scary budget facts for the day

[Ice1]

100% straw man response. Totally unsurprised.

 

To each is own, I guess. I doubt you care to explain most likely because you can't.

[Ice1]

this.......

 

I agree

[borge007]

Just to address the shared sacrifice comment. Not even including Military, our government has gone through massive growth and spending so when we scream for tax increases and shared sacrifice the argument becomes somewhat disingenuous that we need even more revenue given how the government chooses to spend the revenue received in the first place. We are an inefficient government and our government has shown interest in sacrificing spending in other areas to fund military so looking at the government structure and spending habits are first up when we point fingers as it relates to rationing, sacrifice, and on and on.

 

No offense but manufacturing simply doesn't work the way you envision as it relates to complex military or commercial platforms for that matter. It is one thing to build a better rifle quite another to build next generation aircraft or nuclear submarines.

 

To put it into a bit of perspective. Boeing has been working on the 787 commercial jet since 2003 to gain a 20% more fuel efficient aircraft. This one jet will be in service for 30 years as they just delivered the first one last September. While this was a complex project it is no more complex and probably much easier than developing next generation war aircraft. The bullet train in California will take a decade if it happens and that is even easier.

 

While we are a technically advanced society, huge projects take a long time given so many moving parts and designs from multiple companies. All these parts have to come together to ensure success. Try harder and working faster are great goals but realities are such that the short windows and even shorter life spans are simply not possible today. Nothing wrong with the goal but realistic implementation is not possible.

Is this why you expected Obama to get the economy fixed in 3 years?

[Ice1]

I guess we disagree. I think if there are two wars going on and everyone of a certain age had a 20% chance that you were to get drafted and sent over to fight someone yelling "derka derka, Mohammed jihad" on Bakalakadaka street the political conversation in this country would be vastly different than the current one.

 

Another option would be an immediate 20% war tax or mandatory volunteer hours for citizens. Not sure why the idea of a draft or mandatory war tax would be a blind spot to a fiscal conservative. I mean, it makes sense to me. Dwight seemed to get the idea. . If government jobs and spending take away from our freedoms and takes money away from Americans wouldn't it make sense that we didn't have a military budget the size of every other nation combined?

 

A draft is not a blind spot at all. The fact remains we simply do not need it when so many sign up for a career in the military. If we need a draft in the future then instituting one will happen for defense of country.

 

Instituting a draft just because is not really an answer.

 

Why would we force compliance and spend billions to implement picking out a percentage of citizens that don't even want a military career robbing those that do of that chance. We have a very strong military today do in large part because those that do serve have signed up to do so and they should be commended for that free choice.

 

A war tax would be an option but there is no denying the government has been spending like crazy in all areas with no issues or regard to any sacrifice. In fact they are growing government at alarming rates borrowing from governments, and our social security fund in the process without a care in the world.

 

Adding a war tax? Who pays? Do also add this 20% tax on the 47 out of every 100 that pay zero taxes on income? Does anyone really think the government would cease to commingle funds so all are really sacrificing?

 

We take in over 4 times as much revenue annually today as we did in 1980 already.

 

Problem is implementation? Obama would never go to the American people and demand all pay a 20% war tax and the Senate hasn't even passed a budget in over two years of any kind. Just don't see this as a realistic option. If the government won't sacrifice on spending why would the American people want to give an additional 20% out of our economy to fund their spending habits?

 

I have no issues with bringing our Military budgets in balance and believe if we use our resources to liberate countries Iraq and Libya then some costs should be funded by those concerns. We also provide protections for countries like South Korea, Japan, and Germany and these countries should also contribute big time for these services. However, our own government bears responsibility to better manage all revenues and spending so just throwing more money at the problem when the government is the problem in the first place is a skeptical solution. Shared sacrifice needs to be something all participate in regardless, not just the 53% that fund 100% of our way of life.

