May 14, 2005
The Complaining Begins
The Pentagon has submitted its list for base closures and realignemnts. Already, the complaining begins. A host of articles and editorials have already appeared around our country, explaining why THIS base or That one should remain open -- often with very little basis in military necessity.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
Take this piece, for example, about the impending demise of Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
The proposed closure was a blow to some of Walter Reed's workers and neighbors. "It's mind-boggling," said Navy veteran Harold Thompson, 25, who lives across the street from the hospital, where he visits his doctor. "It will be a real issue for me and other people in the neighborhood if Walter Reed shuts down."
Yes, Mr. Thompson, it would be an issue if you have to go all the way out to Bethesda to the hospital there. But it would be an issue of convenience, not one of national security or dire need. It would mean that you might have to spend a little more time, getting to and from your appointments. That is not, sir, a national security issue.
Ultimately, the whole concept of realignement is about budgets, military efficiency and national security, not jobs or the local economy. Let's remember that as the process moves forward.
Posted by: Greg at
12:03 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 1 kb.
1
YOu guys make me laugh.
When Clinton went ahead with the base closings, Republicans whined a lot.
NOw this?
LOL. This is funny -- Republicans has the way of changing their minds to play around.
They indeed have an agenda of their own.
R-
When Clinton went ahead with the base closings, Republicans whined a lot.
NOw this?
LOL. This is funny -- Republicans has the way of changing their minds to play around.
They indeed have an agenda of their own.
R-
Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Sat May 14 12:43:11 2005 (nWmj6)
2
Senators from both parties will object if their bases are targeted in their state.
Base closings has been around since the 1960s starting with JFK. And this is the 5th successive bipartisian BRAC where the bottom line is better use of money and efficiency. We had JFK, Carter, Reagan, Bush1, Clinton, and Bush2 on base closures. The BRAC business began in 1988.
"Congress has enacted two laws since 1988 that provide for the closure, in part or in whole, and the realignment of facilities. Since 1988, there have been four successive bipartisan Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commissions (BRAC) that recommended the closure of 125 major military facilities and 225 minor military bases and installations, and the realignment in operations and functions of 145 others. By another accounting, the four BRAC rounds achieved 97 base closings and 55 major realignments. This resulted in net savings to taxpayers of over $16 billion through 2001, and over $6 billion in additional savings annually.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/brac.htm
Might want to a read a little history first before eating some sole'.
Base closings has been around since the 1960s starting with JFK. And this is the 5th successive bipartisian BRAC where the bottom line is better use of money and efficiency. We had JFK, Carter, Reagan, Bush1, Clinton, and Bush2 on base closures. The BRAC business began in 1988.
"Congress has enacted two laws since 1988 that provide for the closure, in part or in whole, and the realignment of facilities. Since 1988, there have been four successive bipartisan Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commissions (BRAC) that recommended the closure of 125 major military facilities and 225 minor military bases and installations, and the realignment in operations and functions of 145 others. By another accounting, the four BRAC rounds achieved 97 base closings and 55 major realignments. This resulted in net savings to taxpayers of over $16 billion through 2001, and over $6 billion in additional savings annually.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/brac.htm
Might want to a read a little history first before eating some sole'.
Posted by: mcconnell at Sat May 14 15:09:46 2005 (LmcbS)
3
Sole? Grow up, prick.
The point remains the same. We are spreading too thin. Cutting the taxes, increasing the deficit, costs soaring, losing more people in useless battlefields, lack of recruits -- we are heading towards the nation of "f***ed one".
Cheers,
R-
The point remains the same. We are spreading too thin. Cutting the taxes, increasing the deficit, costs soaring, losing more people in useless battlefields, lack of recruits -- we are heading towards the nation of "f***ed one".
Cheers,
R-
Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Sun May 15 09:13:18 2005 (nWmj6)
4
Language.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun May 15 10:18:21 2005 (2rr6t)
5
Thin? Exactly. That's why we have these BRACs in order to streamline and make efficient use of our tax-dollars, soldiers, equipment and bases.
As for the deficit, it only account for about less than 4% of the GDP - a percentage of the nation's economy. It's the equivalent of a person who makes $100,000/yr and has a yearly debt of $4000 and pays off the debt in monthly installments.
Deficit for year:
Reagan 1983 $208 billion deficit 6% GDP
Bush 1992 $290 billion deficit 4.7% GDP
Clinton 1993 $255 billion deficit 3.9% GDP
Bush 2003 $374 billion deficit 3.5% GDP
Bush 2004, $322 billion deficit 3.6% GDP
Cutting taxes seemed to have done some good for 2004 by helping the economy with those tax breaks.
