February 24th, 2014
01:34 PM ET

Get real, Hagel tells nation in proposing military cuts

By Tom Cohen

Get real, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told America on Monday in proposing a scaled back, modern military that would cut the Army to its pre-World War II size, retire the A-10 "Warthog" attack jet and reduce some benefits for fighting forces.

"This is a budget that recognizes the reality of the magnitude of our fiscal challenges, the dangerous world we live in, and the American military's unique and indispensable role in the security of this country and in today's volatile world," Hagel said in unveiling the Defense Department spending plan for 2015 and beyond.

"There are difficult decisions ahead," he added. "That is the reality we're living with."

Downsizing due to modernization and budget constraints began under Hagel's predecessor, Robert Gates, and the proposal outlined on Monday described a new phase in the transition.

"Not a war-footing budget"

"For the first time in 13 years we will be presenting a budget to the Congress of the United States that's not a war-footing budget," Hagel said in response to reporters' questions. "That's a defining budget because it starts to reset and reshape."

Under it, the former senator from Nebraska said the military would become a smaller, more tactical force capable of fighting on one war front and maintaining effective defenses for a second while shifting to more specialized capabilities.

"Our analysis showed that this force would be capable of decisively defeating aggression in one major combat theater - as it must be - while also defending the homeland and supporting air and naval forces engaged in another theater against an adversary," he said.

The proposal endorsed Monday by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, who appeared with Hagel at the Pentagon news conference, is certain to face strong opposition in Congress - especially with midterm elections coming up in November.

Hagel's budget will be formally proposed next week and legislators from states or districts with major military bases or a heavy presence of contractors are expected to rail against it.

In recent years, Republican hawks have battled military force reductions under President Barack Obama's attempts to reduce defense spending as part of overall deficit reduction.

Conservative Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a possible GOP presidential contender in 2016, questioned the planned cuts in forces at a time of varying threats and a U.S. shift in emphasis to the Asia-Pacific region, saying it "does not make strategic sense."

"It's going to be a far slimmer military," noted CNN Military Analyst and retired Maj. Gen. James "Spider" Marks, predicting a rough reception in Washington. "This is the toughest part - the political part."

Retired NATO commander: It's necessary

Retired Army Gen. George Joulwan, a former NATO supreme allied commander in Europe, said he thought the changes were necessary.

"Whether it's smart or not is yet to be seen. But I think it's necessary to do, given the constraints that we face fiscally within the United States," he told CNN.

For now, the Pentagon budget for the rest of this fiscal year and for 2015 is about $500 billion for each, as set by a congressional compromise in December.

Hagel acknowledged the changes he proposed mean assuming more risk, but said the military would be better situated to respond to the evolving security challenges facing the country.

The recommendations in the budget plan for 2015 and ensuing years "favor a smaller and more capable force - putting a premium on rapidly deployable, self-sustaining platforms that can defeat more technologically advanced adversaries," Hagel said.

He added that the proposal includes "important investments to preserve a safe, secure, reliable, and effective nuclear force."

All military forces, both active and reserve, would be cut under the budget plan.

It calls for reducing the Army to a level of 440,000 to 450,000 troops, which would be the lowest total in more than 70 years. At its height, the Army had 570,000 troops after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and currently has about 520,000.

According to Hagel, the budget proposal protects funding for cyberwarfare and special operations, and preserves money for the controversial and costly F-35 fighter jet.

Warthogs retired?

His plan would retire the A-10, which Hagel called a 40-year-old, single-purpose aircraft designed for Cold War operations, at a cost savings of $3.5 billion over five years.

Separately, Hagel said 900 additional Marines would be assigned to bolster security at embassies around the world under his proposal.

Diplomatic security has received close scrutiny since a terror attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012 killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

Also, Hagel said the plan envisions increasing special operations forces from 66,000 today to 69,700 in the future to better meet tactical needs of a modern military requiring counterterrorism and crisis response.

Other provisions would reduce some benefits for military personnel, resulting in them having to shoulder more of their housing and medical costs. Reducing the federal subsidy to commissaries would mean smaller discounts for groceries on U.S. bases.

Through his remarks, Hagel warned that if Congress fails to eliminate planned across-the-board spending cuts beyond 2016, the military reductions would be on a greater scale and significant enough to compromise U.S. national security.

Some of those forced cuts, known as sequestration, were eased for this year and next under the budget deal worked out by Congress in December.

CNN's Halimah Abdullah and CNNMoney's Jennifer Liberto contributed to this report.

Post by:
Filed under: Hagel • Military
soundoff (1,807 Responses)
  1. rol

    keep the troops – fire all the union civilian contractors in base housing, food services, civilian police, etc that are paid much higher than a solider. let the troops go back to doing those jobs on the base

    February 24, 2014 at 6:41 pm | Reply
  2. grampsny

    I WAS DRAFTED UNDER TRUMAN. I WAS DISCHARGED UNDER IKE. IN IKE'S FAREWELL SPEECH HE WARNED US:
    BEWARE THE MILITARY/INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.
    HE WAS RIGHT ON POINT!

    February 24, 2014 at 6:41 pm | Reply
  3. Self Reliant

    Obama's administration is cutting military and growing his personal DHS army. That should scare anyone that knows anything about history.

    February 24, 2014 at 6:33 pm | Reply
    • EighteenCharacters

      I'm a historian, and it doesn't scare me at all, mainly because your statement is factually incorrect. It makes no sense to continue funding our military at Cold War-levels, especially considering the effect doing so had on our enemy at the time, the Soviet Union.

      Our modern military engagements are small ones. Long gone are the days of battalions marching on multi-faceted battlefields. We have moved from this antiquated form of conflict to much smaller and more isolated operations, requiring more specialized equipment and more specialized troops to do the job.

      Our military budget is severely bloated, and needs to be greatly downsized. But the proposed budget reductions do little to that end. One trillion dollars per year is still many times more than most nations spend on their military budgets combined.

      Since you're such a fan of history, I'm sure you remember the warning that Eisenhower gave as he left office:

      "Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

      I encourage you to be more alert and knowledgable, and less influenced by fear and fallacies.

      February 24, 2014 at 6:58 pm | Reply
      • Guest2

        As a veteran of 5 deployments and a student of defense policy, there is an expression that I have kept in mind for years: while we decline, others build. Although we all discuss the trend in its immediate effect, we are not looking at it from the long term effect. That in itself will prove the downfall.

        February 24, 2014 at 11:32 pm |
  4. goblackhawks

    Actually there has been more death in the Middle East since Obama took over. If CNN was a news org and not a propaganda network .. maybe some of this would be reported. All you DEMS who keep blaming Bush for all the problem suffer from BDS .. Remember Clinton cut the military and that is why 9/11 happened and the military was weakened because of CLinton .. President Bush had to use the military we had at the time to invade Iraq .. and yes the begining of the war didn't go well .. But guess what Saddam is gone .. and at least until Bush left things were improved in Iraq ... I know facts don't matter at CNN

    February 24, 2014 at 6:30 pm | Reply
    • ptmom02

      9/11 and Iraq had zero to do with each other. If we had invaded Afghanistan to get Al Qaeda immediately after 9/11, you might have a point.

      February 24, 2014 at 6:34 pm | Reply
    • JWoody907

      Facts just aren't your strong suit are they?

      1: Clinton-era military was in no way responsible for 9/11. This is because the military is not responsible for foreign intelligence collection.

      2: Bush rapidly expanded the military shortly after 9/11 and before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
      In 2006-2007 the military was further expanded due to the need for troops to combat sectarian violence in Iraq.

      3: we had no legal grounds for invading Iraq in the first place, so any argument that "well we fixed 'x'" in Iraq is immediately invalidated because we should never have been there.

      4: Arab on Arab deaths have risen due to Arab Spring movements. US on Arab deaths have decreased sharply.

      February 24, 2014 at 6:36 pm | Reply
    • Doug J

      We'll never move forward while Republicans refuse to embrace reality.

      February 24, 2014 at 6:38 pm | Reply
    • DEANPATRICK

      Wow! It is almost impossible to be so wrong. Odds are you could stumble on a fact but you missed entirely.

      February 24, 2014 at 6:42 pm | Reply
    • Ryan

      Wow. You don't have the first clue about the world. "More people have died in the Middle East under Obama." What the hell does that even mean? Obama is responsible for the people of Egypt, Syria, etc deciding to stand up to governments they believed were corrupt, trying to replace dictators with democracy. Is Obama also responsible for the deaths in Ukraine and Venezuala? Clinton weakened the military? Is that why it took all of a month to bomb Iraq into the stone age and take over the country? Iraq was great before Bush left office? On what planet do you live? Leaving Iraq was the correct decision, since we never should have been there to begin with. Yeah, Saddam is dead, it only cost a few thousand American lives, a hundred thousand or so Iraqi lives and a few hundred Billion dollars. What a bargain for the life of one man.

      February 24, 2014 at 6:48 pm | Reply
    • Lamont

      goblackhawks: You ought to just respond like this in a Fox News blog, because no sensible and critical-thinking person will buy the logic that you are pitching.

      February 24, 2014 at 6:50 pm | Reply
  5. Max

    hopefully, the politicians will do the right thing rather than the popular thing. i know that's asking a lot...

    February 24, 2014 at 6:29 pm | Reply
    • bryguy

      If only they would. It's too bad the nature of our political system leads them to make decisions with little concern for the future of the country.

      February 24, 2014 at 6:53 pm | Reply
  6. Kathy, AZ

    ---–Well, the GOP wanted "less government" so wouldn't think they'd be whining about reducing the military. Last time I looked, the military IS a big part of the government's budget. Ya can't have it both ways. -----

    February 24, 2014 at 6:26 pm | Reply
  7. jo

    "our analysis showed"…..is this analysis from the same organization that produced poor results in the personnel system, ethics, senior officer accountability, and campaign planning in iraq and afghanistan?

    February 24, 2014 at 6:20 pm | Reply
  8. Adam Smith

    Conservatives got what they wished for – smaller ferderal government, weaker federal government.

    February 24, 2014 at 6:16 pm | Reply
    • DEANPATRICK

      GOP wants everything regarding government small except for defen$e $pending. They love, love, love big contracts for their districts: No bid, co$t plus boondoggle$

      February 24, 2014 at 6:31 pm | Reply
      • Adam Smith

        Trust me, I know, but they never say the truth. They just say – smaller government. Well, they got precisely what they said they wanted.

        February 24, 2014 at 6:41 pm |
  9. Donald George MacDonald

    A cautionary tale:

    Like many young servicemen and servicewomen from Wisconsin and from all states and from numerous countries, I defended my leaders’ chosen causes when I volunteered to enter the military in 1969. I then volunteered in basic training to go to Vietnam.

    Some of my fondest memories of my military service are my many meetings with “my minister” before and after I applied for an Honorable Discharge as a Conscientious Objector in 1971.

    He was a “bird colonel” who commanded respect, but was also a very kind, soft-spoken, gentle man.

    He helped me clarify my changing morality.

    I am still very grateful for his guidance.

    And I will always honor all veterans, but I guess most personally the ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY FOUR Wisconsin veterans who sacrificed their lives during our Vietnam War.

    ***

    February 24, 2014 at 6:15 pm | Reply
    • Donald George MacDonald

      After the Revolutionary War ended in 1783, U.S. citizens continued to serve in the military and bravely sacrificed their lives in 19 more wars. 19 more wars, all of which occurred in foreign countries with the exception of the War of 1812, and the Civil War and American Indian Wars when we turned our guns upon our own people.

      And in the U.S., we sit with our eyes blankly staring and with our mouths agape every 4th of July and say, "ooh and aah" as we again celebrate our “bombs bursting in air.”

      In the U.S., almost from birth we are taught to sing our National Anthem written, of course, about and during a war, the War of 1812.

      In the U.S., almost since birth we sing most loudly, always in unison and cheer as fighter jets perform low fly-bys.

      In the U.S., we sing about “the perilous fight” and “rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air.”

      In the U.S., our National Anthem fittingly concludes, “Then conquer we must,”

      In the U.S., our majority of citizens require or pressure even our youngest children to promise to obey our government which is after all, the same when we "Pledge Allegiance to the Flag."

      ***

      February 24, 2014 at 6:16 pm | Reply
      • Donald George MacDonald

        And our United States citizens have always been told, “there are no diplomatic alternative left,” so our finest sons and daughters must again go to war as bravely as we did and our ancestors did.

        And our U.S. leaders have always pledged that our finest sons and daughters bravely sacrificed their lives in foreign nations for something..."for our further freedom and democracy at home."

        And our U.S. leaders and citizens still try to coerce more of our finest youths to defend more of their chosen causes and to attack more of their chosen foes.

        And the U.S. has allocated $572 billion in "defense" spending for 2014.

        And our majority of citizens only parrot to others that U.S. global military strength and expansionism and weapons productions and weapons sales will make us safer when instead the opposite is surely true.

        And even our most patriotic and brave soldiers will not be able to protect us from our foreign blunders.

        And even our most patriotic and brave soldiers will not be able to protect us from those who fear U.S. global military expansionism and from those who covet our sold weapons of mass destruction and from those who despise the arrogance of U.S. actions and its failed foreign policies.

