Of course not. They get too much money to have "financial problems." Instead, they just re-carpet lolgaxe's office every year whether it needs it or not so as to not jeopardize receiving those funds...
There's definitely not "too much money". As I mentioned in the previous thread, the Army will waste money on carpeting offices, but then take the lowest bidder on desktop computers. Even though that money was wasted in one area, that doesn't mean that the overall budget is at danger. I've seen plenty of cuts on lower levels and I don't necessarily disagree with any of them. I don't know of any triggers, but I'm also not making a blanket comment of spending and budget cuts with no solutions.
Translation: Alma believes that one is justified and the other is not.
Of course, because they are two totally different scenarios. If they were the same, then you might would have a point.
Brown Duck wrote:
There has been for years you dunce. It's called the federal @#%^ing budget. I'd love to sit here and say "God damn, you can't REALLY be that @#%^ing stupid", but that would be an exercise in futility and redundancy.
"Futility and redundancy"? More like platitudinous.
The federal budget is at least two echelons above the Army's budget. A trigger at the federal level doesn't automatically constitute a financial trigger at the Army level. That money can be cut from several locations, to include or exclude the Army.
Even if all of the money is being cut from the military as a whole, due to federal financial problems, that doesn't mean the military is wasting too much money. It can just as easily be that the federal government can not financially support the military needs. In that scenario, you aren't necessarily looking to reduce spending, but to maintain it possibly by cutting other areas.