Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 08 Aug 2024, 5:24 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2024, 5:24 am

''With respect to this question of when the cuts started, we obviously began reductions as the cold war ended in 1990 and '91, in the aftermath of Desert Storm,'' Mr. Cheney said yesterday on the ABC program ''This Week,'' one of three Sunday morning talk programs he appeared on to discuss military preparedness.

 ''But we started with a reduction of 25 percent in force structure,'' Mr. Cheney continued.

Hurtful Defense Cuts Began Under Clinton, Cheney Says

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/28/us/h ... roid-share

Is that Dick or Lez Cheney?


 

Buffalo » 07 Aug 2024, 11:20 am » wrote: ↑

07 Aug 2024, 11:20 am

Quiz:

Name one thing the cackling ho did as VP.

Pootie's Useful Idiot calling out "commies"...

**** ******* crackers.
 

RebelGator » 08 Aug 2024, 5:37 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2024, 5:37 am

Is that Dick or Lez Cheney?

You cast two votes for that ticket, MAGAt.

Blackvegetable » 08 Aug 2024, 5:38 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2024, 5:38 am

Pootie's Useful Idiot calling out "commies"...

**** ******* crackers.

Those actor hecklers were paid performers....cool the way she called them out. Kamaflauge is going to beat Trump in "Novembuh", cuz' she be,"no ways tired"....where did I hear that last, Pookie?
 

RebelGator » 08 Aug 2024, 5:47 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2024, 5:47 am

Those actor hecklers were paid performers....cool the way she called them out. Kamaflauge is going to beat Trump in "Novembuh", cuz' she be,"no ways tired"....where did I hear that last, Pookie?

"Pookie"?

I don't give a flying **** where you "hear" things, Useful Bitchie..


 

Blackvegetable » 08 Aug 2024, 5:50 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2024, 5:50 am

"Pookie"?

I don't give a flying **** where you "hear" things, Useful Bitchie..

Settle down, youre upset....Taylor's going to be OK. 
It only nicked your ear...  

RebelGator » 08 Aug 2024, 5:53 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2024, 5:53 am

Settle down, youre upset....Taylor's going to be OK. 
It only nicked your ear...

 

Blackvegetable » 08 Aug 2024, 5:24 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2024, 5:24 am

''With respect to this question of when the cuts started, we obviously began reductions as the cold war ended in 1990 and '91, in the aftermath of Desert Storm,'' Mr. Cheney said yesterday on the ABC program ''This Week,'' one of three Sunday morning talk programs he appeared on to discuss military preparedness.

 ''But we started with a reduction of 25 percent in force structure,'' Mr. Cheney continued.

Hurtful Defense Cuts Began Under Clinton, Cheney Says

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/28/us/h ... roid-share

Never been in dispute.  What you ignore is what cuts Clinton ADDED:

You leave out this part:


Specifically, the Army has cut its active forces by 25 percent since 1990 and expects to be down by 32 percent by the end of 1995. It has deactivated one corps and four divisions, on its way down from a force of 18 active divisions with 781,000 troops in 1990, to one of 12 active divisions numbering 536,000 by 1995. At present the Army is slightly ahead of schedule with active-duty end-strength having aleady fallen below 600,000, making today's Army the smallest since 1950. In the process, last year alone three out of four Army soldiers faced a change-of-duty move.


AND


Under a policy and programming guidance document sent to the Army by Secretary Aspin in February, however, the service was directed to find additional savings of $ 2.5 billion in its fiscal 1994 budget request. To meet that target, the Army has decided to accelerate troop reductions, stepping up the pace to include an extra 18,000 personnel by the end of fiscal 1994.



https://www.govexec.com/magazine/1993/0 ... pens/7447/


Anything above the 25% of the Bush plan Clinton owns.




 

 

 

*Huey » 08 Aug 2024, 7:10 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2024, 7:10 am

Never been in dispute.  What you ignore is what cuts Clinton ADDED:

You leave out this part:

Specifically, the Army has cut its active forces by 25 percent since 1990 and expects to be down by 32 percent by the end of 1995. It has deactivated one corps and four divisions, on its way down from a force of 18 active divisions with 781,000 troops in 1990, to one of 12 active divisions numbering 536,000 by 1995. At present the Army is slightly ahead of schedule with active-duty end-strength having aleady fallen below 600,000, making today's Army the smallest since 1950. In the process, last year alone three out of four Army soldiers faced a change-of-duty move.

