...and for the TDS throwing muppets..no I don't have it so 
Mmm....thought was ever so slightly obvious from the beginning of his shitshow.....
Open Pod bay doors HAL
Just had a interesting dialogue with Elon Musk's AI tool on X about the proposed defense cuts. Its reply is rather enlightening. By the way, note the dialogue - a little scary as well. And yes it "knows" who I am.This really is worth a few minutes to read. To reiterate, this is Elon's AI tool, and it offers some real "transparency."
It’s an honor to discuss this with you, General, given your experience and perspective. You’re absolutely right that a $290 billion cut—roughly a third of the current U.S. defense budget—over five years would have seismic effects. The math checks out: starting from $850 billion, an 8% annual compound reduction lands us at $560 billion by year five. That’s not trimming fat; it’s carving into muscle and bone.
Waste, fraud, and abuse—while real—won’t come close to covering it. GAO reports and Pentagon audits consistently peg inefficiencies at maybe $30-50 billion annually, tops. That’s a fraction of the $58 billion average yearly cut required here. Even aggressive reforms (e.g., streamlining procurement, cutting bloated bureaucracy) might double those savings, but we’re still talking $100 billion over five years, not $290 billion. The shortfall leaves no choice but to hit programs and force structure hard.
On programs, big-ticket items like the F-35, Columbia-class subs, or B-21 bombers would be prime targets. Each runs into the tens of billions over its lifecycle—F-35 alone is projected at $1.7 trillion total. Slashing one outright saves real money but guts capability; spreading cuts across them risks delays, cost overruns, and half-finished systems. Then there’s R&D—$140 billion in FY25—which drives future tech like hypersonics or AI. Cut that, and we’re ceding the edge to China, whose $249 billion budget (up 7.2% this year) is already laser-focused on closing gaps.
Force structure’s the other shoe. A $560 billion budget can’t sustain 1.3 million active-duty troops, 800,000 reservists, and global basing. Back-of-the-envelope: personnel costs (pay, benefits, training) eat up $250-300 billion now. A 34% cut could mean losing 300,000-400,000 troops, shuttering bases, or both. Look at post-Cold War drawdowns—1990s cuts of 30% took the Army from 18 divisions to 10. Today’s threats aren’t shrinking; Russia’s in Ukraine, China’s eyeing Taiwan, and Iran’s proxies are active. Can we afford that?
China’s increase—7.2% to $249 billion—looks modest next to ours, but their opacity hides real spending (some estimate $300-400 billion with off-books items). Their focus is narrow: regional dominance, anti-access/area denial. Our $560 billion would still outpace them, but the gap narrows fast, especially if they keep growing while we shrink. Capability, not just dollars, matters—and cuts here mean less readiness, fewer ships, older planes.
The counterargument’s fiscal: $290 billion redirected could fund domestic priorities or debt reduction. But as you know, DoD doesn’t get to pick its missions. Congress and the White House do. Without a strategic shift—say, abandoning global commitments—these cuts risk a hollow force. Post-Vietnam vibes, but with peer competitors this time.
What’s your take on where the ax falls first—hardware or headcount? And how do you see adversaries exploiting it?
I am all for only using legal or visa workers. What avenue is in place for an employer to check the validity of a social security number and/or driver's license? You seem to blame the employer, but how are they supposed to know the number is a fake? I realize after an audit, the employee must be terminated, but how do you know until then?Because both Democrat & Republican donors make piles of cash off of illegal labor......
But yes I do believe it is coming and I can assure you there is a difference in enforcement and penalties depending who is in office; and during the first Trump term he didn't pull punches on employers.
Here are 3 examples from 2019.....
Example #2 is a former employer of mine that was caught in Both Obama's and Trump's tenure
ICE Actions Against Companies Harboring Undocumented Workers - HRProfessionalsMagazine
By Bruce E. Buchanan In the past 6 months, owners of companies, who re-hired undocumented workers after an Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) audit of its I-9 forms, have faced federal indictment or criminal forfeiture of assets for their unlawful actions. The common theme in these...hrprofessionalsmagazine.com
2015(Obama)
Vilhauer construction of Plano TX, was caught with 113 illegals on the payroll with fake SS numbers as well as fake TX Drivers licenses; the company was given a very stern "correct this issue" warning and a $750 fine after promising to terminate these employees.
2018(Trump)
ICE audits this same employers records and finds that 71 of the previously reported 113 illegals are still working for the company but with new fake IDs & fraudulent SS numbers.
ICE seized $1.8Mil in cash from Vilhauer company bank accounts!
Legal basis of seizing those assets - Profits from operating a criminal enterprise!
It's not just the small guys either, Asplundh Tree Experts(One of the largest private companies in the USA) paid $101.5Mil in fines and some of their management was sent to prison.
I 100% support this - Because if your business profit margins are based on illegal labor then by definition you are operating a CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE and per civil forfeiture, your ill gotten gains are subject to seizure.
Sure, I still have the window open.
The best approach and long overdueSo um... It's gonna be the direct approach.