        ***

        And the U.S. is the supreme military and economic power behind a worldwide military-industrial complex.

        And it is no surprise that our struggling U.S. and world economies, temporarily supported by weapons productions and sales, will continue to only flounder on by if...only if our "Masters of War" can fuel even more wars…even more foreign wars fueled by our failed foreign policies and with our sold weapons of mass destruction.

        And when “world peace’ is somehow discovered and is somehow forced upon even the U.S., the worldwide military-industrial complex, led by the U.S., will collapse.

        And this collapse will create a global economic depression and social upheaval that will put the “Great Depression” to shame.

        Why?

        Because this will be the price all world citizens will have to initially pay as we finally try to make right our past moral wrongs.

        ***

        My focused sight flashes me back again.
        I still see us more clearly here than when at war
        as our spent ranks like the undead marched
        past fire and ashes in a Mekong morning.

        Burning grass is firmly matted;
        cradles a still, slender woman.
        Flowing black hair no longer hides her embers;
        no longer shrouds her staring eyes now aglow.

        Once I barely cared to glance
        at her infectious, triumphant pyre.
        In my grave procession past
        I did not break my stride.

        February 24, 2014 at 6:17 pm |
      • GI Jane Rambo

        Thank you!!! Great comments.

        February 24, 2014 at 6:25 pm |
  10. John

    I hate that he wants to cut compensation to us. I am active military. He wants to cut our already low salary by reducing the amount we get in Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH). My family and I rely on that for our rent and some of our utilities. (not even all of them). We already live pay check to pay check and barely have any left for savings afterward. Reducing the BAH rates would most likely put us in the red and make living unsustainable. Anything that reduces our pay and compensation needs to be shot down by congress.

    February 24, 2014 at 6:14 pm | Reply
    • max cady

      Welcome to the world of average America.
      With one big difference you get free health insurance.

      February 24, 2014 at 6:20 pm | Reply
      • ptmom02

        And a pension.

        February 24, 2014 at 6:21 pm |
      • Worldtraveler

        If you want a pension, join and retire like the rest if us. Healthcare isn't "free" – you take into account out already low salary, long hours, on-call 24 hrs/day, 7 days/week, constant training, physical training and expected to remain in shape, time away from our families and loved ones, and only 50% of our "base pay" for retirement, we still have to work after our military "retirement". Don't give me that crap about "free housing" and "free medical"... Take that away and most of us would be on welfare and living well-below minimum wage! But I digress: we might as well join the rest of the nation and let the government support us on your tax dollars.

        February 24, 2014 at 6:37 pm |
      • Mike

        PTMOM – only if they reach 20 years and not just 6 years that congressman need to qualify.

        February 24, 2014 at 6:45 pm |
      • Punster

        Everyone has the chance to join and serve their country and enjoy what you may deem great benifits

        February 24, 2014 at 6:53 pm |
      • ptmom02

        Who else gets a pension after 20 years? And congress shouldn't get one either. The vast majority of us save for our own retirement. I am grateful to those for have fought for our freedoms but the current military is way too big and ALL tax paying Americans pay for it (talk about a socialist program!)..

        February 24, 2014 at 6:59 pm |
      • BRB

        You can't be fired unless you bang the captain's daughter. Your meals are free. Your clothing is free. Laser eye surgery and all health benefits are free. Your housing is free or very heavily subsidized. You can shop in a discounted store PX for food, clothes, etc. that cost me money. If you look at history, most soldiers did not get married and have kids for us to support. When you finish your 20 years, you get generous retirement, free education, moving allowances, continued health care, and job training classes. Most military member get some sort of disabiity payments which is just another scam reaching into my wallet. Quit whining and get a real job to see how that works out.

        February 24, 2014 at 7:23 pm |
  11. Bill Davis

    So much for the gay old times

    February 24, 2014 at 6:14 pm | Reply
  12. Bill Davis

    So much for the gay old time.

    February 24, 2014 at 6:13 pm | Reply
  13. Mr. Conservative

    Ol' Neville Obama doing his part to further weaken this country.

    February 24, 2014 at 6:07 pm | Reply
    • Ken Margo

      NOBODY did more damage to this country than George W. Bush. Wasted a trillion dollars in Iraq, Nearly led the country into a depression, Raised the debt, destroyed our reputation, zoned out during 9/11, etc..

      February 24, 2014 at 6:11 pm | Reply
      • Bill Davis

        Obama has been saying that fir 6 years now,

        February 24, 2014 at 6:17 pm |
      • max cady

        Amen.
        Brother

        February 24, 2014 at 6:21 pm |
      • Ken Margo

        I noticed you didn't say it was a lie.

        February 24, 2014 at 6:22 pm |
      • Ken Margo

        My response above is for bill davis.

        February 24, 2014 at 6:27 pm |
      • Mike

        So Bush doubled the deficit the last 6 years under Obama's watch?

        February 24, 2014 at 6:47 pm |
      • Ken Margo

        Due to bush's incompetance we needed the stimulous money to keep us out of an depression. The Iraq war (bush) didn't end the moment Obama took office. So more money was wasted there. The yearly deficit is down due to the sequester so the debt is rising slowly under Obama than it did bush. (Note the low number of times the debt ceiling was raised under Obama compared to bush.)

        February 24, 2014 at 6:59 pm |
    • BADGUY

      ...says a military contractor who stands to lose contracts in the coming cuts.

      February 24, 2014 at 6:13 pm | Reply
      • BRB

        Getting rid of the military contractors would be a great place to even things out. Let's see – how did that outsourced Obamacare system work out? That was 100% contractor designed, built, and tested at a salary index of 3 times the going rate for contractors. Thanks.

        February 24, 2014 at 7:30 pm |
      • Jim Rome

        Seems like they fixed it, and it didn't take ten years like you did in Afghanistan.

        February 25, 2014 at 4:31 am |
    • Brian

      Right, because shrinking it to a more reasonable level is "weakening" the country. Out of the countries who spend the most on military, the USA spends more than the next 10+ countries combined. Im pretty sure they do not need to spend that much.

      February 24, 2014 at 6:14 pm | Reply
      • DEANPATRICK

        you make too much darn logic. More is merrier when it come to US defense spending. We spend more than the top 10 other countries combined and most all them are allies! So who are we fighting? Oh yeah, stone age countries that our WW II technology could whip in a few days unless we slog it out on the ground and try to democratize them. Will we every recall what winning hearts and minds means? We spent $20 BILLION air conditioning tents in the middle east. What do we have to show for it?

        February 24, 2014 at 6:39 pm |
  14. Donald George MacDonald

    It remains a common individual and social tragedy when Christians, Jews or Moslems express beliefs in God, then are coerced or inducted to wound, kill or die for their countries or causes. It is especially tragic when any world citizen who feels love, and who shares love with others, enters the military and goes to war. It is tragic when our finest youths still agree to kill other equally perfect human beings.

    Most people have been indoctrinated since birth by government, church, family and friends that “Thou Shalt Not Kill,” except in wars. It often appears that our morality still changes to suit the needs and desires of the moment.

    The majority of our world citizens and even, amazingly and ironically, our highest religious leaders, continue to believe that sending our finest youths to fight and kill is a necessary evil in our world already gone awry.

    Past and continuing world militarism provides the fear and self-justification that malleable citizens need in order for them to further endorse their leaders' expanding and modernizing military might. The expanding and escalating cycle thus feeds itself and prospers, like a self-perpetuating social and moral virus allowed to further drain our global health and wealth.

    The majority of our world citizens, led by leaders of nations, movements and religions, continue to forget that this social and moral virus is reversible, is curable and is not yet terminal.

    February 24, 2014 at 6:07 pm | Reply
    • Donald George MacDonald

      The Machiavellian leaders of both movements and nations are still, somehow permitted by a majority of their followers to issue ultimate threats of wars even when each new battle has taken an increasing toll. Many millions of our world citizens have already bravely sacrificed their health and lives for and because of the causes and conflicts created and continued by the leaders. Yet still, leaders are somehow permitted to coerce or order our finest youths to defend more of their chosen causes and to attack more of their chosen foes.

      ***

      I likewise defended my leaders’ chosen causes when I volunteered to enter the military in 1969 and volunteered in basic training to go to Vietnam. I was subsequently decorated with the Air Force Commendation Medal for my one year of service in Vietnam. I then served as an in-flight crewmember on a C-141 personnel and cargo aircraft for another year and delivered military personnel and equipment to over 40 countries. During that year, I routinely returned to Vietnam in order to take healthy personnel and weapons in, then to take the bodies of our boys and our injured back home.

      I performed my duties to my country faithfully, but slowly became less faithful to my changing morality and myself. Eventually, I could no longer conscientiously contribute to causes condoned and to conflicts created and continued by my Commander-in-chief. I requested and received an Honorable Discharge as a Conscientious Objector.

      February 24, 2014 at 6:09 pm | Reply
      • Donald George MacDonald

        I realize I was most fortunate to be born and raised in the United States where we treasure our freedom to object. Yet, every day since my discharge, I have also wondered how many more of our finest sons and daughters and then their children will somehow be coerced and convinced by government, church, family and friends that “there are no diplomatic alternatives left,” so they must go to war as bravely as we did and our ancestors did.

        ***

        So now I ask you how many more of our finest sons and daughters and then their children will somehow be coerced and convinced or ordered to become brave soldiers in order to pass one of the entrance rites to adulthood?

        I ask you how many more of our world citizens will somehow be coerced and convinced or ordered to go to war to kill other equally perfect human beings?

        I ask you how many more of our next generations of finest youths will somehow be coerced and convinced or ordered by leaders of nations, movements and religions to sacrifice their precious lives in war?

        How many more will it be?

        Will it be many millions more or could it be none?

        Do you possess the answers?

        Indeed you do.

        In deeds you do.

        Our definition of democracy determines this to be true.

        ***

        It is not enough to worship with faith
        and feel worthy of saving
        and then show your hate with charm
        and then praise your guns and blows
        and then spread your crimes with wars.

        February 24, 2014 at 6:10 pm |
  15. JimNasium

    If it were up to conservatives, our country would be more like North Korea - infinite funds for the military, but no money for anything else.

    February 24, 2014 at 6:06 pm | Reply
    • BADGUY

      CERTAINLY the ones who are employed at the military bases, military contractors, military suppliers who stand to lose in the coming cuts.

      February 24, 2014 at 6:15 pm | Reply
  16. DougG

    Good stuff... cut the benefits of those who are willing, and able, to give all for their Country, regardless of who sits in the White House. Heck, the number of service members receiving food stamps has tripled in the last 5 years. That's right. While the soldier freezes in the cold of an Afghan winter, their family has to go to Social Services and beg for help. Makes sense to me. Oh, another wee thought here. Beware those nations who cut their defense spending too much. Ask your grandparents what pre-WWII levels meant in the 1930's up to and including December 7, 1941.

    February 24, 2014 at 6:06 pm | Reply
    • Really?

      All that defense spending sure stopped 9/11 didnt it.

      February 24, 2014 at 6:18 pm | Reply
      • Mike

        Hey Really – Intelligence gathering is done by the CIA/NSA and not the military. Different monies.

        February 24, 2014 at 6:49 pm |
    • BADGUY

      Hey...the Rich (and THEIR representatives in Washington...the Republicans) REFUSE to pay more in taxes. What can be we?

      February 24, 2014 at 6:18 pm | Reply
    • inglehoffer

      and what good did those high levels of soldiers do on 9/11? don't live in the past

      February 24, 2014 at 6:20 pm | Reply
    • JWoody907

      Never mind the fact that technology has completely changed the battle space since WW2.
      Satellites now feed real time intelligence to computer analysis farms, drones carry out strikes all over the globe, and planes and missiles can be used to strike long range targets without the need for forward basing.

      The UN has powers to send in military peacekeepers, and has embargo powers the League of Nations never had.

      So yeah, don't forget 80 years ago, but you don't get to claim that pre-WW2 was anything like today.

      February 24, 2014 at 6:31 pm | Reply
  17. Dallas329

    It's not just the DOD that needs to downsize, most federal agencies ballooned post 9/11. All departments/agencies need to be benchmarked to their 1989 budget plus inflation and delayered to include where there are overlapping functions. Additionally, it was in vogue to outsource many federal functions under the guise it is not a core competency or the need for speed to market when dollars were flowing unchecked under the "War on Terror" cadence. It is time to reexamine all those where costs have skyrocketed and bring them back in house. This would help keep many military jobs and provide savings with the offsetting contractor jobs. Write your elected official and demand a commitment.

    February 24, 2014 at 6:03 pm | Reply
  18. Chuck

    Who needs to worry about Al Queda and the Taliban when we have our own usupers in Office

    February 24, 2014 at 6:03 pm | Reply
    • BADGUY

      Yeah...the Republicans...and their Army of AR-15 armed "patriots".

      February 24, 2014 at 6:16 pm | Reply
  19. Joe Biden

    How about cutting Politicians' salaries first?

    February 24, 2014 at 5:58 pm | Reply
  20. Luke

    Yet the government gives illegal immigrants full benefits and free schooling you people make me sick how selfish can the government be? Why don't you pay for illegals out of your own salary and use my tax dollars properly?

