Talk:Military Funding Arrangement Act

From The Kodiak Republic Wiki

Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 05/01/2023 7:28 AM

@Assembly Member Discussion is now opened The author of the bill asked me to post this message on his behalf:

- Why has the military been cut so drastically? With the recent war over, we no longer need such an exorbitantly high military budget. Our strong military alliances with many international powers provides us with a shield against aggression that will not topple our economy from sheer weight. This budget seeks to reduce unnecessary spending while maintaining our current upkeep needs. The goal of this proposal is to maintain the status quo of our military while simultaneously providing our budget with sufficient breathing room. - What about my pet project, xyz? Budgeting has been provided for military research within the budget. With 100 million florins set aside for projects and R/D, the military will have no shortage of new ideas to work towards. - I feel like this is too much cut off. Half is rather drastic! The goal of the initial proposal was to be drastic. It is a lot easier to trim too far back and work our way back to a middle ground than slowly work our way back from the starting point. If there are specific funding items that you would like seen included in the proposal, feel free to reach out to me, and we can discuss adding them to the bill. However, this is meant to be a budget measure to reduce spending; the end goal is to have more money in the budget to help our staggering economy. - What is the purpose of the Joint Military Coordination? The purpose of the Joint Military Coordination is to provide the military with a central strategic office that allows the services to properly interchange information, resources, and tactics. What exactly that looks like, I leave up to the Defense Ministry. The Republic Of Kurdipam (CKA) — 05/01/2023 7:32 AM i am more into this one Aaron Beester (UKN) — 05/01/2023 7:34 AM I agree with this act, Kodiak is deeply entrenched in military alliances, making a shield bubble to practically make kodiak invincible, with The Great North conflict over, there is no need for such high military spending, so I am with this act von Zeppelin [CKA] — 05/01/2023 7:51 AM Everything suits me. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/01/2023 8:28 AM I have a question for the author how many quote navel ships will be converted to coast guard Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 05/01/2023 9:23 AM

I will just note that the author is not typically able to be on during business hours and so it'll likely be some time before that question is addressed. Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 05/01/2023 9:51 AM I support this bill, a fancy military won’t get us out of economic stagnation and that money could be better spent elsewhere. Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 05/01/2023 10:12 AM I agree we don’t need a fancy military we need a prepared and well equipped military wale military alliances are good solely relying on that as a deterrent I feel is irresponsible For that reason i am in the middle on this bill I think we all remember the great north how unprepared our military was I don’t want to end up in a similar situation Freelian — 05/01/2023 10:28 AM Generally, I see no reason why we have to oppose such a bill. Considering we have to focus the government more on the economy, I concur with the current sentiments of the previous assemblymen. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/01/2023 5:18 PM That is entirely up to the Ministry of Defense. They know how many of these ships the Coast Guard needs better than any of us will. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/01/2023 5:19 PM Solely is not the purpose. We will still have a well-funded military, but our allies will create a solid deterrent Socialist Gear — 05/01/2023 5:20 PM What other then defense will we use the well founded millatery for? Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/01/2023 5:20 PM I'm not sure what you mean by "extra military funding" This bill halves the current spending Socialist Gear — 05/01/2023 5:21 PM I think I just said it in a weird way I fixed it Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/01/2023 5:21 PM I see. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/01/2023 5:29 PM Deterrence is a big factor. Within the last decade, we've been attacked by another power. I was not in the government at that time, but I understand our response was critically slow. I remember the news at the time being particularly dire, though I was focused primarily on Bethaven's militia organization at the time. We still need a military to protect our borders and uphold our treaties, but the overfunded behemoth we maintain today is unacceptable. Socialist Gear — 05/01/2023 5:56 PM Also we don't need people to die in war Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/01/2023 6:00 PM That is the preferred outcome, for sure W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/01/2023 6:32 PM When the war ended and we removed conscription, we removed 1/3rd of funding. Now the member wants to slash funding by half. As though we don't have contracts that will need to be paid out, as though we don't have veterans that need looking after, as though we don't have obligations to the URA, as though we don't have an enemy on our northern border.

This is still more proof that the left is incapable of thinking long term. The removal of half of our spending is tantamount to dissolving our entire standing army. I would ask the KWP what reports they have commissioned from the Public Service of what this burning down of our forces means. Even at present we have scrapped together a barely defensive force in the face of actual aggression - boots on the ground aggression. And Mr Kyros would see us risk our defence again, less than 6 years after peace was acquired. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/01/2023 6:39 PM Our allies provided no deterrent - and the reason is because our enemy is in the same alliance as ours. We would hope aggression may be met with defence - but politics doesn't work by hopes and prayers Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/01/2023 6:40 PM As though we don't have contracts that will need to be paid out, as though we don't have veterans that need looking after, as though we don't have obligations to the URA, as though we don't have an enemy on our northern border. Please do read the linked message, as it is important to the entire discussion. I am more than happy to negotiate a change in the funding cuts where proven necessary. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/01/2023 6:42 PM the changes necessary is not to cut our barely funded military, and I am pleased you are willing to see that Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/01/2023 6:43 PM I'm willing to see that there are places that might need more funding than provided, yes. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/01/2023 6:43 PM Present funding barely approaches 1.7% of our collapsed GDP International standards would suggest spending between 2 and 4% of a healthy GDP you want us to walk away with 0.8% Imagine if I made such a ludacris proposal about Healthcare, or Education Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/01/2023 6:45 PM And yet is still the second highest budgetary item. I think there are things we could focus on more than our military that are more important. W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/01/2023 6:46 PM There is nothing more important than the defence of our citizens and the rights of our veterans It should be patently obvious to all, after the total loss of the darrent in under a week Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/01/2023 6:46 PM How about providing those citizens with quality of life? W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/01/2023 6:46 PM We can ask their new king when we lose our own soverienty Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/01/2023 6:48 PM Mr. Corey's economic plan calls for the increased issuance of loans and subsidies. If that money is to come from the government's budget, budgetary cuts are going to have to occur. You would propose that we cut funding from everywhere but where it is second largest? W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/01/2023 6:48 PM We literally just promised to devote our surplus standing military to the URA cause that you suggest will defend us - while simultaneously removing nearly the entire ability for us to do so Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/01/2023 6:49 PM If they are surplus, why are we spending 11 billion florins a year on it? If the goal is to trim the budget, why not start with the surplus? W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 05/01/2023 6:49 PM A patent misunderstanding of how military preparedness works Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/01/2023 6:50 PM No, I understand. But if they are crucial to the preparedness of our military, they would not be surplus. They would be, to use what I think is the definition, crucial So either they are surplus to our military funding or they are necessary to our crucial preparedness. They cannot be both.

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.