I'd settle for Eisenhower Republicans to save our Republic!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Stick with sarcasm. Being a condescending prick isn't your strong suit.

I have been educated in both public and private schools. I have been a voracious reader since I was a child.The fact that I don't see things your way is not an automatic indictment as an idiot. It makes you feel superior to think so. But it is quite obviously not the truth.

The dramatic images make your story more entertaining. The whole " but our children and grandchildren will live in a post-apocalyptic world like Mad Max or something, if they are lucky enough to survive the onslaught" is very colorful.

But the biggest number that has been suggested in this conversation is a 15% reduction. That would hardly put us at the mercy of some anti-american coalition. In fact, I would be willing to bet that more than 15% of teh military's budget is wasted.

What you propose is why we have the golden cow in the budget. It is allowed to spend what it wants, use what it wants, and waste what it wants because it is the US Military. People like you have created a mindset that allows the single biggest bureacracy in the country to demand funds and get them like a trophy wife on a shopping spree.

And you dio this by insisting that cutting pennies from the budget will gut the military, embolden our enemies, and make us impotent in foreign affairs, resulting in nuclear wars and massive invasions that make Revelations look like a Dr. Seuss book. At the first mention of cutting the military budget at all you launch into the well rehearsed story of how the Supreme Ruler installed by our conquerers will lop off our heads and turn those who survive into slaves. And you end it with "and it will be all your fault and there will be no one to rescue us".

Creative writing is a nice hobby, Dixie. But what you have posted has little or no bearing on what has been discussed. Your story is sensationalism at best, and a fear-mongering strawman at worst.

I have studied world and US history, and can see the need for a military and still see the folly of the huge machine we have built. Its a pity you haven't the education or perhaps the intellect, to see it too. (see? I can be condescending as well as you can. I just do it with fewer outright insults.)

Look, Mott is practically foaming at the mouth and drooling all over himself to gut the military, he didn't say anything about a slight 15% reduction, or cutting waste... His #1 first priority and answer for reducing any debt at all, is to reduce the size of our military, he's like a breathless Nancy Pelosi... whee..whee nheed to cut... the militahhry budghhett.... thahhts whhat whee nheed to dhooo... and everhybody agrhheees...

I don't have any problem with a bipartisan commission charged with finding waste and obsolescence in the military budget! If we can get the threat of Islamic terror under control, I don't even have a problem with downsizing the military to some degree, or eliminating some of our bases abroad. But we don't need to ever be considering THAT above restraining Congressmen from passing one pork filled "stimulus" after another, and establishing one more bloated government bureaucracy after another, with all of this massive entitlement that we can't afford! We've got to stop that shit first! THEN we can talk about waste in defense spending. I'm not on board with ANY idea from a liberal to start chopping up the military as a means to save money... I'm just not, and won't ever be!

 

[Canceled1]

No you wouldn't! You want a religious social conservative that supports the views of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and men that waste blood and treasure in Quixotic follies in the middle east that look sexy in his jeans.

I grow soooo weary reading about yet another of your icky lil' dreams!

 

[Bfgrn]

Right, CASE CLOSED... Dixie never said that he approved of or condoned Bush appeasing liberals and spending us into further debt! Thanks for providing evidence that you are a lying piece of shit who is incapable of admitting the truth. I appreciate that!

Now you refer to yourself in the 3rd person? Why, so you can disassociate what YOU say from what 'Dixie' says? What form of 'personal responsibility' is THAT...hey, go ask 'Dixie' what you should say next.

Dixie never said that he approved of or condoned Bush appeasing liberals and spending us into further debt!

WOW, Dixie says George Bush is an APPEASER!!! But, but...didn't Dixie say his man crush 'will not back down' and 'does what he thinks is right regardless of the polls'??? Didn't Dixie say his idol ' isn't afraid to tell France to fuck off', but Bush is afraid to tell liberals to 'fuck off'? I thought Dixie said: 'he continually makes fools of the Democrats who underestimate him'?

I love the fact that when George W. Bush says he is going to do something, that is damn well what he does, and will not back down. I love the fact that he has a strong moral constitution and does what he thinks is right regardless of the polls. I love that he doesn't mince words or hide behind focus grouped phrases. I love the way he isn't afraid to tell France to fuck off, and will lead regardless of who in the UN wants to follow.

Did I mention I love the way he continually makes fools of the Democrats who underestimate him? I really LOVE that!

I LOVE GEORGE W. BUSH!

THERE!

 

[Bfgrn]

How to handle a recession....




Building the military industrial complex that Ike warned about....