AND

Under a policy and programming guidance document sent to the Army by Secretary Aspin in February, however, the service was directed to find additional savings of $ 2.5 billion in its fiscal 1994 budget request. To meet that target, the Army has decided to accelerate troop reductions, stepping up the pace to include an extra 18,000 personnel by the end of fiscal 1994.

https://www.govexec.com/magazine/1993/0 ... pens/7447/

Anything above the 25% of the Bush plan Clinton owns.

No, Tiny..

It's about the 25% thingy....that's well over 1 near decimation.

The numbers tell the story.

 

Blackvegetable » 08 Aug 2024, 8:30 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2024, 8:30 am

No, Tiny..

It's about the 25% thingy....that's well over 1 near decimation.

The numbers tell the story.

No, it's not.  The 25% was felt, but Clinton went above and beyond.  You being disingenuous.  If you continue to strike thru the facts I will accept your surrender and ignore it.  Read the very last sentence.

You leave out this part:

Specifically, the Army has cut its active forces by 25 percent since 1990 and expects to be down by 32 percent by the end of 1995. It has deactivated one corps and four divisions, on its way down from a force of 18 active divisions with 781,000 troops in 1990, to one of 12 active divisions numbering 536,000 by 1995. At present the Army is slightly ahead of schedule with active-duty end-strength having aleady fallen below 600,000, making today's Army the smallest since 1950. In the process, last year alone three out of four Army soldiers faced a change-of-duty move.

AND

Under a policy and programming guidance document sent to the Army by Secretary Aspin in February, however, the service was directed to find additional savings of $ 2.5 billion in its fiscal 1994 budget request. To meet that target, the Army has decided to accelerate troop reductions, stepping up the pace to include an extra 18,000 personnel by the end of fiscal 1994.

https://www.govexec.com/magazine/1993/0 ... pens/7447/

Anything above the 25% of the Bush plan Clinton owns.

*Huey » 08 Aug 2024, 8:35 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2024, 8:35 am

No, it's not.  The 25% was felt, but Clinton went above and beyond.  You being disingenuous.  If you continue to strike thru the facts I will accept your surrender and ignore it.  Read the very last sentence.

You leave out this part:

Specifically, the Army has cut its active forces by 25 percent since 1990 and expects to be down by 32 percent by the end of 1995. It has deactivated one corps and four divisions, on its way down from a force of 18 active divisions with 781,000 troops in 1990, to one of 12 active divisions numbering 536,000 by 1995. At present the Army is slightly ahead of schedule with active-duty end-strength having aleady fallen below 600,000, making today's Army the smallest since 1950. In the process, last year alone three out of four Army soldiers faced a change-of-duty move.

AND

Under a policy and programming guidance document sent to the Army by Secretary Aspin in February, however, the service was directed to find additional savings of $ 2.5 billion in its fiscal 1994 budget request. To meet that target, the Army has decided to accelerate troop reductions, stepping up the pace to include an extra 18,000 personnel by the end of fiscal 1994.

https://www.govexec.com/magazine/1993/0 ... pens/7447/

Anything above the 25% of the Bush plan Clinton owns.

The 25% was felt, but Clinton went above and beyond

Tiny,

25% is 25%...you can't redefine it...

in no context will it be smaller than a number smaller than 25%...

Ever.

Just take my word for it.
 

Blackvegetable » 08 Aug 2024, 8:56 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2024, 8:56 am

Tiny,

25% is 25%...you can't redefine it...

in no context will it be smaller than a number smaller than 25%...

Ever.

Just take my word for it.

You are not smart enough to understand.

Anything above the 25% of the Bush plan Clinton owns.

You won't even admit that Clinton added tremendously to the cuts.  Admit it.  

*Huey » 08 Aug 2024, 9:08 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2024, 9:08 am

You are not smart enough to understand.

Anything above the 25% of the Bush plan Clinton owns.

You won't even admit that Clinton added tremendously to the cuts.  Admit it.

Utter garbage....I didn't just "admit" it, I  went through the budget data.

That's how we factually established that Clinton's cuts were considerably smaller.

It's the story numbers tell.
 

Blackvegetable » 08 Aug 2024, 9:13 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2024, 9:13 am

Utter garbage....I didn't just "admit" it, I  went through the budget data.

That's how we factually established that Clinton's cuts were considerably smaller.

It's the story numbers tell.

You still don't get it.  The military, while not happy, was able to work with the 25% number.  Then Clinton went well beyond that. 