[BeeR]

the -117 is more a ground attack bird than a dog-fighter,

It's also no longer in service FYI. Your overall point stands though IMO.

 

PS supposedly Bush was the "war monger" so how much has military spending/involvement in other counties/etc etc gone up or down since Obamessiah came in? Honest question. I grant the draw-down in Iraq but we stepped up elsewhere considerably. Just saying that, as is so typical, "his side" isn't about to rip on him for any of that, but if this were Bush, they'd be having a hissy. And the right is no better, actually, ripping on him but if it were Bush it'd be OK. Guess I'm just saying generally IMO I'd like to see our fn fingers in a lot fewer pies and it's not all the left or right's fault (gasp)

Edited January 4, 2012 by BeeR

[Ice1]

Is this why you expected Obama to get the economy fixed in 3 years?

 

I never believed Obama had a chance to fix the economy with his vision and policies. However, it was Obama himself that stated if he couldn't then he would be a one term President. His own time frame is coming due.

 

I am sure we all wished he would have at least moved to the center and forced Pelosi/Reid to actually put forth a budget during his first 2 years when they controlled both houses or forced Reid to sit down and pass a budget the last two since he didn't like Congresses but he didn't and this may ultimately be his downfall in November as it shows a complete lack of management but that is on him.

[Clubfoothead]

Not sure these two are related at all.

 

You don't see how fielding a voluntary military and the benefits you offer to veterans are related?

 

I guess you served only for love of country and that's good but most people need a little more. I did my 4 for two reasons and upon reflection both elements were necessary.

[Ice1]

You don't see how fielding a voluntary military and the benefits you offer to veterans are related?

 

I guess you served only for love of country and that's good but most people need a little more. I did my 4 for two reasons and upon reflection both elements were necessary.

 

Again, under the context you state it seems that you somehow think we or I should take away benefits from active or retired military. I never remotely suggested that. Quite the opposite in fact.

 

Going forward if the pension models change to more of a self funded 401K type like many are now promoting for Social Security then for new entrants it remains to be seen if this will adversely affect recruitment.

 

I see nothing changing with the VA structure or the DSCP structure (active military) at all BTW, as it relates to healthcare benefits and highly doubt this would ever gain traction.

 

I do see at some point pension benefit program instruments could change for future entrants in the military, government employees, and in the private sector as it relates to entitlement retirement programs and how they are funded and the contribution rates of taxpayers vs. the self funding percentages.

 

Thank you for your service, my entire family appreciates it.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Ice1

[Duchess Jack]

A draft is not a blind spot at all. The fact remains we simply do not need it when so many sign up for a career in the military.

 

I would think that a lot of folk kept from leaving the military due to the stoploss garbage and many in the national guard might disagree.

[Duchess Jack]

PS supposedly Bush was the "war monger" so how much has military spending/involvement in other counties/etc etc gone up or down since Obamessiah came in?

 

I would imagine that the whole "warmonger" thing wasn't about the cost, but how we got into the wars. Obama trying to fix a problem he was handed doesn't quite make him a warmonger.

[Pope Flick]

To each is own, I guess. I doubt you care to explain most likely because you can't.

 

 

Right. He talked about shared sacrifice and you responded with tax increases and a boeing 787, instead of the subject at hand.

 

 

And for Obama's prosecution of the war, he ran on drawing down in Iraq, upping it in afghanastan and getting more assertive with drone strikes. He ran on all of that and has done all of that, so anyone who paid attention to that during the campaign would know it isn't a surprise or a broken pledge/promise.

[Ice1]

Right. He talked about shared sacrifice and you responded with tax increases and a boeing 787, instead of the subject at hand.

 

And for Obama's prosecution of the war, he ran on drawing down in Iraq, upping it in afghanastan and getting more assertive with drone strikes. He ran on all of that and has done all of that, so anyone who paid attention to that during the campaign would know it isn't a surprise or a broken pledge/promise.

 

Are you for real?

