Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sequestration and Army Readiness

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sequestration and Army Readiness

    The President's sequestration has helped to bring the Army's readiness down to historically low levels.

    He amplified the dangers he sees now and ahead, particularly with the effects of sequestration.

    "Today our nation is facing enormous challenges. I believe we are at a strategic inflection point," Odierno said. "Our nation is facing determined enemies across the globe that have the desire, the capabilities and with increasing capacity to threaten not only our security, but the security of our allies. We continue to witness change in velocity of instability, unforeseen just a few years ago."

    http://www.militarytimes.com/story/m...vels/70805808/

    I have no doubt that people will blame this on the Republicans but the fact is sequestration is the President's plan:

    None other than NBC’s David Gregory today pressed Obama’s chief economic advisor, Gene Sperling, whether his boss told the truth in the third presidential debate that “the sequester is not something that I’ve proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed.” Sperling finally wilted under the pressure of tough questioning to admit that “yes, in fact, the sequestration was President Obama’s plan.”

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrode...-on-sequester/
    "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

  • #2
    Originally posted by Nichols View Post
    The President's sequestration has helped to bring the Army's readiness down to historically low levels.

    He amplified the dangers he sees now and ahead, particularly with the effects of sequestration.

    "Today our nation is facing enormous challenges. I believe we are at a strategic inflection point," Odierno said. "Our nation is facing determined enemies across the globe that have the desire, the capabilities and with increasing capacity to threaten not only our security, but the security of our allies. We continue to witness change in velocity of instability, unforeseen just a few years ago."

    http://www.militarytimes.com/story/m...vels/70805808/

    I have no doubt that people will blame this on the Republicans but the fact is sequestration is the President's plan:

    None other than NBC’s David Gregory today pressed Obama’s chief economic advisor, Gene Sperling, whether his boss told the truth in the third presidential debate that “the sequester is not something that I’ve proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed.” Sperling finally wilted under the pressure of tough questioning to admit that “yes, in fact, the sequestration was President Obama’s plan.”

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrode...-on-sequester/
    I guess you guys really mean it when you say President Obama make laws by himself.

    Simple questions why does the GOP budget REFUSE to instruct the committees to include a repealed sequestration budget figures? You'd think that would be a top priority.
    “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
    “To talk of many things:
    Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
    Of cabbages—and kings—
    And why the sea is boiling hot—
    And whether pigs have wings.”
    ― Lewis Carroll

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
      I guess you guys really mean it when you say President Obama make laws by himself.
      I clearly highlighted "plan" I didn't say anything about the President making a law.

      You obviously know the difference between 'plan' and 'law'

      Why are you changing the wording?
      "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Nichols View Post
        I clearly highlighted "plan" I didn't say anything about the President making a law.

        You obviously know the difference between 'plan' and 'law'

        Why are you changing the wording?
        Plan's have no effect on the Army and DoD spending authorizations now do they? What PLAN did he propose in the Exec Dept budget submitted to Congress this year? The Plan concerning Sequestration?
        “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
        “To talk of many things:
        Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
        Of cabbages—and kings—
        And why the sea is boiling hot—
        And whether pigs have wings.”
        ― Lewis Carroll

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
          Plan's have no effect on the Army and DoD spending authorizations now do they?
          His plan just like Obamacare became law.
          "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

          Comment


          • #6
            When a president days he has a plan, that means his administration will move in that direction to implement it; therefore, plan becomes action.
            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Nichols View Post
              His plan just like Obamacare became law.
              Like magic? No action by congress> Amazing! The immaculate law! I love it!

              So now you'll be showing us where the GOOD guys are working balls to the wall to change it, right? Because that is what the good guys do, right? So please post about those efforts, you know the good guy efforts?
              “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
              “To talk of many things:
              Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
              Of cabbages—and kings—
              And why the sea is boiling hot—
              And whether pigs have wings.”
              ― Lewis Carroll

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                The President's sequestration has helped to bring the Army's readiness down to historically low levels.

                He amplified the dangers he sees now and ahead, particularly with the effects of sequestration.