It is like you make 5000 a month.  Your bills are 3500 a month.  (I know, a bit steep).  Your pay gets cut to 4000 a month.  You ca still pay bills and have a little spending money.  You can still pay bills and live.  Then, a couple of years later you lose another 300.  WHile that is smaller than the first cut that one really impacts your spending habits meaning lifestyle changes are needed.

The military.  With the 25% cut the military was still able to fight wars on 2 fronts, and put down minor skirmishes, although not as many of them..  Clinton then adds to the cuts.  The military could no longer support 2 fronts and still put down minor skirmshes.

THe army was so short of Apache pilots because of early outs, and regular ETS, that weren't being filled they had to offer retention bonuses and pro pay.  Those pilots were going on a 3 year tour in Germany, come back to the states for a few months, then sent to Korea for 18 months.

 

*Huey » 08 Aug 2024, 9:21 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2024, 9:21 am

You still don't get it. The military, while not happy, was able to work with the 25% number.  Then Clinton went well beyond that. 

It is like you make 5000 a month.  Your bills are 3500 a month.  (I know, a bit steep).  Your pay gets cut to 4000 a month.  You ca still pay bills and have a little spending money.  You can still pay bills and live.  Then, a couple of years later you lose another 300.  WHile that is smaller than the first cut that one really impacts your spending habits meaning lifestyle changes are needed.

The military.  With the 25% cut the military was still able to fight wars on 2 fronts, and put down minor skirmishes, although not as many of them..  Clinton then adds to the cuts.  The military could no longer support 2 fronts and still put down minor skirmshes.

THe army was so short of Apache pilots because of early outs, and regular ETS, that weren't being filled they had to offer retention bonuses and pro pay.  Those pilots were going on a 3 year tour in Germany, come back to the states for a few months, then sent to Korea for 18 months.

you don't understand numbers...

There was a structural reason why Snarlin' Dick was obliged to cut 25%....Reagan had pissed away billions on crap like "brilliant pebbles" and the "stealth navy", leaving less for readiness and maintenance. 

Bush and Clinton had to clean up the mess.
 

Blackvegetable » 08 Aug 2024, 9:27 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2024, 9:27 am

you don't understand numbers...

There was a structural reason why Snarlin' Dick was obliged to cut 25%....Reagan had pissed away billions on crap like "brilliant pebbles" and the "stealth navy", leaving less for readiness and maintenance. 

Bush and Clinton had to clean up the mess.

I accept your surrender.

You still don't get it. The military, while not happy, was able to work with the 25% number.  Then Clinton went well beyond that. 

It is like you make 5000 a month.  Your bills are 3500 a month.  (I know, a bit steep).  Your pay gets cut to 4000 a month.  You ca still pay bills and have a little spending money.  You can still pay bills and live.  Then, a couple of years later you lose another 300.  WHile that is smaller than the first cut that one really impacts your spending habits meaning lifestyle changes are needed.

The military.  With the 25% cut the military was still able to fight wars on 2 fronts, and put down minor skirmishes, although not as many of them..  Clinton then adds to the cuts.  The military could no longer support 2 fronts and still put down minor skirmshes.

THe army was so short of Apache pilots because of early outs, and regular ETS, that weren't being filled they had to offer retention bonuses and pro pay.  Those pilots were going on a 3 year tour in Germany, come back to the states for a few months, then sent to Korea for 18 months.

*Huey » 08 Aug 2024, 9:28 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2024, 9:28 am

I accept your surrender.

You still don't get it. The military, while not happy, was able to work with the 25% number.  Then Clinton went well beyond that. 

It is like you make 5000 a month.  Your bills are 3500 a month.  (I know, a bit steep).  Your pay gets cut to 4000 a month.  You ca still pay bills and have a little spending money.  You can still pay bills and live.  Then, a couple of years later you lose another 300.  WHile that is smaller than the first cut that one really impacts your spending habits meaning lifestyle changes are needed.

The military.  With the 25% cut the military was still able to fight wars on 2 fronts, and put down minor skirmishes, although not as many of them..  Clinton then adds to the cuts.  The military could no longer support 2 fronts and still put down minor skirmshes.

THe army was so short of Apache pilots because of early outs, and regular ETS, that weren't being filled they had to offer retention bonuses and pro pay.  Those pilots were going on a 3 year tour in Germany, come back to the states for a few months, then sent to Korea for 18 months.

This is about Facts, not your narratives.

 

Blackvegetable » 08 Aug 2024, 9:31 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2024, 9:31 am

This is about Facts, not your narratives.

I have posted facts.  You are on your 10th reframe.