    February 24, 2014 at 5:55 pm | Reply
    • BADGUY

      Hey...no problem...as long as YOU and the Republicans YOU vote for....let ME....keep the money YOU'RE currently spending on the military budget.

      February 24, 2014 at 6:01 pm | Reply
    • VEW2012

      No, the fact is the government does not give benefits to illegal immigrants. That is another one of those lame mythical untruths trotted out by the ultra-right. Do some research and you will find that myth is not based on facts.

      February 24, 2014 at 6:05 pm | Reply
      • Mike

        Bull VEW2012. The Supreme court ruled that you have to give them the programs to allow them to be at the level of kids that are here legally to include ESL classes etc or else they lose federal funding. All this has done is dumbed down schooling to the lowest level to accommodate them and ensure they can meet mandated test scores.

        February 24, 2014 at 6:54 pm |
    • LOLOL

      I'm sure Native Americans have something to say to you......

      February 24, 2014 at 6:10 pm | Reply
  21. Clemson

    lol those welfare people sitting around smoking dope do help the economy contrary to what most people may think. I used to be a right wing person...but I have had to change my tune because without welfare I would most likely be bankrupt. I own a store near a public housing neihborhood which probably 90 percent pay with food stamps. They spend their handout money with me, which in turn gets fed back into the economy when I buy stuff to stock the store with, pay for my apple computers.

    February 24, 2014 at 5:54 pm | Reply
    • Adam

      You're making too much sense; you must be high on dope 😛

      February 24, 2014 at 6:12 pm | Reply
  22. Duv41

    How much?

    February 24, 2014 at 5:54 pm | Reply
  23. Brandon Cole

    Retiring the A-10 is a really bad idea, that is all.

    February 24, 2014 at 5:52 pm | Reply
  24. Paul

    Retiring the durable A-10 just because it isn't a fast, fragile, multi-billion dollar flash in the pan that has its replacement already in contractors wet dreams isn't going to save any money.

    It can do a better job for cheaper and loiter longer longer.

    February 24, 2014 at 5:51 pm | Reply
    • nibirutruth

      You are right Paul. They keep making this mistake over and over. There is no aircraft that matches the unique capabilities of the A-10. They will just end up taking it out of retirement when the next war comes along – as it always does. And it will end up costing more to take it out of retirement than just leaving it in it's current status.

      February 24, 2014 at 5:59 pm | Reply
  25. Practical Guy

    This is Obama's America. Another 70,000 jobs flushed down the toilet. How is that "Hope and Change" working our for you now?

    February 24, 2014 at 5:47 pm | Reply
    • BADGUY

      I hope all those 70,000 (MOSTLY in Red States) keep in mind that the Republicans, the SAME people THEY put in office, have made their careers keeping the tax man OUT of the pockets of the Super Rich. If they want someone to blame for all these cuts, they should talk the people THEY elected to Congress...that CAUSED this financial mess!

      February 24, 2014 at 5:50 pm | Reply
      • logic

        i would love to see congress and the president to land in a hot lz and see how long they would survive.

        February 24, 2014 at 6:10 pm |
    • Fran

      I'm disgusted as a vet who serverd almost 20yrs for this country the military is always the escape goat for political agenda
      you can bet the theres going to be a uproar among military community and civilian sectors. Take Take Take this country cant even help with permanent and ongoing injuries my brothers and sisters have endured because we've turned into a world police..

      February 24, 2014 at 6:00 pm | Reply
      • Guest

        No world police = no need of large military = close military bases abroad
        World police = large military = keep open military bases abroad
        Which option are you going with?

        February 24, 2014 at 6:09 pm |
    • Dan in CO

      70,000 unneeded government jobs is a good place to cut.

      February 24, 2014 at 6:08 pm | Reply
    • VEW2012

      Very well. It is about time we trimmed that bloated military and spent the money on our infrastructure, education, and bringing this country up to par with the rest of the industrial world, instead of making boom-boom toys to blow up in other people's backyard.

      February 24, 2014 at 6:08 pm | Reply
    • LOLOL

      Either agree to pay more in taxes or be quiet.

      February 24, 2014 at 6:12 pm | Reply
  26. Stuart

    Currently the budget of the military is larger than the next 10 largest military budgets combined. That includes China and Russia. To me that seems a bit to high and heavy for the USA military budget. We are NOT the policeman of the world and don't need such a high cost military therefore.I don't adhere for the personnel to take cuts however because they deserve all they can get and more. What I am saying is to cut obsolete programs and weapons not necessary to a current defense. Republicans howl that the defense should not be cut but that is hypocritical as defense is a major budgetary expense to the nation. They want cuts that they disagree with not budget cuts that can be found in all programs. If they are a true fiscal party then they must agree that the defense spending must be cut.

    February 24, 2014 at 5:47 pm | Reply
    • rhisa

      This is probably the least painful solution I've seen. Slow the recruitment/reenlistment to cut the jobs if needed, get the politicians out of deciding what to spend the defense budget on and let the services decide what they need (not the lobbiest) , but leave the BAH alone. My children are both in the military and neither could survive with help for basic living expenses. If in doubt go to one of the web sites out there that shows what to expect for enlisted military pay and then decide if you could live on that without help.

      February 24, 2014 at 6:48 pm | Reply
  27. cjccja

    This is a fist baby step. We can and will go much further. The F35 should be canned. And another round of force reductions, base closing and so on. We can cut the cost in half over 10 years.

    February 24, 2014 at 5:41 pm | Reply
    • BADGUY

      Google "military bases in the USA". NOTE how many of those bases are in the old South...PUT THERE...... over the last 70 years, ........by high seniority Southern Congressmen to got their hands on the Chairmanships of military appropriations committees. WHY must Northern States CONTINUE to fund military bases in Southern States? It's time for a BIG BASE CLOSING program and an END to "Billy Joe" Socialism!

      February 24, 2014 at 5:56 pm | Reply
      • weatherman11

        cuz it's really cold up north.

        February 24, 2014 at 6:04 pm |
    • VEW2012

      We can also stop building those unnecessary tanks that the Army doesn't want, but that is going to make John Boehner cry again. They are built in his district.

      February 24, 2014 at 6:12 pm | Reply
  28. KellyF

    It's amazing to me that they would rather give outrageous tax breaks to wealth that do not need them, then protect our country and give our soldiers fair benefits. Are the rich going to protect us from terrorists? I think not.

    February 24, 2014 at 5:41 pm | Reply
    • BADGUY

      The Rich, got where they are, by KNOWING HOW to MAKE DEALS. Defend us against an enemy? They'll be the FIRST ones "making a deal" with them.....to save THEIR OWN a-s! Look what they did with the Chinese?

      February 24, 2014 at 5:47 pm | Reply
      • davey

        Total wealth of the 400 richest Americans is approximately 2 Trillion dollars. Take every penny they have and you can run the government for about 8 month. Fact..... Forbes.
        Then what ya gonna do?

        February 24, 2014 at 6:00 pm |
      • BADGUY

        The top 1% have over 19 TRILLION in financial assets. After we're done with the top 400...we'll start of the REST of the top 1%!

        February 24, 2014 at 6:03 pm |
    • Michael James

      It's the welfare state, not defense that is taking our tax dollars. You can tax the rich as you put it, at 90% and it would only bring in a few billion more per year...that's it. This rich man straw man may sound good to the intellectually inept, but when you peel back the onion, you start to smell what your advocating.

      February 24, 2014 at 5:57 pm | Reply
      • Really?

        Its funny that you seem to think that the vast majority of military personnel aren't a "welfare state". There's a reason that poor people join the army more regularily than rich people. Its not because poor people have more patriotism and honor. Its because they need the money and its the best thing they can do. We have WAY to many soldiers in this day and age. Most of them aren't actually serving any tactical purpose. Heck, even the recruiting commercials these days advertise that you can join the army to become a graphic designer. Its all wasteful spending. Cut back on being the world police and you will cut back on the number of soldiers needed. Which in turn cuts back on spending.

        February 24, 2014 at 6:12 pm |
      • VEW2012

        We spend 1/2 the amount on social welfare than what we spend on corporate welfare, and both of those are dwarfed by what we spend on the military bloat. Do some research. Corporate welfare cost us $100 billion in 2012, and we spent $59.2 billion on social welfare programs, and $645.7 billion on the military. The military spending is totally out of proportion to everything else.

        February 24, 2014 at 6:27 pm |
  29. Josh

    These cuts have been in the military news for a long time. A lot of debate that I see is the levels that will be required between the active duty and the national guard components. The job gets tougher to accomplish given all the tasks that are required of the military but there has to be a balance between size and function. The military has evolved into smaller and lighter teams that must be much more flexible. Just keep in mind that cutting down on this resource will limit our options in times of need. I understand the cuts must come but should be balanced to not affect critical resources.

    February 24, 2014 at 5:37 pm | Reply
  30. Ken Margo

    Why don't we turn the military into a for profit business. If a country needs us to intervene, Charge 'em double what it would cost the U.S. If the U.N. wants us to get involved, cash up front. No forgiving of the debt EVER. If the country doesn't pay, Take it until paid in full.

    We also need to get out of the country rebuilding business. if we engage in war with another country: bomb 'em and forget 'em.

    February 24, 2014 at 5:36 pm | Reply
  31. GoRemote

    Defense spending as a percentage of GDP has been declining since WWII. It's already at it's lowest level in 70 years.

    February 24, 2014 at 5:36 pm | Reply
    • VEW2012

      In 2012, $645.7 billion was spent on the military. Small? That was more than all the other nations combined with a few billion in pocket change left over.

      February 24, 2014 at 6:31 pm | Reply
  32. Order 66

    "His plan would retire the A-10, which Hagel called a 40-year-old, single-purpose aircraft designed for Cold War operations, at a cost savings of $3.5 billion over five years." 3.5 Billion over 5, yes folks FIVE years. Now let's look at the F-35, which hasn't even been deemed combat ready. I won't even start to name how many things have gone wrong with it. It's $167 billion over budget, and the program's costs have snowballed, for an estimated 68 percent increase over its initial price tag. The Pentagon now plans to spend $391.2 billion on 2,443 aircraft, with each plane costing a staggering $160 million.

    I don't know about you, but something doesn't sound right here?

    February 24, 2014 at 5:33 pm | Reply
    • GoRemote

      If you're an enemy of the U.S., the last thing you want to see come over the horizon is a Warthog. No matter what you're in, including a tank, you're probably going to die..........

      February 24, 2014 at 5:38 pm | Reply
    • Josh

      The A-10 is a proven system that has great characteristics for close air support. I am sure if you ask the pilots that love them and the soldiers on the ground who love their loiter time that aircraft would be left in use as a cost savings measure for quite some time versus more costly modern replacements.

      February 24, 2014 at 5:40 pm | Reply
      • Order 66

        I agree. I just don't understand how they could trade it off, with a plane that hasn't been proven yet. They are talking about saving 3.5 billion over 5 years. That is peanuts compared to what the over cost is already on the F-35 which is $167 billion over budget!!!!!!!!!!!!

        February 24, 2014 at 5:42 pm |
  33. Mike

    Lets see most of our recent wars have been against terrorist organizations with no air power. I can see why we need the F-35 to fight these kind of wars – NOT!. They need more boots on the ground to fight these types of actions and the F-35 can not do the CAS like the A-10 so they are risking the lives of our troops. If you want to save money, how about changing the procurement rules so that companies like Lockheed are held to the costs of the aircraft they promised us at the costs they promised us and stop having the costs be 3-10x more than what they promised us. You would not let a car repairman do that to you, why is the government allowing the defense contractors to do it? Maybe if you cut this crap out, then you will start getting realistic bids and can actually budget correctly for them.

    February 24, 2014 at 5:32 pm | Reply
    • James

      Mike,
      You can't just blame Lockheed or the contractor on a project like the F35. The government is alwasy issuing change orders, changing the specs you are building too. Those can have a significant cost effect over the design and test phase of a mjaor project. That doesn't mean that the contractor is not making plenty of money on the deal, just that not all the blame is theirs.

      February 24, 2014 at 5:41 pm | Reply
    • VEW2012

      Actually they just need a few well-placed drones.

      February 24, 2014 at 6:33 pm | Reply
  34. kds

    maybe start with Hagel

    February 24, 2014 at 5:31 pm | Reply
  35. Zon

    Let's see how committed to spending reductions Republicans are now. Let the hypocrisy begin.

    February 24, 2014 at 5:30 pm | Reply
  36. BADGUY

    MUCH of our "military spending" has been set up, over the last 70 years, to provide jobs in the districts of influential Congressmen who gained the chairmanships of Defense committees. That's WHY the South has MORE than it's share of military bases, military contractors and military suppliers. IT WAS SETUP THAT WAY....ON PURPOSE...to provide economic stability to those areas. It had NOTHING TO DO with providing the USA with a BETTER defense capability. It's time this government provided, "socialistic" system, is abolished.

    February 24, 2014 at 5:28 pm | Reply
    • Navyemployee365

      Your post is invalid, the main HUBs for military bases are california, virginia, florida and seattle, WA. Suming of this a set up for all the south show ignorance on your part. Unless you consider everyone in the military is Army!