                "Today our nation is facing enormous challenges. I believe we are at a strategic inflection point," Odierno said. "Our nation is facing determined enemies across the globe that have the desire, the capabilities and with increasing capacity to threaten not only our security, but the security of our allies. We continue to witness change in velocity of instability, unforeseen just a few years ago."

                http://www.militarytimes.com/story/m...vels/70805808/

                I have no doubt that people will blame this on the Republicans but the fact is sequestration is the President's plan:

                None other than NBC’s David Gregory today pressed Obama’s chief economic advisor, Gene Sperling, whether his boss told the truth in the third presidential debate that “the sequester is not something that I’ve proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed.” Sperling finally wilted under the pressure of tough questioning to admit that “yes, in fact, the sequestration was President Obama’s plan.”

                http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrode...-on-sequester/

                Wait a minute, you're NOT saying the good guys are NOT repealing this, are you? The Presidents budget says repeal it. So I am SURE that the good guys budget and all of the spending bills will repeal this, right? If not please explain why the good guys would NOT do so? Very curious to the answer. With control of both houses they should at least introduce a bill to do so right? I'm sure we'll see it very soon....
                “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                “To talk of many things:
                Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                Of cabbages—and kings—
                And why the sea is boiling hot—
                And whether pigs have wings.”
                ― Lewis Carroll

                Comment


                • #9
                  Part of the military's mission is to maintain a high state of readiness despite things like budgetary restrictions. It isn't their place to whine and moan and blame the administration and claim they won't be ready.

                  Time to fire some generals and admirals and get on with it.
                  Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                    good guys
                    CE, you're all over the field on this...two different replies to the same post

                    Something else, who exactly are the "good guys"?
                    "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      Part of the military's mission is to maintain a high state of readiness despite things like budgetary restrictions. It isn't their place to whine and moan and blame the administration and claim they won't be ready.

                      Time to fire some generals and admirals and get on with it.
                      The problem with these budgetary restrictions is that it doesn't discriminate between funding lines. It cuts everything; O&MMC, RDT&E, PANMC, & PMC.
                      "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                        The problem with these budgetary restrictions is that it doesn't discriminate between funding lines. It cuts everything; O&MMC, RDT&E, PANMC, & PMC.
                        Yeah, I know...I've been there when it was going on. The Cold War in Europe in the '70's was so tight we didn't have the fuel to maneuver, so we war-gamed in sandboxes. Our tracks were so old the engine clocks were disconnected to avoid having to send them for rebuild.
                        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          Yeah, I know...I've been there when it was going on. The Cold War in Europe in the '70's was so tight we didn't have the fuel to maneuver, so we war-gamed in sandboxes. Our tracks were so old the engine clocks were disconnected to avoid having to send them for rebuild.
                          The other problem that they are having is OCO funds end this FY. My opinion, it is a good thing. They still used the JROC to authorize purchases but it was to easy to get approval for some really crazy ideas.
                          "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                            Plan's have no effect on the Army and DoD spending authorizations now do they?
                            Plan's drive requirements, requirements drive acquisition.
                            "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post

                              Simple questions why does the GOP budget REFUSE to instruct the committees to include a repealed sequestration budget figures? You'd think that would be a top priority.
                              The President requested some 38 billion dollars (IIRC) in the DoD budget over sequestration limits. Congress is providing that by taking war funds from the DoD budget and creating a separate slush fund.

                              With the Murray-Ryan deal expiring at the end of September, the sequester will once again be a hot topic as lawmakers will be prompted to deal with the discretionary spending reductions it prescribes. Despite the House and Senate being controlled by the same party, their budgets take very different approaches to the sequester. The two budgets have large differences in the amount of defense and non-defense discretionary spending and slight differences in their approach to war spending. Although both only get a small portion of their deficit reduction from discretionary spending, the two budgets get there in different ways. In addition, the Senate budget provides a more realistic method for a future sequester relief deal, by establishing a deficit-neutral reserve fund for that purpose.

                              Both budgets abide by the sequester levels for non-war spending for FY 2016, although they would also effectively raise defense spending by creating a $38 billion slush fund in war spending so that their total defense requests equal the President's budget, which instead provides sequester relief through the normal channel, offset with other savings. After 2016, the budgets would remove the slush fund and make changes to the cap themselves.

                              http://crfb.org/blogs/sharpening-axe...ndle-sequester

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X