Military Significant Others and Spouse Support - MilitarySOS.com
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Pentagon to reduce Army to pre-WWII numbers

  1. So lost and wandering.
    Icryinbaseball's Avatar
    Icryinbaseball is offline
    So lost and wandering.
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Fort Lewis WA
    Posts
    5,563
    #11
    Advertisements
    Quote Originally Posted by Ol' Grey Mare View Post
    While the over all actual percentage of budget that goes to manpower/payroll may seem small, overmanned is overmanned and cutting those places as well as other areas of waste and over-expenditure is necessary.
    I totally agree. There is a lot of waste going on. And the troops need to be cut back. There is way too many people in certain MOS.
  2. Pour a little salt, we were never here
    [his] lobster's Avatar
    [his] lobster is offline
    Pour a little salt, we were never here
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    8,737

    #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Sarahcuda View Post
    I sure hope they reduce the Army's engagements (deployments? interventions? can't think of the right word...) to pre-WWII numbers too. Not counting the obvious issues with waste and inappropriate spending, the military is already doing "more with less" in individual jobs.
  3. Senior Member
    freelancer_tex's Avatar
    freelancer_tex is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    448
    #13
    The country is in a very tight spot financially, so I think that should mean cuts from everything. I do think that they could cut a lot of defense spending by eliminating waste, though. One of the ones that drove me crazy was on Vilseck, there were streetlights every ten feet all over the base, and they were on ALL NIGHT LONG. There was no need to have that many streetlights on all night long. And that's just something that I saw. I know DH saw a depressing amount of waste (supply people giving things away so that the Army would order more, etc.).
  4. Senior Member
    sldanlm's Avatar
    sldanlm is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,204
    #14
    I've seen similar news stories today. I wonder if there will be any reductions in special operations personnel as well, or just overall numbers?
  5. Senior Member
    Beach's Avatar
    Beach is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    6,934
    #15
    I find it mind boggling he would make such a statement!

    Hagel stressed that such changes entail risk. He said, “We are entering an era where American dominance on the seas, in the skies and in space can no longer be taken for granted.”

    US defense chief to propose big Army budget cuts | WAVY
  6. MilitarySOS Jewel
    Procella's Avatar
    Procella is offline
    MilitarySOS Jewel
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    6,983
    #16
    There are changes that need to be made to military spending, and troop reductions are a reality that can be a positive or negative some people lives, but I struggle with the changes to benefits being tossed around. BAH reductions, changes, or slow-downs, tricare co-pays (which I actually don't see a problem with personally), token raises. A solid, long-term plan is one thing but a decrease in BAH support, an increase in insurance fees, and limiting income potential is a lot to ask an employee to take in at once.

    If we run our budget off DH's income we end the month with $450 extra to save. If BAH goes down so that 5% of housing is out-of-pocket, insurance goes up ($100/month?), that will roughly be $200 more in expenses to fit in. We'll still be positive, but we also don't save for retirement anymore either.
  7. Senior Member
    sldanlm's Avatar
    sldanlm is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,204
    #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Beach View Post
    I find it mind boggling he would make such a statement!

    Hagel stressed that such changes entail risk. He said, “We are entering an era where American dominance on the seas, in the skies and in space can no longer be taken for granted.”

    US defense chief to propose big Army budget cuts | WAVY
    Thanks for the link. I didn't realize that the reductions included the guard and reserve too.

    Pentagon May Oust Troops Involuntarily to Meet Reductions in Budget Plan - Bloomberg
  8. Senior Member
    jaimie14's Avatar
    jaimie14 is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    4,798
    Blog Entries
    1
    #18
    I get why they're doing it... I don't know if "pre world war II" numbers is a good idea though... but what do i know?

    Like others have said, I hope they're reducing engagements, and don't enter anything new too. Less troops and more engagements is gonna cause even more issues than we already have, i think.
  9. "If you don't like my attitude, quit talking to me"
    TrishAFSpouse's Avatar
    TrishAFSpouse is offline
    "If you don't like my attitude, quit talking to me"
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    12,308
    #19
    after reading more about this since its come to the light..

    I didn't know that the Army already has the biggest force. The numbers I last saw were currently the Army has over 500K troops and they want to redue to 440k-490k by 2019. The AF was next highest with currently a little over 300k, reducing down to about 250k. Navy was next with about 189k, and the marines have the fewest with currently 150k (roughly).

    With those numbers, I can now see why they want to reduce the Army. And this doesn't pertain to reservists, nor do the numbers given. It was all active duty.

    There are 10 types of people in the world, those that understand binary and those that don't
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •