[ripdisc]

those numbers seem way off...when were they from? North Dakota and wyoming are making tons of money and have been topping the lists of states who are run well "Based on a review of data on financial health, standard of living and government services by state" most of the rural states are towards the better run end of things.
"California is the worst run for the second year in a row."
from 24/7 wall street
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-be...150415625.html
talking about spending and only looking at welfare statistics...I don't know why?

[BenderBR]

Absolutely not and anyone who has studied american military history would understand why. We habitually would reduce and gut our military after each war up to WW2 and each time, would enter a new one with a incredibly inept, poorly equipped, poorly trained military. You can't reduce funding and manpower and hope to maintain readiness. I'm not saying cuts can't be made, but significant ones no.

[scienceguy]

Originally Posted by ripdisc

those numbers seem way off...when were they from? North Dakota and wyoming are making tons of money and have been topping the lists of states who are run well "Based on a review of data on financial health, standard of living and government services by state" most of the rural states are towards the better run end of things.
"California is the worst run for the second year in a row."
from 24/7 wall street
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-be...150415625.html
talking about spending and only looking at welfare statistics...I don't know why?

You're not wrong about Cal, but How much money they get from the Fed relative to what the Fed collects and how they manage the money they have are 2 different things.

[jsgnado1996]

The size of the military should remain stagnant at this point, but we should shift more bullets to peacetime operations and development.

[chodeyg]

Originally Posted by BenderBR

Absolutely not and anyone who has studied american military history would understand why. We habitually would reduce and gut our military after each war up to WW2 and each time, would enter a new one with a incredibly inept, poorly equipped, poorly trained military. You can't reduce funding and manpower and hope to maintain readiness. I'm not saying cuts can't be made, but significant ones no.

So you think we should maintain our current pace of ~50% of the worlds defense spending?

[brodech2]

I'm currently waiting to hear back from the National Headquarters about an enrollment allocation for an Air Force Officer slot, and the amount of officers that the Air Force wants has decreased dramatically, making these slots far more competitive. If you go back a decade or more, you'll see that they were accepting just about anyone with two arms and two legs. My 2 cents.

[Pump Revolution]

Cool story.