      February 24, 2014 at 5:52 pm | Reply
      • BADGUY

        WHAT "Hubs"? Look at the map of military base locations. The South looks like it has SEVERE ACNE. The NORTHERN states...look like they're on Clearasil.

        February 24, 2014 at 6:24 pm |
  37. American Worker

    An invitation to a sucker-punch.

    February 24, 2014 at 5:26 pm | Reply
  38. half tilted

    uh, uh....all the rightwingers are not going to like this.
    George bush, dick cheney and those kind of folks.

    February 24, 2014 at 5:23 pm | Reply
    • AW

      Yea but the Chinese and countries like N. Korea will love it. Wonder where the money will be used. To pay for Obamacare, to pay for more handouts. I don't mind and am even for fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately individual responsibility, fiscal responsibility are not in this Presidents vocabulary. So now not only do we have a weak leader and President but also we will have a weaker military. Hope it doesn't come back and bite us on the back side.

      February 24, 2014 at 5:35 pm | Reply
    • MIchaelChatt

      So you don't like being safe and secure?

      This is a pile of crap. Obama is spending money on all sorts of worthless projects. They are cutting the military because they know it will get more attention rather than cutting unneeded and even harmful social programs. Liberals always shoot at the military because somehow they are too dense to understand the only reason they have the right to spout unrealistic poo all over the nation is because of our military strength. We are not getting bashed hard by people who would like to because we can defend ourselves. I'm sure the lefties think it would be a better place if even the military didn't have guns. It has worked so well in Africa. No Guns are clearly the way to go, Washington DC, California, Detroit, they are all flukes and insanely dangerous for other reasons. Florida got safer for reasons that had nothing to do with easier access to guns and carry permits.

      February 24, 2014 at 5:41 pm | Reply
      • Bob

        Do you realize the USA spending on defense just about equals all the other countries in the world's spending on defense combined, and many of those countries are our allies. Please think about who we are defending against. We support over 200 bases around the world. Why do we need bases in Germany, the UK, and our other allies? I believe in a strong defense, but we are over the top in our defense spending.

        February 24, 2014 at 5:53 pm |
  39. Boger

    THIS IS A LOAD OF BULLSHlT!!!

    February 24, 2014 at 5:22 pm | Reply
  40. Jerad

    I like how they bury the most important and devastating part at the bottom of the article:

    "Other provisions would reduce some benefits for military personnel, resulting in them having to shoulder more of their housing and medical costs. Reducing the federal subsidy to commissaries would mean smaller discounts for groceries on U.S. bases."

    Your typical enlisted military person barely makes enough to live off of as it is. The benefit of not having to pay for housing is how most military families are able to live off of their meager salaries. Of all the wasteful spending they could cut, why does it have to come out of the backs of our men and women in uniform? Even suggesting a cut to military benefits should be scandalous but we barely hear a peep from our corrupt media.

    February 24, 2014 at 5:22 pm | Reply
    • Michael smith

      These surmised "housing" handouts TGAT are tax free are one of the if not THE biggest $21,000,000,000 RIP OFFS of the US taxpayer!

      February 24, 2014 at 5:26 pm | Reply
      • Marine

        Basic Allowance for Housing is not a rip-off. Though, I can see how you could perceive it as that if you haven't been in the military.

        As a member of the military, you are on notice 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for the entire period of your service. As such, the military has a legal obligation to house and feed you. Those who live on base do not rate BAH. However, there has been a shift in demographics and what once was a single person's career ballooned into one that has to accommodate families. I'm sure you can see where young children are incompatible with living in dorm rooms with limited privacy. So, BAH establishes that the military has met its obligation to house the service member and allows them to live with their family instead of only with members of their unit.

        Generally, a Marine in the infantry is subject to 6 months workup, a 6 month deployment and 6 months of post deployment time. A lot of that time in back in the states is spent travelling or away from the family for weeks (sometimes months) at a time. If you compare pay to hours worked, you will find that it is below minimum wage – even including BAH. For example, it was not uncommon during combat tours to often get about 3 hours of sleep a day, not all at once (2 hours here, 15 min there) for a year at a time. Without days off. Where you can die or get horrifically maimed.

        It's not quite like working the counter at Best Buy.

        February 24, 2014 at 5:48 pm |
      • Buckeye Nut Schell

        I can tell by you complete lack of knowledge that you have never served your country in the military... You are probably one of those ted Nugent-esque types who talks real tough but when the opportunity to serve arose, he literally $h1t his pants in order to receive a "Not Fit for Duty" status. You talk big spouting off numbers like you know what you are talking about but you are wrong. Enlisted service men and women get BEQ (basic enlisted quarters) at a low rate only when base housing is inadaquate for everyone on base or the ship is overcrowded and you reach a sufficient rank. BEQ is based on your rank and it allows you to live in very modest housing (usually requiring a roommate) and only after a mountain of paperwork is provided. If you are married to a civillian, you get additional housing and comrats to support your family but if you marry a service member, you both get single benefits (I was married to someone in the Navy as well). If you have a child together, only one of you (usually the higher ranking member) gets to claim family benefits.

        Enlisted military members are grossly under paid for the jobs they do and the risks they take even in times of peace. I worked on an Aircraft carrier and it was deemed one of the most dangerous jobs in the peace time world. If it wasn't for benefits like the commissary and duty free purchases, I do not think I could have gotten by.

        So, before you come on here spouting off about something you obviously know nothing about, try to remember that the internet is a pretty big place and you are likely to find someone like me who actually does know you are either incredibly stupid or lying through your teeth.

        February 24, 2014 at 6:08 pm |
      • Vet John

        When, and where does a Soldier, Marine, Sailor etc. get BAH to live off post/base without being a SSG(E6) and above without showing he/she is married. Doesn't happen anyplace I have ever been. As a young PVT I lived in the barracks, and didn't move off base until I was married, and then drew BAH, and separate rats.

        February 24, 2014 at 6:18 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      Good point.

      February 24, 2014 at 5:27 pm | Reply
      • Michael smith

        Google "basic allowance for housing 2014" and look at many of these preposterous tax free handouts.

        February 24, 2014 at 5:28 pm |
      • Michael smith

        There are many single volunteers who could and should be living on the readily available and more than adequate quarters for singles on the ships and bases they are assigned ARE INSTEAD being handed upwards of $3,000 a month tax free via these surmised ( no proof is needed to show that they are even being used for housing on the first place) handouts so they can live vastly premature affluent lifestyles off your backs and taxpayer funds.

        And it is even far, far worse when two volunteers marry. Many get handed from $3,000-$9,000, yes $9,000 a month via these ludicrous handouts!

        February 24, 2014 at 5:34 pm |
    • BADGUY

      Hey...with the Rich refusing to pay any more in taxes...what do you expect?

      February 24, 2014 at 5:31 pm | Reply
    • Chesty Puller

      Do you know the enlisted scale. Not everyone is an E-1

      February 24, 2014 at 5:34 pm | Reply
  41. Mgirlpage

    I dont know if this comment will matter but They already took 1% of my husband retirement very sad. But a Senator does one term of only 4 years and they get a pay check for the rest of their life, does not make sense to me. If you are going to cut $ do it from everywhere lets be fair We are not a free country? Is understandable to reduce the personnel that is very easy do not recruit too many, and retire the ones that have more than 20 years, this has to work from the bottom. Do not give a budget they are going to waste in things that are not priority. Stop sending contractors, that is the most ridiculous pay what a waste of money because that comes from the gov of course.

    February 24, 2014 at 5:20 pm | Reply
    • GoRemote

      Congress does NOT get a pay check for life after one term......They get a pension at retirement age that is dependent on years of service just like all Federal Employees. They don't get health insurance for life either.

      February 24, 2014 at 5:32 pm | Reply
      • Mike

        You are correct about the pension.

        February 24, 2014 at 5:36 pm |
      • Mike

        Hit send too soon. However they only need to serve 6 years to get it. How about raising that to 15 years? Make it more in line with military folks? And they can get it earlier than retirement age if they meet the age/time requirements. For example, a congressman or senator must be age 62, or be at least age 50 with 20 years of service, or be any age with 25 years of service.

        February 24, 2014 at 5:39 pm |
      • Aris

        Lets fix all of these broken systems, lets have congress on the same healthcare plan as the propose for the rest of the country, lets have a requirement that all congressmen and congresswomen serve in the armed forces, lets have the on social security, just like the rest of us. After all, they work for us.
        You will be surprised how quickly these problems will get solved.

        February 24, 2014 at 6:17 pm |
    • Jon

      One term for a Senator is 6 years.

      February 24, 2014 at 5:34 pm | Reply
      • Mgirlpage

        Yes and one term for a military to get a pension is at least 20 years. Not fair >> Try to see my point they want your vote for that term to the pension open your eyes. if any military member die in action their families only get 400K these days that a mortgage

        February 24, 2014 at 5:44 pm |
    • Kaplan MacGuffin

      Used to be a free country–but it gets less so every day. One day we will realize we need to take all the privalage from Congress and the rest of the government. They should be public servants, not public leeches. Let them go on public health care, make them no longer exempt from the laws they pass, then maybe–just maybe they will buckle down and do some real work.

      I am reminded of a quote from Oscar Wilde.

      "We have chains, though no eye beholds them; and are slaves, though men call us free."

      February 24, 2014 at 5:36 pm | Reply
  42. georgex9

    Reducing the costs of military sounds good. Hopefully, the corporate military that cooks and cleans can be cut also. The corporate pay is too high and especially in Afghanistan, etc.

    February 24, 2014 at 5:19 pm | Reply
    • Mgirlpage

      Very true George!!!!

      February 24, 2014 at 5:21 pm | Reply
  43. stopdrinkingthecoolaid

    Pfft.. all smoke and mirrors. The liberals will offset all these "cuts/reductions" with new spending that will make the cuts look like a pebble of sand on the beach.

    February 24, 2014 at 5:11 pm | Reply
    • Ken Margo

      Please StopWatchingFoxNews..

      February 24, 2014 at 5:13 pm | Reply
      • Sam

        And where do you suggest EVERYONE get their news, hmm? From where YOU get it?

        February 24, 2014 at 5:18 pm |
      • Ken Margo

        ANYWHERE except fox. I watch ABC, CBS, NBC, HLN, MSNBC.

        February 24, 2014 at 5:25 pm |
    • Solex

      The repubs are the ones that spent all of the money on the wars and tax cuts for the already rich along with subsidies for oil companies raking in billion dollar PROFITS. Repubs are just as bad if not worse than dems when it comes to spending.

      But stooges like you will constantly support them. Newsflash pal: Repubs only care WHAT the money is being spent on – meaning mostly for themselves or their own interests – NOT that it is being spent.

      Wake up and stop driving the limo to the bank for the GOP!

      February 24, 2014 at 5:18 pm | Reply
    • atc333

      Or, the GOP could simply wake up, and allow a major revision of the tax code, which currently results in some US corporations paying 0 in taxes, (Exon) and the average taxes paid by all US corporations at only 12%. Somehow tax cuts for job creators has not worked out for anyone other than "job creators" and the top 2%.

      February 24, 2014 at 5:21 pm | Reply
    • BADGUY

      Military spending, while needed, will ALWAYS be what it's ALWAYS BEEN....."Overhead". Military spending produces NO WEALTH. You might as well tear down Hoover Dam, every year, and rebuild it. That's how much BENEFIT it adds to our economy. The military MUST be cut to that level that will guarantee our defense...but it should NOT be used to provide jobs or to provide "redistribution of wealth" from those NOT in the "defense sector"....to those who ARE.

      February 24, 2014 at 5:22 pm | Reply
      • FedUpVet

        Military spending offers nothing to the economy? Ask all the defense contractors what it would mean to them if military spending is cut. How many jobs, aside from the downsizing of the military, will be lost due to defense spending cuts? I'm not suggesting there aren't cuts to be made. I'm saying that your comment was made without much thought.

        February 24, 2014 at 5:38 pm |
      • BADGUY

        Those people...and our country....would be BETTER SERVED...if those people were employed building bridges, roads, LCD TV's, telephones and generally....better "mouse traps". Military equipment is expensive too build...expensive to maintain....develops rust...and become obsolete. THEN....we've got to pay for "new and improved" military equipment...that promptly...repeats the same cycle. ALL money down a rat hole! People employed by the military...or military contractors...or military suppliers...PRODUCE NO WEALTH!.......PERIOD!

        February 24, 2014 at 5:42 pm |
      • guest128

        Are you that clueless? How many civilian contracting jobs are created because of the military? You people are ignorant if you think the people wearing the uniform are going to be hit. All civilians involved will be effected. Lets look at a few things shall we for all of you know it all Liberals. Who makes the parts for those planes being decommissioned? The electronics, metal everything? Answer: Civilians .... Who are the people building these planes? Answer: Civilians ... The roughly 120,000 being cut, they require uniforms, bags, materials, everything required for them to serve if they are overseas or here. Who makes all that? Civilians.... And you complain about housing, lets look at that from a different view. Who builds these homes? Here's a clue, its not the Army Corp of Engineers for all 5 services. Yes, its civilians. So guess what. You keep hoping for these cuts and then don't be surprised at how many jobs and hours are lost because of it. And most of you criticizing the military, I bet you have not served. Try serving 20 years or more then get on here act like you know it all.

