[ClearCase_guy]

For all President Obama's talk of a cheaper, "leaner" military, that's clearly not the area in need of a trimming.

1) Just about anyone who looks at military acquisition know that acquisition is broken. Things cost too much, take too long, and often don't do what they were supposed to do.
2) Fixing acqusitions would be good.
3) Spending less on the military is a desirable and achievable goal.

BUT

4) Politicians are likely cut right down to the bone on military spending. They will weaken the country and they will still not achieve truly signifiant savings.
5) Real budget cuts are absolutely required. And this will involve deep cuts on the entitlement side.
6) Politicians will not cut entitlements in a meaningful way.

[TurboZamboni]

I think this leaves out the cost of ALL the disability claims being made, and they are SIGNIFICANT:

“Of new U.S. veterans, almost half seek disability aid”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2888585/posts

[DB]

It’s real simple. For every year Obama has been in office, one could COMPLETELY ELIMINATE ALL MILITARY SPENDING and each year the federal budget would still be in the RED as in deficit spending...

Lefties lie over and over that if we only cut the military all our social programs would be fine. The hungry would be fed, etc. That is flat out not true.

Entitlements and government employees are consuming everything. They are like locust and they refuse to move on until the country is barren.

[kabar]

With 10,000 people a day retiring for the next 20 years, the entitlement costs will increase. By 2030 one in five residents in this country will be 65 or older or about twice what it is now. In 1950 there were 16 workers for every retiree; today there are 3.3 and by 2030 there will be just two. Our total tax revenue barely covers the entitlement programs, other mandatories and debt servicing costs. 64% of the budget is on automatic pilot and in 10 years that number will be 75%.