 

I was responding to him about the specific 10 year military platform idea and the cutting of the defense budget back to 2007 levels. Shared sacrifice starts with how the government spends money. This government obviously doesn't believe in that concept given the massive spending increases we are seing across the board. That doesn't mean we shouldn't by any means but we give to the government and they spend it all then borrow an additional trillion plus more each year and spend that. You want sacrifice, cut spending and live within our collective means around a balanced budget amendment.

 

The 787 was simply to show the reality of what it takes from a time perspective to manufacture a major platform. These types of major endeavors take a decade or more to produce the first unit and are the reason these platforms have a 30 year life. This was but an example as to show why a 10-15 year platform is not really realistic given a decade is the development and production time for one unit.

 

As for Obama's prosecution of the war, i didn't even comment on that. No problem with quoting me but at least do it within the context centered on the actual topic. I was not the one who brought up 10 year platforms, I simply responded to the practical application given the complexity of the project.

 

BTW, Obama promised to remove one to two combat brigades per month and all out of Iraq in 16 months if you want to get technical about what he actually promised. Time will tell as to the wisdom of this decision but he has done what he said he would less the actual time frame he imposed on himself.

 

No doubt Obama is a much more of a Hawk than most thought given Libya and the bombing that went on with no real concept of what the vacuum in leadership will bring in this country.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Ice1

[Ursa Majoris]

Are you for real?

 

I was responding to him about the specific 10 year military platform idea and the cutting of the defense budget back to 2007 levels. Shared sacrifice starts with how the government spends money. This government obviously doesn't believe in that concept given the massive spending increases we are seing across the board. That doesn't mean we shouldn't by any means but we give to the government and they spend it all then borrow an additional trillion plus more each year and spend that. You want sacrifice, cut spending and live within our collective means around a balanced budget amendment.

 

The 787 was simply to show the reality of what it takes from a time perspective to manufacture a major platform. These types of major endeavors take a decade or more to produce the first unit and are the reason these platforms have a 30 year life. This was but an example as to show why a 10-15 year platform is not really realistic given a decade is the development and production time for one unit.

 

As for Obama's prosecution of the war, i didn't even comment on that. No problem with quoting me but at least do it within the context centered on the actual topic. I was not the one who brought up 10 year platforms, I simply responded to the practical application given the complexity of the project.

 

BTW, Obama promised to remove one to two combat brigades per month and all out of Iraq in 16 months if you want to get technical about what he actually promised. Time will tell as to the wisdom of this decision but he has done what he said he would less the actual time frame he imposed on himself.

 

No doubt Obama is a much more of a Hawk than most thought given Libya and the bombing that went on with no real concept of what the vacuum in leadership will bring in this country.

You haven't addressed the concept of shared sacrifice in any meaningful way at all save to say that you think the government should simply stop doing some things so that it can pay for war instead, thus leaving no impact on you whatsoever, which is precisely my point. If "we" are at war, as so many right wing politicians are fond of saying, then "we" need to be sacrificing something extra during that period in order to focus the attention of a populace barely aware of said war. It is not sufficient to wear a lapel pin, plonk a cheap magnet on the SUV or blub a little when the national anthem is played. In fact, it is pathetic.

 

To address an earlier point you made along the lines of "we've got enough soldiers and if we had a draft it would stop those that wanted to serve from serving", well, that's just risible in the first degree. You completely ignored the point I made about mandatory service not necessarily having to be of the front line variety. I freely admit that my main interest is to make the willy-nilly saber rattlers think twice. I want to make the armchair warmongers who know damn well sending yet more troops off to die won't affect them one iota put real skin in the game.

 

You even manage to denigrate the fact that Obama has carried out all three of his military related promises by whining about the time frame. It is a certainty that you would be whining about withdrawal being premature if he had not listened to his generals and lengthened the drawdown. Obama's record in this area is certainly much better than that of his predecessor, who famously said that he wanted Osama Bin Laden dead or alive, then later said he was of no interest.