        February 24, 2014 at 5:51 pm |
      • Mike

        So when you cut out the military, you ready to foot the bill for unemployment benefits for those you just fired and the massive loss of tax revenue at the state and federal level? At least some of the wages paid to the military come back to the states and federal government in the form of spending their wages and taxes paid on those wages. Can't say that about welfare can you?

        February 24, 2014 at 6:07 pm |
    • 94c2500

      Every dollar saved will be seen in congress as money to be spent.

      February 24, 2014 at 5:28 pm | Reply
  44. g.r.r.

    Great. BUT NOW, we need CONgress to focus on balancing the budget. IOW, make other cuts and increase taxes.

    February 24, 2014 at 5:10 pm | Reply
    • atc333

      Therein lies the key -" focus on balancing the budget. IOW, make other cuts and increase taxes.".

      February 24, 2014 at 5:25 pm | Reply
  45. Solex

    If one reads between the lines here – as well as ditching the political rhetoric – you will see that the military is changing focus. If you took the time to read the article, you would see that Special Forces levels will be INCREASED at the same time general manning levels are being decreased.

    The mission has changed. When I was in the Navy in the 1908s, it was about Regan and his "600 ship Navy" – which kept a lot of guys in the service that today would be launched in a heartbeat. In the early 90s, Clinton closed a lot of bases and scrapped Regan's toy boat fleet and saved BILLIONS.

    The same thing is happening now. The days of thousands of general troops holding positions is ending. We need agile and strong special forces to go in – kick butt – and get out. It is how Al Queda has given us so much trouble over the years.

    The big losers are the rank and file servicemen – some with 10+ years in. I have heard stories of guys not being retained after 16-18 years so that the government will not have to pay them half salary for the rest of their lives. The days of "making your 20" are also over.

    We have almost an entire generation of war vets standing around and trying to find a job. There is not much work for a tank driver with 10 years experience...

    February 24, 2014 at 5:07 pm | Reply
    • Vet John

      Also check out how many different commands there are now, as compared to WW2. Not bashing, but do we really need so many Flag officers, and their staff. Instead of cutting the body of the snake, cut the head off, the generals are already going to get a fat retirement + a no-show consultant job back with the military industrial machine. same goes for all the E9s who could have retired, but afraid of not being the big man on campus any longer. Just my 2 cents.

      February 24, 2014 at 6:26 pm | Reply
  46. Bill

    "Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!! We're having to suffer the same cuts as everyone else. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!!"

    February 24, 2014 at 5:07 pm | Reply
  47. BADGUY

    It's ABOUT TIME! We can no longer AFFORD to be the "Policeman of the World". Technology, such as Drones, Robotic delivery vehicles, etc, etc ALLOW us to make dramatic cuts in the number of people we have in our "standing army". If necessary we can supplement this "standing army" with draftees, if the situation requires.

    February 24, 2014 at 5:06 pm | Reply
    • Solex

      "Draftees' huh? Are YOU registered for the draft. I already served and am too old, but what is YOUR status?

      February 24, 2014 at 5:08 pm | Reply
      • BADGUY

        A combat veteran....who had to "face"....the draft!

        February 24, 2014 at 5:13 pm |
      • Sam

        Everyone registers for the draft when they turn 18.

        February 24, 2014 at 5:44 pm |
  48. pat

    why not cut foreign aid?

    February 24, 2014 at 5:04 pm | Reply
    • Ken Margo

      It won't make a difference. Foreign aid is mere pennies compared to the overall debt.

      February 24, 2014 at 5:07 pm | Reply
    • Jack Sommersby

      Fine by me - we can start with does-nothing-for-us Israel who we give the most aid to be far: $3.1 billion a year. Please keep in mind that the only reason the military is as big as it is is because of W.'s lies-based Iraq War.

      February 24, 2014 at 5:07 pm | Reply
    • Grayson Scogin

      Foreign aid is a minuscule portion of our budget. The only foreign aid that you could cut would be to Israel, Pakistan or Afghanistan. That money accomplishes a great deal of things to help our troops. Cutting it would only undermine them.

      February 24, 2014 at 5:17 pm | Reply
  49. DaveW

    I agree; let's make dramatic cuts to our military spending so we can focus on making tuition more affordable and protecting our most vulnerable citizens from dire poverty. If we cut our spending by 50% we'd still be spending far more on our military than any other nation on the planet. We've lost all perspective on what a reasonable "defense" budget should really be. It shouldn't consume us. Our defense budget is so huge that it actually results in a weaker nation over the long term because our children are not educated properly and many children live in desperate poverty.

    February 24, 2014 at 5:03 pm | Reply
    • Steve

      But dont cut welfare right? Which is over HALF of the government budget. Keep free cellphones! Keep sending tax returns to people who pay NO taxes. The one thing I like about the defense department is I at least see a return on my tax money in the way of jobs and security. Giving free money to some person who dropped out of high school who cranked out a half dozen kids and sits around smoking dope watching TV does nothing for me.

      February 24, 2014 at 5:11 pm | Reply
      • Ken Margo

        A lot of the people that pay "no" taxes are people that live at the level of poverty. So you want poor people that make nothing to pay more taxes?

        As far as people makin' babies. Repubs are against birth control. Repubs use the phony "religious freedom" crap to prevent insurance co. from providing birth control. So complain to your repub friends.

        Half the budget on welfare? don't make me laugh.

        February 24, 2014 at 5:22 pm |
      • Dave D

        Amen brother.

        February 24, 2014 at 5:26 pm |
      • Brian

        That person sitting around smoking dope and popping out kids doesn't do anything for me either but you got to keep things in perspective I think. What's costing us more money, the 5% who are abusing the welfare system or the enormously bloated defense budget? It's easy to cut the military, but trying to figure out who's gaming the welfare system costs more money than it saves.

        February 24, 2014 at 5:28 pm |
      • dwrubel

        Safety net programs (Welfar): About 12 percent of the federal budget in 2012, or $411 billion, supported programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship. Spending on safety net programs declined in both nominal and real terms between 2011 and 2012 as the economy continued to improve.

        These programs include: the refundable portions of the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, which assist low- and moderate-income working families through the tax code; programs that provide cash payments to eligible individuals or households, including Supplemental Security Income for the elderly or disabled poor and unemployment insurance; various forms of assistance for low-income families and individuals, including SNAP (food stamps), school meals, low-income housing assistance, child care assistance, and assistance in meeting home energy bills; and various other programs such as those that aid abused and neglected children.

        Such programs keep millions of people out of poverty each year.

        Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security are not, and never were, considered "Welfare."

        February 24, 2014 at 5:30 pm |
      • Mike

        Or sending tax credit checks to illegals who should not even be here (remember the loophole congress failed to close when they initially cut the retirement COLA).

        February 24, 2014 at 6:39 pm |
    • pat

      no. we don't need to give to tuition. We need to use the money to create more jobs. because people will get some worthless college degrees.

      February 24, 2014 at 5:27 pm | Reply
  50. Chris Asking Questions

    Is he also going to cut the number of political appointees that work in the Department of Defense?

    February 24, 2014 at 5:03 pm | Reply
  51. McRCN

    I can appreciate cutbacks to the Defense Budget (especially in procurement), but it is not like military people make a lot of money either. Obama claims to be for higher minimum wage. Junior enlisted personal make no where near $10.10 an hour.

    So the new saying should be.... "I would thank you for your service, but sorry you are not worth it." At least that would be more honest than people pretending to support military servicemen.

    February 24, 2014 at 5:00 pm | Reply
  52. Order 66

    So getting rid of the A-10 which has been one of the most succesfully used aircraft in the last few decades, and trading it off for a plane that still hasn't been deemed combat ready.

    February 24, 2014 at 4:56 pm | Reply
    • Steve

      I agree the A10 is THE best air to close ground support craft we have. Nothing comes anywhere close. China/Korea/Russia is getting mighty froggy and they have a 5 and 6 to 1 ratio of tanks than we do. Youll need a superior air frame to take them out. But aparently World War 2 didnt teach anything to the people on these boards.

      February 24, 2014 at 5:15 pm | Reply
    • yujinchia

      Yeah, ridiculous decision. Yes, the A-10 is an old single-purpose design- but is anything better at what it does? Nope. And it's proven reliable, incredibly durable in combat, and inexpensive to maintain. Drop that out in favor of a totally unproven weapon system in the F-35 that isn't even designed to fill the same role. Good thinking.

      February 24, 2014 at 5:24 pm | Reply
  53. Steve

    If Democrats are so smart, why do they have to keep asking Republicans for money? Can't they earn it themselves?

    February 24, 2014 at 4:53 pm | Reply
    • Jamie

      Only once in a decade genius questions like this make it clear what a T-Billy is made of.

      February 24, 2014 at 5:04 pm | Reply
    • BADGUY

      Can't the Republicans pay their fair share in taxes?

      February 24, 2014 at 5:33 pm | Reply
  54. Bob Geldof

    It's about time they start cutting the military. About 22% of our country's total spending goes towards defense. If we cut our military down to a reasonable level it would take care of a lot of the burden on our debt levels. But no, suggesting to cut the military's funding, benefits, or downsizing it is completely taboo because "dey're protectin' muh freedoms". Give me a break, we are just creating more enemies than we are killing anyway, it's a perpetual war that's lasted 12 years too long. Yes people, this is one of the biggest reasons why we are in debt, it's the elephant in the room, but somehow it's taboo to suggest that we don't need a military of this magnitude. Our government spends about as much on the military as the rest of the world combined, and you sheeple complain at the thought of cutting that figure back. Of course we need a military, every country does, but the size and cost of ours has gotten out of control.

    February 24, 2014 at 4:53 pm | Reply
    • Jimmy

      Cutting the military won't help the debt level at all (and I'm all for trimming wasteful spending). Those monies cut from the defense budget will be spent on other pet projects. Now what to do with 100K unemployed former service men and women.

      February 24, 2014 at 5:00 pm | Reply
    • Kathy C.

      I have to completely disagree with you on this matter. I don't believe cutting defense spending is the answer to getting rid of our enemies or preventing our country from making enemies. Actually, that really doesn't even make sense to me since the reason we are fighting in other countries is because they attacked us first and not once but several times. Your comment is very anti-American and I would like to respectfully remind you that you have the option to leave and move to another country that better suits your needs.

      February 24, 2014 at 5:10 pm | Reply
    • rol

      for every dollar cut from the military – cut education, social, health, green, irs, epa, etc equally...

      February 24, 2014 at 6:40 pm | Reply
    • M Adams

      While I agree our military expenses are too large. I believe we owe the promised benefits to those whom have already served. I also believe it is a big mistake to remove the a-10 from service as it is very cost effective in its intended role ground support/anti tank and has no replacement. All that stated reduction in force size is necessary and the civilian sector will end up losing more jobs then the DOD

      February 24, 2014 at 6:47 pm | Reply
  55. brown

    The 21st century is China's.

    You American must understand and accept your new station in the world.

    Live on your knees or die on your feet American!

    February 24, 2014 at 4:52 pm | Reply
    • DaveW

      lol.

      February 24, 2014 at 4:57 pm | Reply
    • sly

      Ho ho ho - I see Call of Duty sales are up in January.

      February 24, 2014 at 5:00 pm | Reply
    • Yeti

      Is China going to make a bridge of people to reach the US? That's an awful waste of a billion plus people.

      February 24, 2014 at 5:04 pm | Reply
    • Jamie

      Can you also tell us whether that would be a good thing for the world?

      February 24, 2014 at 5:09 pm | Reply
    • Kathy C.

      Oh really? What is China going to do in 20 years when the ratio of males to females is 100:1? How do you think that will affect future generations?

      February 24, 2014 at 5:19 pm | Reply
  56. Bob

    In 2012, Welfare was 1.1 trillion per year, the Military was 660 Billion. 100% of these costs are paid by corporations and their tax paying employees. All we have to do is Deport the bleeding moochers, problem solved. As a bonus, I would move ALL government pensions into Social Security – then the government could run a surplus.

    February 24, 2014 at 4:51 pm | Reply
    • Caseyhd

      Don't forget Corporate welfare was at $1.6 Trillion.

      February 24, 2014 at 4:53 pm | Reply
    • MIlitary Retiree and Civil Servant

      Bob, you obviously don't know much about government pensions and retirement monies.

      My military retirement check (it is not apension, because I remain on th emilitary toles fo rlife and am tehcnically still subject to the UCMJ in additiona to normal civilian law) does not replace Social Security. Heck, I paid social security taxes from my miltiary wages my entire 25 year career. When I reach the appropriate age and request my social security benefits, I will get them in addition ot the military retirement. The military retirement assumes that you will return to the workforce for several years, and then add Social Security Benefits to that money (along with whatever else) for your ACTUAL retirement.

