Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

djones520 wrote:
I don't. I understand why it was done, and somehow find ways to handle all of the aditional things I have to handle, but I feel that it negatively affects national defense when all is said and done.

Of course it does. Less funding almost always means a less effective organization, all other things being equal.

The question isn't whether we defended better or worse following a series of cuts, the question is whether or not we really need to be fully defended at all times. This sort of guns v. butter dilemma is what the rest of the world has been considering for all of history. America has seemingly forgotten that it isn't special in the last 20-30 years.

dogma wrote:I Of course it does. Less funding almost always means a less effective organization, all other things being equal.

No, it doesn't, it just means less funding. Thats a shill fostered by government itself. They are completely unrelated.

Effective organizations are derived from management and the corporation's culture.

Depends what you call effective.

An experienced cadre and staff can be maintained on a small budget, however even if equipment is stockpiled, the recruitment and training of new troops takes time.

This means a small army can't suddenly fight a big war, or two or three wars at the same time. They need time to build up.

The global elites want us poor. It's part of their plan.

Frazzled wrote:No, it doesn't, it just means less funding. Thats a shill fostered by government itself. They are completely unrelated.

Effective organizations are derived from management and the corporation's culture.

And proper funding. Its difficult to start a printing company if you don't have enough money to purchase and maintain a printing press. By the same token its difficult to run an effective military if you don't have enough money to purchase and maintain your weaponry.

If what you're saying is true, then we could allocate $100 per anum to military spending and expect to have an effective military insofar as it maintained its current culture. Unfortunately, since culture is governed by everything associated with an organization, its highly unlikely that such a thing is possible; completely ignoring material cost restrictions.

Arguing that capitalization has nothing to do with the success of an organization, especially one not driven by profit, is absurd.

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:I Of course it does. Less funding almost always means a less effective organization, all other things being equal.

No, it doesn't, it just means less funding. Thats a shill fostered by government itself. They are completely unrelated.

Effective organizations are derived from management and the corporation's culture.

Effective management and corporate culture is essential to success, simply being 'big enough' won't produce ends in and of itself. But to claim that's the only measure of effectiveness is absolutely ridiculous. The effectiveness of a not-for-profit agency is based on the scale of the service it delivers, and that is directly related to the money given to them.

While one organisation may be considerably more efficient, the services delivered with a million dollar budget will not match the services delivered with a billion dollar budget.