 

To be honest, I find your utter disinterest in bearing any of the load caused by war to be more than somewhat distasteful, to say the least, and unpatriotic too.

 

As for the rest of it concerning military projects, whatever, dude. My point is that cost overruns in the defense area are not only large, they are endemic, fed by a corrupt triumvirate of military, defense contractors and politicians. Here's a neat article on government waste (which should appeal to you), complete with defense section, from which this is an extract:

 

In 2008, the GAO completed a review of the costs and schedules of 72 weapons programs. It found that the average cost overrun for development of the systems was 40 percent. Compared with prior findings on defense procurement, the GAO concluded that "DoD's acquisition outcomes appear increasingly suboptimal." A recent study by Deloitte Consulting concurs that defense cost overruns are getting worse.

[Ice1]

You haven't addressed the concept of shared sacrifice in any meaningful way at all save to say that you think the government should simply stop doing some things so that it can pay for war instead, thus leaving no impact on you whatsoever, which is precisely my point. If "we" are at war, as so many right wing politicians are fond of saying, then "we" need to be sacrificing something extra during that period in order to focus the attention of a populace barely aware of said war. It is not sufficient to wear a lapel pin, plonk a cheap magnet on the SUV or blub a little when the national anthem is played. In fact, it is pathetic.

 

To address an earlier point you made along the lines of "we've got enough soldiers and if we had a draft it would stop those that wanted to serve from serving", well, that's just risible in the first degree. You completely ignored the point I made about mandatory service not necessarily having to be of the front line variety. I freely admit that my main interest is to make the willy-nilly saber rattlers think twice. I want to make the armchair warmongers who know damn well sending yet more troops off to die won't affect them one iota put real skin in the game.

 

You even manage to denigrate the fact that Obama has carried out all three of his military related promises by whining about the time frame. It is a certainty that you would be whining about withdrawal being premature if he had not listened to his generals and lengthened the drawdown. Obama's record in this area is certainly much better than that of his predecessor, who famously said that he wanted Osama Bin Laden dead or alive, then later said he was of no interest.

 

To be honest, I find your utter disinterest in bearing any of the load caused by war to be more than somewhat distasteful, to say the least, and unpatriotic too.

 

As for the rest of it concerning military projects, whatever, dude. My point is that cost overruns in the defense area are not only large, they are endemic, fed by a corrupt triumvirate of military, defense contractors and politicians. Here's a neat article on government waste (which should appeal to you), complete with defense section, from which this is an extract:

 

First off, I pay very sizable taxes every year to the government, probably far more than most on this site, and give more than you know. Additionally, I personally pick up dinner checks every time I am out and see military personnel. While this is a small gesture, frankly you have no idea as to my patriotism.

 

I am also on board with eliminating military waste and wasteful spending by the government at all levels.

 

When you talk about bearing the load, I certainly pay my fair share and have never taken a handout from the government in anyway.

 

Making blanket statements about mandatory service is noble enough but please explain just how you would implement this and how you propose we pay for it.

 

We are a nation of 300 plus million. Who is going to pay for this mandatory service? What specifically will these millions do? There are close to 30 million people between 18-24 alone. How do you propose to enforce this noble cause? It is easy to say this is a grand and noble gesture but implementing this is something entirely different. Adding 20 or so million to the government payroll and the expense to administer this noble plan borders on pure fantasy. Turning this 20 million every two years for 20 million new replacements would be next to impossible.

 

Your idea sounds more like some angry rhetoric disguised in nobility, nothing more as it is not practical.

 

Many of us do our part and send care packages, take a soldiers kid to lunch, or help out a wife of a fallen soldier and we do it without having the government force the action on us. My guess is you simply do not see the quiet work many of us do behind the scenes. Some of us even hire veterans when the opportunity arises.

 

It is one thing to admire the Israel model but their total population is less than New York City.

