projection.

Bush stole the 2000 election, and while he was planning to steal the 2004 election said that he was afraid that Democrats were planning to steal the election.

The news has a conservative bias, so conservatives whine that it has a liberal bias.

Conservatives hate civil rights, freedom, America, puppies, and apple pie. So they complain about the ACLU, liberals, PETA, and environmentalists (who want to protect the Earth from which apples come).

Conservatives only like to hear "news" that tells them the lies they like to hear, so they complain about liberals who tell them that FOX news lies.
In short, if conservatives are complaining that liberals are doing something, you can bet money that they're probably doing it themselves.

This is what psychologists call projection.

Bush stole the 2000 election, and while he was planning to steal the 2004 election said that he was afraid that Democrats were planning to steal the election.

The news has a conservative bias, so conservatives whine that it has a liberal bias.

Conservatives hate civil rights, freedom, America, puppies, and apple pie. So they complain about the ACLU, liberals, PETA, and environmentalists (who want to protect the Earth from which apples come).

Conservatives only like to hear "news" that tells them the lies they like to hear, so they complain about liberals who tell them that FOX news lies.


lol, i can't tell if you're for for conservatives, against them, or just a fan of humour :D

I refuse to watch news that is incredibly biased.
then you shouldn't watch any news... ALL news is biased, and they're all out to make a buck. yes, fox news is much more conservative than most of the other news networks (e.g. ABC, NBC, CBS). but please don't be blind to the fact that every station has a slant, one way or the other...

Another hint that the guy who posted this didn't read the whole thing is the "ADVERTISE HERE" that was left in the middle of the article.

I think Fox news is terrible and would sooner live in a corcidiles mouth than have them as my main source of news.

Obviously you didn't read the article. It was an AP article that was picked up by FOX, not a FOX article. Sorry, I didn't edit out the add spacer but if I had you would have found something else to carp about. :eek:

No. It would be better translated: Fox news doesn't pitch news from anything but a diehard conservative standpoint. Fox news is a lapdog of the republican party. Fox news barley even has the pretense of objectivity, or journalistic integrity. I refuse to watch news that is incredibly biased. In short, I do not use Fox news as my main way of informing myself about the world because it is not fair or balanced; much in the same way that I would never use most of the "alternative news casts".

click...http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183086,00.html It isn't even a FOX new article. It is not from an "alternative news cast." It is from...Oh my God...:eek:

then you shouldn't watch any news... ALL news is biased, and they're all out to make a buck. yes, fox news is much more conservative than most of the other news networks (e.g. ABC, NBC, CBS). but please don't be blind to the fact that every station has a slant, one way or the other...

Very well said, and welcome to NS General Forum.

lol, i can't tell if you're for for conservatives, against them, or just a fan of humour :D

Well, I may be overstating the case a bit. I'm fairly ambivalent on real conservatives. Much like I'm ambivalent on the tyranosaurus. They're callous, but they're practical, but it doesn't matter, because they're extinct.

Conservatives are supposed to favor reduced government spending so that the government doesn't have to impose big taxes, and won't go into debt. They're also supposed to support civil liberties.

Conservatives these days use "civil liberties" as an excuse to let giant corporations shit all over the country with privatized prisons and walmart type conglomerates. As well as a handful of media giants controling the national mythology. They reveal their hypocrisy with things like demanding user information from all the search engines, spying on American citizens without warrants, and only allowing people who already agree with the president to attend his speaking events.

They use reduced spending as an excuse to cut social spending, but they spend huge amounts of money on corporate subsidies. Just take a look at the "energy bill," that they passed last year. What they really oppose is poor people having the opportunity to increase their standard of living, because big business wants cheap labor, and if the poor can go to college and become professionals then there will be fewer people willing to work for minimum wage. I don't know if you heard about the college student who asked Bush about the 12.6 billion dollar cut in government education funding, but that's what it's about. Despite Bush's made up bullshit about the "restructuring."