Every year the U.S. makes more goods and services, therby keeping the yearly GDP percentages low.
And in times of war, recruitment always go down. However, re-enlistment goes up. The recruitment problem is also because of an improving economy where more people are getting better wage jobs than in the Armed Forces. But before you whine about recruitment problems, you need to break it down, buddy.
For one, the Navy, Air Force and Marines have exceeded their recruitment goals FOR THIS YEAR! Secondly, it is the Army and its reserve components that are experiencing recruitment problems where they also do not have the elite status of the Marines. The Army needs 80,000 new troops to meet its active-duty requirements for the year, while the Marine Corps needs only 38,000. The Few. The Proud. The Marine. Ho hah! Semper Fi!
Hey, maybe someday we can be like France and Germany, since you love those European countries (doncha?) and start our own mandatory draft? I don't see you whinning about that regarding Europe's mandatory service.
Next time, R, look in the mirror if you feel like calling people names. You are what you say and do.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Ridor/mcweenie.jpg
As for the deficit, it only account for about less than 4% of the GDP - a percentage of the nation's economy. It's the equivalent of a person who makes $100,000/yr and has a yearly debt of $4000 and pays off the debt in monthly installments.
Deficit for year:
Reagan 1983 $208 billion deficit 6% GDP
Bush 1992 $290 billion deficit 4.7% GDP
Clinton 1993 $255 billion deficit 3.9% GDP
Bush 2003 $374 billion deficit 3.5% GDP
Bush 2004, $322 billion deficit 3.6% GDP
Cutting taxes seemed to have done some good for 2004 by helping the economy with those tax breaks.
Every year the U.S. makes more goods and services, therby keeping the yearly GDP percentages low.
And in times of war, recruitment always go down. However, re-enlistment goes up. The recruitment problem is also because of an improving economy where more people are getting better wage jobs than in the Armed Forces. But before you whine about recruitment problems, you need to break it down, buddy.
For one, the Navy, Air Force and Marines have exceeded their recruitment goals FOR THIS YEAR! Secondly, it is the Army and its reserve components that are experiencing recruitment problems where they also do not have the elite status of the Marines. The Army needs 80,000 new troops to meet its active-duty requirements for the year, while the Marine Corps needs only 38,000. The Few. The Proud. The Marine. Ho hah! Semper Fi!
Hey, maybe someday we can be like France and Germany, since you love those European countries (doncha?) and start our own mandatory draft? I don't see you whinning about that regarding Europe's mandatory service.
Next time, R, look in the mirror if you feel like calling people names. You are what you say and do.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Ridor/mcweenie.jpg
Posted by: mcconnell at Sun May 15 15:49:52 2005 (LmcbS)
Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Sun May 15 18:17:58 2005 (nWmj6)
7
If you're talking about a nation heading toward a "f" one...you're right, because of the liberals and MSM who refuse to get their story right.
I've covered the basic points with facts and figures. You haven't, which is typical. That's the difference here.
I've covered the basic points with facts and figures. You haven't, which is typical. That's the difference here.
Posted by: mcconnell at Mon May 16 03:20:14 2005 (xtCLe)
8
OK the BRAC hits close to home, here in Pensacola FL.
Seems that the DFAS, Defense Finance and Accounting Services here in Pensacola is being shut down.
Why? No one has any real clue.
1600 Jobs lost..
DFAS Pensacola has a PROVEN track record of MAKING money for DFAS, so why close it?
I was in the Army, and understand the need to do BRACs, but to shut down a money making group to move them somewhere that is losing money, just doesn't seem fically fit.
Then again I do use common sense, something Politicians, and some Generals/Admirals check at the door when they get their new job...
Seems that the DFAS, Defense Finance and Accounting Services here in Pensacola is being shut down.
Why? No one has any real clue.
1600 Jobs lost..
DFAS Pensacola has a PROVEN track record of MAKING money for DFAS, so why close it?
I was in the Army, and understand the need to do BRACs, but to shut down a money making group to move them somewhere that is losing money, just doesn't seem fically fit.
Then again I do use common sense, something Politicians, and some Generals/Admirals check at the door when they get their new job...
Posted by: Scubachris at Mon May 16 05:15:10 2005 (AktpP)
11kb generated in CPU 0.1474, elapsed 4.2793 seconds.
21 queries taking 4.2749 seconds, 37 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
21 queries taking 4.2749 seconds, 37 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.