 

We already entice those that wish to enlist with college grants incentives and the system actually works and works efficiently.

 

War is terrible thing and no rational person likes it. BTW, I was not dogging Obama and said he accomplished his goals even though he didn't do it exactly as he promised. I do not give Obama low marks overall in the area of defense. Obama also kept the same defense structure in place. Saying he has done better than predecessor however is not really factual. We have been gathering intelligence for years and even garnered some information that proved key from water-boarding it seems to get bin Laden. He gets high marks for continuing the process needed even though he was against the surge in Iraq which proved successful to help with the draw down.

 

I do think his indiscriminate bombing of Lybia was not the correct course of action given the limited information and the unintended consequences of the action that will come up in the future but then again we have to rely on the government as the world is a very dangerous place and we simply do not have the same information.

 

 

What is frustrating to me is your kind that would call me unpatriotic just because I think this government is the taker and spender of tax dollars and some want to use the war as the sole excuse to generate even more dollars to continue to spend beyond our means. Sacrifice starts in Washington on all things money.

 

You want to stop the wars we hate so much, pass a balanced budget amendment forcing the government to spend within a set revenue structure. Insist all that live here pay something in the way of income tax to fund the government and begin to pay down the ridiculousness of racking 1.3 trillion in new debt annually and begin to pay back our debt.

 

This will affect all of us and force this shared sacrifice you speak of and all factors including military spending will be affected. Then, if we need to raise funds to fight we will have to raise that revenue around the context of real budget practices under law.

 

Instead, this Administration is simply raising the debt ceiling while congress is away another few trillion to meet expenses and won't even offer a budget for debate.

 

Passing the buck to future generations is exactly what is going on today. If you want to talk unpatriotic, start with the concept of what we are doing to our nation and our heirs that will ultimately have to pay for what we are doing today with no regard to the consequences of our actions in total.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Ice1

[Pope Flick]

Ok detlef, it's pretty simple: we have a war then we have a draft. If we're at peacetime then no draft. No one is suggesting Israeli style mandatory military service except you. More straw man.

[Ursa Majoris]

Ok detlef, it's pretty simple: we have a war then we have a draft. If we're at peacetime then no draft. No one is suggesting Israeli style mandatory military service except you. More straw man.

Thanks for posting that. Obviously I wasn't talking about a permanent draft but "wartime" only. Well, obvious to most anyway.

[Ice1]

Ok detlef, it's pretty simple: we have a war then we have a draft. If we're at peacetime then no draft. No one is suggesting Israeli style mandatory military service except you. More straw man.

 

First, I am not detlef.

 

Second, if you studied foreign countries you would know that mandatory service is required by the state mentioned. Ursa brought up mandatory service but the practical implementation of said idea really only works in tiny countries like Israel, not so much in countries like ours with 3X the population of 18-24 year old citizens compared to a countries total population encompassing all age groups.

 

I was not the one that brought up mandatory service and pretty much have been called unpatriotic in the process because neither of you cannot even explain a remotely workable model as it relates to mandatory service for the USA that is even close to improving on our current model. Front line or operational service.

 

Mandatory service means government control to fund as no one can do it for free for obvious reasons.

 

You can speak of straw man posts all you like but then again the idea is fantasy until you can come up with a real workable solution and the funding vehicle to make this idea superior than our current system.

 

Convince me you could even get the gang areas of Detroit or LA to buy in and force this mandatory service idea you offer then extrapolate your idea to the entire country. Demonstrate any workable model that makes sense I will gladly listen. I simply do not see any workable idea as it relates to some National Mandatory Service. The idea seems ridiculous to me at this stage so convince me otherwise.

 

Fantasy idea or straw man: Given I am confident neither of you has any logical solution, right back at you.

 

If you do; prove it.

[Ice1]

Thanks for posting that. Obviously I wasn't talking about a permanent draft but "wartime" only. Well, obvious to most anyway.