      I am under the FERS retirement program as a civil servant. Once I have worked long enough to to earn a FERS Pension, I will be able to draw it after true retirement also. It, unlike it's predecessor program, also assumes that Social Security will be added to it for retirement income, and that I will have a nice nest egg in a 401K to draw from as well, because the FERS pension and social security benefit are designed to NOT be enough for a comfortable retirement. That's thejustification for the 5% matching funds into a government controlled fund . . ..

      February 24, 2014 at 5:04 pm | Reply
      • BADGUY

        In Civilian jobs, people are eligible for pension payouts, if they are employed for 5 years or more. For the military, the people that serve 20 years, only 17%, are eligible for military pensions. The people that serve 19.99 years get squat! THIS has to be changed. If you're a "short timer" or a "draftee"....you should get SOMETHING when you retire at 62.

        February 24, 2014 at 5:11 pm |
  57. gbl

    How about cutting wasteful spending like building new buildings on post, closing them, and building another building of the same type right behind it? Case in point: my husband works in a DFAC on base. When I first met him, he was in an almost brand new one next to his former barracks. Then that one was closed with no explanation. He was reassigned to a different facility–while they build a brand new DFAC less than half a click from the old one at a cost of millions of dollars.

    I went to eat brunch there on Saturday while they were at work and there were 30 guys working. I could count on two hands the number of people sitting and eating. When my husband got home from work later that day, he said their head count FOR THE WHOLE DAY was something like 45.

    30 soldiers working. To serve just 45 people food, in a multi million dollar building that replaced a perfectly good other multilmillion dollar building for no reason with a capacity to serve hundreds of people PER MEAL. My husband was saying there's no reason to open the whole building up on weekends because it's so wasteful. Why not assign two cooks to each barracks (which also are almost brand new with a smaller common kitchen on the ground floor) to take some short order breakfast requests? I should also add that in the new barracks, enlisted soldiers actually have their own kitchen in their rooms. It's ensuite which they share with a roommate, but it's there. A lot of people don't even need the DFAC anymore because of this because they have a stove, microwave and refrigerator.

    It is WASTEFUL! They need to start with stuff like this, which barely effects anything, before going after soldier pay and Tricare! Good luck getting people to enlist if they reduce benefits! For many, the military is a way out of poverty–I can't tell you how many of my husband's buddies are sending money to their parents to help out. My husband joined to escape one of the most economically depressed cities in the US and now makes more money than anyone in his family and does not have to rely on welfare and medicaid. Just something to think about.

    February 24, 2014 at 4:49 pm | Reply
  58. Ben

    Every American should have to make a personal commitment and material sacrifice to make a nation they didn't build greater than it was yesterday. We all should have higher taxes and fewer benefits. The government should decrease in size, at least for now, and that includes the military. Don't whine about it, just accept it, and move forward, but don't settle for unfair cuts either. No program should be left uncut. Everyone needs to bring a list of benefits they have now to the cutting board and be willing to put their money where their mouth is for the betterment of their community, state, and country. ASK NOT WHAT YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU. Give back, and stop whining. All of you. Don't let this cutting stop at the military, get it done, and then go after the freeloaders and Congress, and anyone else who gets a government check.

    February 24, 2014 at 4:47 pm | Reply
    • Doug J

      You, Sir are a true patriot.

      February 24, 2014 at 4:50 pm | Reply
    • BADGUY

      And...let's START by cutting Corporate Welfare benefits and return our tax schedule to that before Ronald Reagan (70% top rate). Also, let's cut tax subsidies to Capital Gains, Dividends and Interest earners by requiring them to pay the SAME rate as people who actually WORK for their income.

      February 24, 2014 at 5:38 pm | Reply
  59. Fred Evil

    The only time you will hear a Republican howl for more money, is for the military, police, or some sort of support for Christian Churches.

    February 24, 2014 at 4:47 pm | Reply
    • Steve

      As opposed to free cellphones, and tax returns for people who pay no taxes like the Democrats want?

      February 24, 2014 at 5:22 pm | Reply
  60. TGrady

    Whenever someone posts an anti-Obama comment, somebody else automatically accuses them of racism. It has nothing to do with race, it has to do with being able to express an opinion in what used to be a free country without reprisal. But, alas, no more. The politicians have us divided into visceral camps – exactly as they planned, and the lemmings follow the political bait. Left attacks Right; Right attacks Left; White comments about someone who happens to be Black – Black attacks White; just as the Democrats and Republicans intend. We stopped being Americans after Ronald Reagan. Here is one for you – which President said: "Politics is more about Party than it is about the People" – name the President!

    February 24, 2014 at 4:45 pm | Reply
    • Ben

      You are not a racist, but you are incorrect.

      February 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm | Reply
  61. colmtnmojo

    Thousands of military suddenly on the unemployment lines along with thousands of others that use to support them. Makes total sense to me. Our unemployment is already high and it somehow makes sense to put thousands more out of work all the while China is building its military in an aggressive manner and we have plenty of enemies worldwide.

    February 24, 2014 at 4:45 pm | Reply
    • Caseyhd

      Make up your mind. Do you want to get rid of the nation's debt or not?

      February 24, 2014 at 4:55 pm | Reply
    • CW

      If we shouldn't make these cuts because it will add to unemployment, then why not just raise taxes and create millions of federal jobs supported by tax payers? We could have 0% unemployment, just raise taxes! Everybody wants to do something about the Federal deficit that was created due to Medicare, Social Security and Defense spending. They just don't want to cut Medicare, Social Security or Defense spending.

      February 24, 2014 at 4:56 pm | Reply
      • Ken Margo

        Social security has nothing to do with the debt. It's a pay as you go system. What you put in, you get out.

        You can cut/gut Medicare all you want but the elderly will still go to the hospital. If they can't pay the taxpayer pays. So you pay no matter what.

        Raising taxes to fix the infrastructure to get the construction jobs going. sounds simple. But as usual repubs are against it.

        February 24, 2014 at 5:02 pm |
  62. hobo

    The Air Force will no longer fly Air Force One and the Marines will no longer fly Marine One. Obama will have to drive himself in a Volkswagen Beetle wherever he goes. The White House will no longer be guarded. Anyone is welcome to come in an eliminate rats, vermin, and snakes.

    February 24, 2014 at 4:43 pm | Reply
    • Solex

      Your handle is appropriate.

      February 24, 2014 at 4:59 pm | Reply
  63. Zac

    I am an army veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan and I think his propositions are too conservative. Reduce active duty army strength to 100,000 people consisting of specialized units and maybe 2 Infantry and 2 Armored units. Keep our National Guard and Army reserve at what they are or perhaps even bolster their numbers. This keeps the slackers who don't want to be there out of the active duty, gives those active units more money for training and allows them to be paid better, and National Guard and Reserves are cheaper because they are not full time. These Guardsmen and Reservists still know something about being soldiers and their MOS so if the need for them should arise, they will be faster to put into action than the average joe civilian on the street. While we are on the subject of military spending; Afghanistan is a lost cause, lets go ahead and get out of there. We could also stand to sell our allies a couple of aircraft carriers since we currently have ten and the rest of the world has a total of 11. There is only one thing I completely disagree with Mr. Hagel about and that is the A-10. That aircraft is one of the best there is. I've heard that pilots love it due to its survivability and they saved my behind more than a couple times in Afghanistan

    February 24, 2014 at 4:43 pm | Reply
    • colmtnmojo

      What's your take on the China's military buildup and how it could affect the US?

      February 24, 2014 at 4:53 pm | Reply
      • Zac

        Why would China do anything to the U.S.? We buy all of their goods. Its counter productive to them having a stable economy to do anything that would make us want to put an embargo on their goods

        February 24, 2014 at 4:58 pm |
      • sly

        Come on, we all know that China has attacked the US um , well, maybe not.

        Wasn't it China that has bombed 20 nations in the past 35 years? Oh, wait, no, that was us.

        February 24, 2014 at 5:02 pm |
  64. Doug J

    When you add up all the military budgets in the world, the US represents almost half the total. There is absolutely no need to waste this much money on the military, and we certainly can't afford it. I commend Hagel for this initial reduction, but we've got a long way to go.

    February 24, 2014 at 4:41 pm | Reply
  65. Martin

    Possibly our taxes will go down? I won't count on it.

    February 24, 2014 at 4:41 pm | Reply
    • Steve

      Of course not. But maybe they won't go up as much...

      February 24, 2014 at 4:47 pm | Reply
  66. JuJUBeans

    Figures, our leaders cant manage a budget. Congress does nothing to improve the situation in the United States. Still have troops in Afgan. Army will be cut more than pre WWII that is for sure bc we don't have leaders in Congress who can fix the financial mess that America is in. It is only going to get a lot worse before getting better and that is if. If they don't it is only a matter of time (few years) before financial ruin.

    February 24, 2014 at 4:41 pm | Reply
  67. peter clarke

    I would tackle the waste first, defense contractors are indeed at the top of the list. How about the bonus scam ? or maybe the goofy redundant cat fish inspection nailed to the last farm bill. Or millions to Afghan tribesman. The list goes on and on.

    February 24, 2014 at 4:39 pm | Reply
  68. Banjofoot

    End the terrible F-35 program. Close the bases around the world and let those countries deal with the trickledown unemployment there. Spend the money saved by improving our own crumbling infrastructure and invest in our own future. Next, cut corporate welfare and make them pay their fair share of taxes. Why should my tax bill be more than General Electric? Makes no sense.

    February 24, 2014 at 4:31 pm | Reply
    • Sundara

      Sounds good, then do drug testing on welfare recipients, make then do mandatory birth control and have to work for their benefits. Farmers need workers, they can use the welfare recipients instead of immigrants.

      February 24, 2014 at 4:40 pm | Reply
      • Martin

        Great Idea. We can put our people on welfare to work and start actually eliminating these ILLEGAL ALIENS.

        February 24, 2014 at 4:44 pm |
      • Ken Margo

        Great, keep up with the stereotyping of people on welfare. Your republican friends are AGAINST insurance co. providing birth control. A lof of people on welfare do work. Most of these people work at WALMART.

        February 24, 2014 at 4:47 pm |
      • Fred Evil

        Drug testing on welfare recipients, while an applause-getter in the Judgemental crowd, have been PROVEN to be more expensive than it's worth. Florida gave it a shot, and found out it's MUCH more expensive, even when the Governor owns a company that produces drug tests!

        February 24, 2014 at 4:49 pm |
  69. gstlab3

    I have to believe the military is poised to release the robotic infantryman and surprise surprise!! everyone of you have become obsolete and very much more expendable here at home where slave wages await you and your kind from now on.
    no more easy or should I say ? "over promised retirements and costly disability payments and survivors payments either.

    February 24, 2014 at 4:31 pm | Reply
    • Awall

      Don't be mad at the military member. You should direct your anger toward our government leaders. They have the biggest paycheck, and best retirement plan that we all pay for. You should be on your hands and knees thanking our soldiers for protecting your rights, and defending this country.

      February 24, 2014 at 4:43 pm | Reply
  70. Sara Khan

    So I'm done working 16 hour days standing duty away from my son and getting underway then deployments away from my son for months. I'm barely getting paid enough to pay my house note and car note I'm just getting out and getting on welfare and food stamps like everyone else with kids they can't afford. Why should I work if I'm not reaping any benefits. Welcome to the new U.S. Cutting personnel when we are running on bare minimum personnel already hence working 16 hours while cutting our benefits isn't going to help anything except hurt a lot of people and families. Reality is they are now trying to give people measly incentives to give up the shore rotation for sea because there is not enough people to man ships now days. That is a fact. We are running the minimum amount of ships and sending them on longer deployments to save money on switching out. Budget cuts have been happening for years now our troops are going to be pushed even more then they are already and they are already overworked and underpayed. Like I said why should I continue to serve and be away from my family when I can make just as much getting a minimum wage job and applying for assistance. There are enough suicides in the military we don't need anymore.

    February 24, 2014 at 4:27 pm | Reply
    • Guest

      I'm right there with you. I'm finally climbing to a high enough rank that my total benefits package is coming close to commensurate with my skills and experience. I'm certainly not overpaid for what my skill set is and what I'm asked to do but now I need to shoulder some of my own housing and healthcare costs? No thanks, I'll just move to the private sector. They better be putting a lot of money into machine language translation, because it sounds like I may not be around to do it. Maybe China will do us a solid and start sending their communications in English, or they could just rely on the PRC to provide us translations of treaties and agreements for us to sign.

      To me, being in the military is a job. A good job, but a job all the same. I don't serve for patriotism or pride, my family can't eat those. I serve for money and the benefits and if it's not a good deal, I'll move on to someone else who offers a better one. I'm not the only one who feels that way.

      February 24, 2014 at 4:45 pm | Reply
    • BRB

      Should have kept your legs crossed until after you got out of the military. You must have taken the little bus to school.

      February 24, 2014 at 7:52 pm | Reply
      • Sara Khan

        I should have kept my legs closed until after i got out the miltary. Wow so i should wait 20 to 30 years to have children. The miltary specifically has sea and shore rotations so sailors have time to have children or be with your family. You have three years on shore to do that. Maybe you should get on the short bus back to school. Why shouldn't I be allowed to have children on my shore rotation because I made the miltary a career. Also just to point out the military is like a coporation. You start of at the bottom of the barrel and you move up and make a little more every few years. And maybe you can save so your kids can go to college. I don't willingly choose to spend months away from my child for years at a time but right now the perks of moving up is worth it right now for his future but how this is going it won't be that way for long.