 

Actually you asked me to address your mandatory service idea. Not realistic in my view; See above

[Pope Flick]

First, I am not detlef.

 

Second, if you studied foreign countries you would know that mandatory service is required by the state mentioned. Ursa brought up mandatory service but the practical implementation of said idea really only works in tiny countries like Israel, not so much in countries like ours with 3X the population of 18-24 year old citizens compared to a countries total population encompassing all age groups.

 

I was not the one that brought up mandatory service and pretty much have been called unpatriotic in the process because neither of you cannot even explain a remotely workable model as it relates to mandatory service for the USA that is even close to improving on our current model. Front line or operational service.

 

Mandatory service means government control to fund as no one can do it for free for obvious reasons.

 

You can speak of straw man posts all you like but then again the idea is fantasy until you can come up with a real workable solution and the funding vehicle to make this idea superior than our current system.

 

Convince me you could even get the gang areas of Detroit or LA to buy in and force this mandatory service idea you offer then extrapolate your idea to the entire country. Demonstrate any workable model that makes sense I will gladly listen. I simply do not see any workable idea as it relates to some National Mandatory Service. The idea seems ridiculous to me at this stage so convince me otherwise.

 

Fantasy idea or straw man: Given I am confident neither of you has any logical solution, right back at you.

 

If you do; prove it.

 

 

 

Dude, you are sooooooo full of it and yourself. Here's a model: what we did during Vietnam. If I believed you were as old as you claim you could possibly figure out that's what he's talking about. But again, you are straw manning his argument so you can sound like you are winning a fictional debate.

[yo mama]

it's pretty simple: we have a war then we have a draft. If we're at peacetime then no draft.

Couldn't be any clearer.

[wiegie]

Couldn't be any clearer.

except for what is meant by "a war"

 

Does Congress have to declare a war for it to be a war? When is the last time Congress declared a way, anyway?

[yo mama]

except for what is meant by "a war"

 

Does Congress have to declare a war for it to be a war? When is the last time Congress declared a way, anyway?

Last formal declaration of war was against Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary in connection with WWII.

 

That said, each major military action since then has been expressly authorized by either Congress or the United Nations. While I would never pretend to underestimate the weaseliness of Congress, it would seem fairly straight forward to link a draft to any or all of those events. Assuming someone wanted to.

[Ice1]

Dude, you are sooooooo full of it and yourself. Here's a model: what we did during Vietnam. If I believed you were as old as you claim you could possibly figure out that's what he's talking about. But again, you are straw manning his argument so you can sound like you are winning a fictional debate.

 

Are you both somehow suggesting we do away with or minimize our volunteer military recruitment and go back to a draft? We ended the draft because it was not needed and it is still is not needed today.

 

Are you now suggesting we just randomly draft citizens to serve in the miltary? Do you really think this will improve our force by adding members that do not want to be there at the expense of those that do and are not needed in the first place?

 

You can say I am full of myself all you like but how can you think this is even a logical argument? We are actually looking at reducing the size of military personal as it is today?

 

I guess what you are arguing is some forced compliance measure whereby the government decides your choices in life. So you are arguing for a mandatory service regardless of a few million in some lottery format? Justify that position. My take today, is that is ridiculous. It is not like we need to add millions to our service level due to some huge mythical ground invasion that will happen next week or year.

 

Why do think our force today is so much better than in the Vietnam era?

 

Maybe I am crazy but I believe having a forced compliant military is foolish unless we are faced with a situation like we had in WWII especially given we are meeting our recruitment needs.

 

Obviously you think it some grand plan...why, I have no idea.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Ice1

[evil_gop_liars]

 

That had a touch of Spain in it.

[Ice1]

 

That had a touch of Spain in it.

 

I am beginning to think the Liberals were really buying into that Obama Brownshirt Crap.

 

Meet the President.

 

 

Edited January 6, 2012 by Ice1