        February 24, 2014 at 8:35 pm |
  71. gstlab3

    I think this means that the robot infantryman is really here.,
    you see modern medicine has done two things one it makes saving combat injured more and more possible but it also burdens the pentagon and their budget with survivors that live with life long disabilities where as before they would die in theater or not far from it and if they made it home drugs and alcohol along with ptsd did the rest.

    February 24, 2014 at 4:26 pm | Reply
  72. Lord Vader

    I think the country should have a "National egg a politicians house " day in remembrance of the pain and stupidity they cause!

    February 24, 2014 at 4:26 pm | Reply
  73. JohnTX

    I love all the comments from the fiscal tea baggers who are crapping their pants at making cuts to the military budget. So much for fiscal conservatism. Your tag line has sailed.

    February 24, 2014 at 4:25 pm | Reply
    • duane - st.pete FL

      wait till the mid-terms....:)

      February 24, 2014 at 4:30 pm | Reply
      • Fred Evil

        Just YOU wait!

        February 24, 2014 at 4:49 pm |
  74. zappo15

    How about liquidating the fat cat contractors who are leaching off the US economy.

    February 24, 2014 at 4:24 pm | Reply
    • sameeker

      Well said. The contractors are overpaid, connected fat cats, who take our tax dollars and convert them to bribes for politicians.

      February 24, 2014 at 4:47 pm | Reply
  75. duane - st.pete FL

    you know whats worse than the fact we have Obama in office? we still have liberlas who think he is doing a great job.....fools. he will go down as our (by far) the worst chowderhead ever to hold that office.....he's a clown

    February 24, 2014 at 4:20 pm | Reply
    • TR

      We get it, you don't like black people. Why don't you just save time and write that. Why all the monolog?

      February 24, 2014 at 4:24 pm | Reply
      • duane - st.pete FL

        yeah, that's right.....we hate blacks, gays, the unemployed and we have a war on women...that's what Obama has been saying since he took office.....then he whines like a baby that no one will work with him….wonder why? That just shows what an amateur Obama is….at least Clinton treated the GOP with respect and got something accomplished…..not rookie Obama!!!

        February 24, 2014 at 4:29 pm |
      • balanced99

        "TR" must be short for Truly a Liberal Loon.

        I read the comment you replied to. The person didn't specify why he feels Obama's the worst president ever – but not a word he mentioned signified his issue was race. Playing the race card on the issue is disgusting.

        February 24, 2014 at 4:38 pm |
      • Martin

        Here goes some idiot playing the race card. Obama is an imbecile weather he is black pink or purple. The color of his skin doesn't change the fact that he is an imbecile.

        February 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm |
    • eifeldude

      Nothing will ever top wonder boy Bush as a failed presidency

      February 24, 2014 at 4:28 pm | Reply
    • Fred Evil

      Simply untrue. You may not like him, but he's FAR from the worst, though I realize that doesn't fit with your uber-tight tifoil hat friends.

      February 24, 2014 at 4:50 pm | Reply
  76. Brian C

    Won't happen. Too many States have huge military bases and factories geared towards the military and cutting back will cause huge unemployment. Its an addiction to war and you know you are in trouble when your military spending is greater than the next 10 countries combined.

    February 24, 2014 at 4:18 pm | Reply
  77. Jeff

    Sweet administration. Double the amount of welfare and food stamp recipients, add more to the national debt than the previous 10 administrations combined, have a first lady that travels in style like no other Prez and first lady....and cut the military. Let's go ahead and give some more 3rd world countries who hate us a few hundred billion more dollars to. This prez sucks, and he is ruining our country.

    February 24, 2014 at 4:18 pm | Reply
    • Ben

      You could have made the same point without exaggerating, but you didn't. Haughty killed persuasive.

      February 24, 2014 at 4:38 pm | Reply
      • Jeff

        You realize it's all true don't you? Tell me where I'm wrong?

        February 24, 2014 at 4:58 pm |
    • sameeker

      You must be referring to what Bu$h did.

      February 24, 2014 at 4:50 pm | Reply
  78. SSG B

    They are cutting at all the wrong things. If are military needs to curtail spending, why are the deploying lasers on naval ships, developing flawed airframs worth more than some small counties make in a year? Instead of cutting back on these wasteful programs lining the pockets of the rich these cuts will drive out good soldier, sailors, airmen, and marines while taking out of the pockets of those why make it past the cuts.

    February 24, 2014 at 4:17 pm | Reply
  79. VT Guy

    Perfect.... bleeding heart liberal lefties weak on defense. Great tool for conservatives to run on. Only granola and Obambam freebie folks want to cut the military so that they can have more FREEBIES!

    February 24, 2014 at 4:16 pm | Reply
    • TR

      Oh please do that. It didn't work the last 3 times. How bout this; Conservatives actually come up with some NEW ideas to fix all the crap theyve have broke. Run on that and you might have a chance. Otherwise get comfortable living on the outside of the whitehouse

      February 24, 2014 at 4:22 pm | Reply
    • Ben

      They'd be as wrong about their freeloading freebies as you'd be with your haughty hegemony. Not more, not less.

      February 24, 2014 at 4:40 pm | Reply
    • rp1588

      This article proposes no cuts in defense spending. It does propose cuts in offense spending. Cut a lot more than this, and the threat to USA will go down.

      February 24, 2014 at 5:29 pm | Reply
  80. Robert Halloran

    The A-10 is meant for close air support of ground troops, and taking out armored vehicles, particularly tanks. This was shown to great effect during the Gulf War. The proposed replacements have not proven as capable. Removing the A-10 without a viable successor is a foolish move on the part of DoD.

    February 24, 2014 at 4:16 pm | Reply
    • JSB

      They seem to think that the A-10 which is a superbly designed and armored platform is usable for only one thing. That is accurate it is usable only for Air to ground missions and in that role it can drop or fire more ordinance and live through more battlefield scenarios than can any other aircraft. Of course it is going away because we are ceding control of the air over a theatre of operations to the other side by cutting our forces to a point where you can just mass missile volley our Air Force out of the theatre. Sadly we could not currently fight a Gulf War the way we fought the last one because we DEPLOYED to Saudi Arabia 500,000 troops in 1991 but we wont even have that many troops total if this plan goes through.

      Stupid politicians

      February 24, 2014 at 4:25 pm | Reply
  81. BilRod

    As long as Congressional benefits are also cut!

    February 24, 2014 at 4:15 pm | Reply
  82. Dana

    They need to look at things more closely. We know a person that is in the "reserves" he went to training for 3 months and now goes to "play" army for 2 days a month and they pay him $1800.00 a month plus he gets medical insurance for him and his family and discounts on tuition and even house hold items. He has never and probably will never see the battlefield and I am sure there are thousands like him. They need to be cut before we get rid of our highly trained professional soldiers who have actually made defending our nation their career.

    I'm a democrat and I completely disagree with their decision. It is just plain stupidity and a slap in the face to those men and women that have worked so hard to defend our country.

    February 24, 2014 at 4:14 pm | Reply
    • Eric Lector

      I've been in the reserves for 17 years I can tell you last year my W2 was $9,000 for the whole year. I have a dental plan through them which is $20 a month and that is all I get out of them.

      February 24, 2014 at 4:22 pm | Reply
    • William Geber

      Dana, you may want to check your facts about the benefits of the the people whom you say just "play army." The pay for a weekend drill for someone with the rank of E4 (a very common rank) and 4 years service is about $310. This is a far cry from $1800. They do not receive health insurance or discounts on household items, but there is a student loan repayment program that will pay some, not all of a student loan. The small company I work for currently has four guard/ reservists. All four have been deployed, three to the Middle East and one to central America. One deployed for a year with his unit a few weeks after completing his training. Guard/Reserve soldiers train at the same basic training sites and advanced schools along with regular Army troops. To infer that a Guard or Reservist is somehow overpaid and inferior is a great insult to them. You should be thankful there are people who are willing to put a civilian career on hold a leave a spouse to raise a family for a year at a time by themselves. With the reduction this article is discussing, these "play" soldiers will be called upon more and more.

      February 24, 2014 at 5:11 pm | Reply
    • KILL

      You don't know what you are talking about. So please be quiet and research before you comment. How about most of you all need to research before you comment.

      February 24, 2014 at 11:36 pm | Reply
  83. duane - st.pete FL

    20 trillion in debt when Obama leaves office and more debit to come if Hilary gets in........food stamps at record highs, poor at record highs, unemployemnt never got better, over regulation of business....yeah, way way worse the Jimmy Carter.....again, something to be proud of liberals!!!!

    February 24, 2014 at 4:13 pm | Reply
    • TR

      Thank you free market for all the jobs. Whats that ole stock market up to now?

      February 24, 2014 at 4:17 pm | Reply
      • duane - st.pete FL

        how does that reduce our debit or are you just ignoring that 20 Trillion?

        February 24, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
      • duane - st.pete FL

        speak up TR

        February 24, 2014 at 4:21 pm |
    • sly

      Nothing dumber than a Republican. So you think INCREASING military spending will cut the debt?

      If you care so much about the debt, how come you voted to increase it 8 straight years under Bush? Because you are a liar. Pure simple.

      By the way liar – the federal deficit percent of budget under Obama is at a 50 (FIFTY) year low. Down 37% this year alone.

      Must be depressing to lose all the time and lie all the time, right?

      February 24, 2014 at 4:29 pm | Reply
      • northerstar

        "As a percent of budget" ??? If you increase the size of the budget then EVERYTHING becomes a "smaller percent of the budget" than before. Surely you cannot be that stup$d to believe what you just posted.

        February 24, 2014 at 4:36 pm |
      • sly

        Math isn't your strong point is it. Federal deficit is reducing. 37% THIS YEAR ALONE. Chew on that.

        Besides – ain't one of you who really wants to reduce the deficit. Certainly not any Republicans. Recall: ALL Republicans supported Bush increasing the deficit EIGHT STRAIGHT YEARS. All of you. There were no Republican's arguing for deficit reduction during the Bush budgets. None. So stop lying – y'all like the deficit.

        February 24, 2014 at 4:52 pm |
      • MIchaelChatt

        If we get nuked or otherwise attacked I wonder how important the Budget would be?

        As for Republicans being dumber? I'd like to say there isn't a very good way to really determine intelligence but it you are referring to education I might point out that the Democrats bread and butter are the dependent Whites, Blacks and Latin population. It is so true in fact that they are happily leaving our borders and our voting stations open to people who can not even get a voters ID or Photo ID in order to vote.

        You can not argue that Democrats rely almost exclusively on the poorest and least educated voters. It's probably why they talk more about education but do less to truly advance it than republicans. It is true that many highly intelligent people vote democrat, never figured that out but it's not their bread and butter voter and it's not a universal truth. The Rebublicans tend to represent middle class Americans who are making their own way and don't want or need the federal government to pay for our toilet paper and subsidize their drugs.

        February 24, 2014 at 5:49 pm |
  84. Qi

    2016 PALIN & She will repair all damage, starting with end to Obamascare......TEA MERICA

    February 24, 2014 at 4:12 pm | Reply
    • TR

      Sarah Palin isn't qualified to run a fast food restaurant let alone a country.

      Sarah Palin.....LOL.....BAHH

      February 24, 2014 at 4:18 pm | Reply
      • duane - st.pete FL

        but our Prez and kuckleheaded Biden is a dummy....lol

        February 24, 2014 at 4:23 pm |
      • JSB

        Neither is Obama but you seem to like the US under his lack of leadership

        February 24, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
  85. Kelley

    Billions are wasted on defense contracts (so very much more than just highly visible programs like the F-35) but instead of getting a grip on that, the service members get their benefits reduced. Good luck with recruiting new troops.

    February 24, 2014 at 4:12 pm | Reply
    • hkirwin

      they should draft the sons an daughters of the president and congress first

      February 24, 2014 at 4:14 pm | Reply
      • Ken Margo

        Start with congress first. Obama is trying to end wars.

        February 24, 2014 at 4:42 pm |
  86. TR

    So Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, Vietnam war hero, 2 purple hearts, awards for gallantry, former REPUBLICAN Senator from Nebraska, announced cuts to the military and somehow its President Obama's fault?

    You conservative zombies make me laugh

    February 24, 2014 at 4:11 pm | Reply
    • hkirwin

      If you think hagel made these on his own you are dumber that the people you laugh at,

      February 24, 2014 at 4:13 pm | Reply
      • TR

        Go find someone who can read and have them read the article to you. It might help

        February 24, 2014 at 4:15 pm |
      • tonyk

        If you actually took the time to read the article you would see that Hagel announce the PROPOSED cuts after months of meetings with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Those guys are the Generals and Admirals of our military. Everyone knows that cuts needs to be made, we can't possibly continue to spend the amount we do on defense.

        February 24, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
      • JSB

        @ TR and Tony.

        As an administration official HE gets to present OBAMA's ideas of what the country should do to the Congress as well as the Country. Administration officials have only one real duty. That duty is to carry out the president's orders as given and to take the fall for the president if they don't 'go well'.

        February 24, 2014 at 4:29 pm |
  87. Casket City Jim

    The US, with 4.5% of the world's population, is responsible for almost half of there world's military spending. The military budget should be at least halved. Don't count on much in the way of cuts, though. The industrialists who depend on huge military contracts for much of their profits, will put pressure on Congress to protect their interests.

    February 24, 2014 at 4:09 pm | Reply
    • TR

      Its the Defense Welfare System. DWS

      February 24, 2014 at 4:12 pm | Reply
    • Kelley

      Too right – exactly my point in my comment above.

      February 24, 2014 at 4:13 pm | Reply
    • mick

      More than half the DOD's budget is on personnel, thanks for supporting the troops. Also, the US defense spending isn't on guns and bullets, the R&D in the last decade alone has led to amazing technologies, especially in the medical and information technology fields which everyone is benefiting from. Never mind the fact that the US spending in defense results in emergency aid to people within and outside of its borders. Also some of the cost is recouped in selling to allies around the world.

      But no, you must be an expert on all sides and ins and outs because you've looked at a graph with colors.

      February 24, 2014 at 4:16 pm | Reply
      • sameeker

        IF you are so smart, then you must know that it does not really take $200 to buy a hammer from a connected vendor.

        February 24, 2014 at 5:05 pm |
  88. Alex

    I am certain the right wing will complain that this is terrible, as they whine about the deficit and complain about 1/100 of these cuts social programs being crucial to balance the budget. And we will still have the largest military in the world.

    February 24, 2014 at 4:09 pm | Reply
    • hkirwin

      as long as you aren't the person serving

      February 24, 2014 at 4:16 pm | Reply
  89. duane - st.pete FL

    food stamps and free cell phones instead of a strong standing armed forces....you liberlas must be proud. dummies....

    February 24, 2014 at 4:09 pm | Reply
    • Miguel

      I agree, plus the united states has alot more enemies then they did post world war 2.

      February 24, 2014 at 4:12 pm | Reply
      • Big Bob

        That's because most of them were starving and living in dirt and knew nothing of the US.. Then the US and the western world fed and medicated them and Viola! They became new enemies.

        February 24, 2014 at 5:01 pm |
    • TR

      Still believe the free cell phone thing huh. I bet you still believe in the Easter bunny and Santa too.

      You conservatives are a trip

      Corporate welfare makes food stamps and actual welfare look like chump change

      February 24, 2014 at 4:14 pm | Reply
      • duane - st.pete FL

        ok, fair enough....but your cool with the debit right? I mean it's not your money right?? lol

        February 24, 2014 at 4:15 pm |
      • hkirwin

        only in your mind. If not for corporations who wpuld feed you

        February 24, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
      • Duh

        I had one of those "mythical" free phones. The program began 30 years ago with landlines and was extended to mobiles at the request of several carrier telcos. It's a very basic phone you won't find at retail, has talk but no frills

        February 24, 2014 at 4:38 pm |
    • James Cheatham

      Given that even with the "planned" cuts we'll still have the biggest armed forces in the world, still designed to fight one major conflict while holding in another major conflict, how strong do we need to be? How many times in the last 50 years have we actually needed to be able simultaneously fight two MAJOR conflicts? We have capacity that our generals say we DON'T need now and congress keeps pushing it on them. To put it another way, why use an elephant gun to hunt squirrels?

      February 24, 2014 at 4:20 pm | Reply
      • duane - st.pete FL

        good thinking.....lets wait till the need arises.....then you losers will be hiding behind the military wanting them to protect you......

        February 24, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
      • JSB

        I don't know about you but I don't think of the Iraqi army in 1991 was all that big an armed force or one that would require a tremendous amount of military force to defeat yet to defeat that force the US stationed 500,000 men in Saudi Arabia. Under this plan that would take up 100% of our future military and still leave it short 50-60 thousand troops.

        February 24, 2014 at 4:46 pm |
    • OrmondGeorge

      Unemployment IS better
      The deficit has been cut in about HALF
      AND
      From SNOPES.Com:
      The Lifeline program originated in 1984, during the administration of Ronald Reagan; it was expanded in 1996, during the administration of Bill Clinton; and its first cellular provider service (SafeLink Wireless) was launched by TracFone in 2008, during the administration of George W. Bush.

      So you got that ALL wrong.

      Are you a dummy or a liar?

      February 24, 2014 at 4:21 pm | Reply
  90. Timmy

    This is much needed. We do not need as many troops as we have with both wars winding down and ending. Now, if Congress can work on budget cuts in other policy areas.

    February 24, 2014 at 4:08 pm | Reply
    • hkirwin

      spoken like a Dim that never served anyone but themselves

      February 24, 2014 at 4:18 pm | Reply
      • Carmon Mendoza

        Why do you rightie-tighties do nothing but gripe. No solutions, no ideas, just gripe, gripe, gripe. Always someone else's fault, especially the black man. You offer nothing.

        February 24, 2014 at 4:31 pm |
      • Timmy

        Actually, I'm still serving in the military, as I have been for the past 11 years. What is your next comment hkirwin.....

        February 24, 2014 at 5:02 pm |
  91. SemperFi

    As long as the President and the presidents staff, along with Congress, are the first to be deployed in the next war we are involved in than I have no problem.

    February 24, 2014 at 4:05 pm | Reply
    • JA

      Amen!!!!!

      February 24, 2014 at 4:20 pm | Reply
  92. Jay

    The bias of CNN is glaring. The Fox News article on the same topic has a balance of statements that are for and against these cuts. CNN gives multiple comments from Hagel supporting the cuts but only 1 sentence stating that GOP "hawks" are against them.

    February 24, 2014 at 4:03 pm | Reply
    • paul rogers

      you don't know this, but anyone who watches a lot of fox (can't call it news) is more poorly informed than the rest.
      fox tells you what your opinion is and that is how you respond. fox is one huge slanted right wing org.

      February 24, 2014 at 4:11 pm | Reply
      • sheptunes

        Paul, you don't know this but you are missing the point.

        February 24, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
      • Sundara

        I agree but CNN is just as left slanted as Fox is to the right.

        February 24, 2014 at 4:34 pm |
    • sheptunes

      are you surprised?

      February 24, 2014 at 4:24 pm | Reply
    • Carmon Mendoza

      Fox viewers are so far to the right they see anything close to the center as left wing propaganda.

      February 24, 2014 at 4:36 pm | Reply
      • JSB

        And CNN and MSNBC shows a position so far left that some fairly radical lefties think that they are 'conservative' or 'mainstream' based on where they are compared to these two 'news' agencies.

        CNN all the propaganda that's fit to print or broadcast.

        February 24, 2014 at 4:49 pm |
  93. dou44

    Not big enough, still wasting billions. Cut it again in half.

    February 24, 2014 at 4:01 pm | Reply
    • Bobby J

      Spoken like someone who has never served – sad. But dont worry, those of us who have stood watch for your liberties through the centuries will continue to do so, with or without the proper funding.

      February 24, 2014 at 4:16 pm | Reply
      • hkirwin

        but they will be the first to whine and cry

        February 24, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
      • Carmon Mendoza

        I proudly served, and I agree with Dou. Imagine the waste that comes from >$500 billion of spending? All you're doing is griping, and we've been hearing that from you cons for years.

        February 24, 2014 at 4:34 pm |
    • Anastasia Beaverhausen

      I agree, we spend way too much on the military and useless equipment that will never be used.

      February 24, 2014 at 4:22 pm | Reply
      • Bobby J

        Anastasia,
        Please go back to your soap operas – I guarantee you have no formal education in defense matters – just a hatred of the military and probably anything Conservative.

        February 24, 2014 at 4:30 pm |
    • Jamie D.

      So you want to cut more? Cut what, our insurance, housing, pay check? How about you guys put yourselves in the shoes of those who are serving before you say anything on this.

      Here's a good one for you, what will those who will be forced out, some probably serving for many years, do when they are out? What about those who have medical issues that need help but if forced out won't get it?

      I was part of the cuts myself, and I have struggled to get work, to get help for medical issues that I received from serving our country. I never got into trouble, never went against orders, and worked my butt off as a female mechanic for four years but still got forced out. Why should those who volunteer have to suffer?!

      February 24, 2014 at 4:30 pm | Reply
      • Really?

        I didn't realize you were "volunteering". Last i checked you got paid, by me in fact. I will accept your thanks for paying for you to live any time now. You don't like the pay and benefits that come with your job. Quit. Go find a different one. I dont get to walk up to my boss and say well I have been working a bunch of hours and doing a lot of work so you shouldn't fire me and pay me more. Sorry the world doesn't work that way. No one forced you in to the military. You weren't drafted. You took a job because it was either the best option available or something you wanted to do. You made a decision. Live with the consequences.

        For all of you people that keep talking about defending my freedoms yada yada yada. Don't. Im not concerned about my well being. If I was, I would serve. I have no interest in it. There are enough of you people to do the crappy jobs for me. You will notice that no one talks about paying the garbage man more money. His job affects my day to day activities much more than yours does.

        Come to the realization that with modern technology, ground troops are soon to be obsolete, so you are all going to have to find different jobs any way. There are plenty of benefits offered to you that make you substantially MORE qualified for jobs in the first place (tuition reimbursement, free training etc.). Stop asking that they get handed to you because you "did your civic duty"

        February 24, 2014 at 5:58 pm |
  94. larry

    Not to worried about this. If past performance means anything, Obama will screw this up too. And depending on Hagel to get it done is hopeless as well. The current fool we call President will be off on some other issue in about one week and this will fall to the way side.

    February 24, 2014 at 4:01 pm | Reply
    • dou44

      The most violent, paranoid nation on the planet is the USA.

      February 24, 2014 at 4:02 pm | Reply
      • James Cheatham

        Haven't actually traveled around the world much?

        February 24, 2014 at 4:21 pm |
      • sly

        And a highly ignorant bunch of Americans at that. Thank the Lord Jesus that the 10 most educated states all voted Obama, while 9 of the 10 dumbest states voted Romey.

        Fact is, at least according to the conservative financial magazine Forbes: dumber people vote Republican.

        February 24, 2014 at 4:38 pm |
      • Harry

        You own a dou44? Cool; I own a duv41. I love k98ks. You were mentioning something about violence and paranoia in the U.S.?

        February 24, 2014 at 4:58 pm |
      • MGunz53

        Guess you've never left Texas huh?

        February 24, 2014 at 5:16 pm |
    • BADGUY

      The ONLY fools I see in Washington are the Republicans in Congress..who CONTINUE to push programs to benefit the top 1%.....while their voter base diminishes by the minute. In 30 years, THEY will be the "brunt of jokes", by school kids on an outing to a museum, when they see them stuffed, next to the Do-do birds.

      February 24, 2014 at 6:09 pm | Reply
  95. David Hayford

    The U.S, would not put themselves in harms way. This is to satisfy the rest of the worlds outlook. To show that we are making an effort towards a peaceful way rather then force.

    February 24, 2014 at 3:57 pm | Reply
  96. Pat Henry

    Brave men will die fighting our enemies while the US ramps back up to war footing. Ask the dead soldiers, sailors, and, Marines who died in the Pacific waiting for 'the aid'.

    February 24, 2014 at 3:56 pm | Reply
    • Alex

      And what enemies are that? Because somehow even after these cuts we will still spend more than any other nation in the world for out military.... I guess that is not enough for some blood thirsty war mongers. I guess you are like Dick Cheney who saw the end of the cold war and instead of thinking.... ah a peace dividend, thought ah we can invade countries at will and impose our will on the world by force.... and we will be greeted as liberators...

      February 24, 2014 at 4:07 pm | Reply
      • MG

        What in the world are you talking about Alex. I have numerous combat operations under my belt and at no time have I or anyone I deployed with imposed our rules by force and if by "force" you mean war then who else will take a bullet or die for a stranger? only the the US Military is willing to fight the "ENEMY" During my deployments all we ever did was to contribute one bit at a time to the war against EVIL and people that bring nothing but affliction in other people's lives. Don't you want a better society, neighborhood or country? If so, then say thanks to those that are trying their best to make a better world for us regardless of their pay. We can all start with our local police. I am sure they sacrifie a lot for our safety. Obviously you have no idea what serving other means. Now, I can only speak on myself and my experience only. I also know that there are soldiers out there that are doing this for the money but for the rest of us, we are not. It make sense that we all want a good pay and benefit for what we do and for the risk we are all taking and by "we" I'm also including firefighters, police officers, paramedics, nurses, and everyone else that contribute to our well being and a better world.

        February 24, 2014 at 4:43 pm |
      • bspurloc

        EXACTLY.
        there is not one country on the Earth with the ability to invade the USA let alone mobile ability.
        but hey Iran and North Korea are a huge threat.

        February 24, 2014 at 11:01 pm |
      • Jim Rome

        If we have the finest fighting force in the world, why did it take us ten years in Afghanistan? Were they that formidable?

        February 25, 2014 at 4:29 am |
  97. Big Bob

    It's also deliciously ironic that one who contributed to this article has a fairly common mus-lim name?
    Nothing to see here kids.

    February 24, 2014 at 3:54 pm | Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.