World Trade:



Loose money.... AND control inflation....





Far far more at the link in previous post... I just found the above to be very 'liberal' positions.

Side note.... it is rather refreshing to see how open the parties were with their platforms. Spelling out what they intended to do in detail that we haven't seen in my life time. It has dwindled in every cycle since in my opinion.

It would really help if you understood what you are reading and posting.

There is nothing here that supports your contention.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

There are certainly times when deficit spending is necessary. But we cannot continue the path of deficits every single year regardless of economic prosperity or lack thereof.

1960.... the last fiscal year our debt was lowered year over year.

Again, in general I agree with you but would not a Balanced Budget Amendment tie the hands of government in times of crisis when deficit spending is needed? It's for that reason that I think we should enact a law requiring a balanced budget but not a constitutional amendment.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Well, if we defund our military and pear it down the way you and Mottbrain want to do, then China could probably do it... or a coalition of wealthy Arab/Islamic nations we've allowed to get nukes... but hey, you don't believe it could happen, so it won't, right? Why not just disband our military altogether and be done with it? No need to spend any money on that sort of thing, because no one would want to come rule over our whiny asses anyway, right?

You are beyond being a typical moron... is there a such thing as Uber-moron? If so, that's YOU!

Dixie, we all know that math isn't your strong point but we could cut our military spending in half and we would still be spending more money on our military then any other nation on the planet and we'd sill have the most powerful military in the world. So what the fuck are you talking about? I mean spare us the hyperbole and lets talk sense. You can't have your cake and eat it to. You can't have smaller government and lower taxes with out talking about cutting spending of the biggest of government program of them all. We can no longer afford to be the worlds police man. It has over extended our resources. It has come time for us to abandon that role because we simply cannot afford it.

I'm willing to meet you halfway though. If you feel this strongly that American exceptionalism is dependent on maintaining our current military capabilities would you be willing to raise taxes in order to pay for it?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Look, Mott is practically foaming at the mouth and drooling all over himself to gut the military, he didn't say anything about a slight 15% reduction, or cutting waste... His #1 first priority and answer for reducing any debt at all, is to reduce the size of our military, he's like a breathless Nancy Pelosi... whee..whee nheed to cut... the militahhry budghhett.... thahhts whhat whee nheed to dhooo... and everhybody agrhheees...

I don't have any problem with a bipartisan commission charged with finding waste and obsolescence in the military budget! If we can get the threat of Islamic terror under control, I don't even have a problem with downsizing the military to some degree, or eliminating some of our bases abroad. But we don't need to ever be considering THAT above restraining Congressmen from passing one pork filled "stimulus" after another, and establishing one more bloated government bureaucracy after another, with all of this massive entitlement that we can't afford! We've got to stop that shit first! THEN we can talk about waste in defense spending. I'm not on board with ANY idea from a liberal to start chopping up the military as a means to save money... I'm just not, and won't ever be!

That's a strawman Dixie. The military isn't my first priority in cutting spending. It's a realistic one. We have 3 golden pillars of spending in our government that account for 2/3 of all spending. If you realistically want to reduce spending and the size of government to the point where you can maintain our current tax structure and balance the budget then you have to consider how and where you are going to cut spending on these three programs. The military is one of those programs.

So you have to get realistic about this. If you want to maintain our current tax rates then all government programs have to be on the table and that includes the military. Hell Dixie, we could cut our military spending by 1/4 and that alone would, over time, would eliminate our budget deficit and we would still have the most powerful military in the world and would be spending more then the EU, Russia and China combined.

But that's not what I"m suggesting. Here's what I would suggest. Pass a balanced budget law. Cut military spending by 10 to 15%. Complete modernizing health care reform to include a public option, a single payer system and cost controls. Raise the cap on the FICA payroll tax to $160,000 and allow the Bush tax cuts to expire.

Painful? Hell yea but those are the kind of painful decisions and shared sacrifice that will be needed to solve this problem.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Well, if we defund our military and pear it down the way you and Mottbrain want to do, then China could probably do it... or a coalition of wealthy Arab/Islamic nations we've allowed to get nukes... but hey, you don't believe it could happen, so it won't, right? Why not just disband our military altogether and be done with it? No need to spend any money on that sort of thing, because no one would want to come rule over our whiny asses anyway, right?

You are beyond being a typical moron... is there a such thing as Uber-moron? If so, that's YOU!

NO... they couldn't. China may outnumber our population by 4 to 1, but how would they get the necessary troop strength over here to take over?

We would see the build up long before they were able to even start loading onto ships. We would have a wide array of subs and mines sitting waiting to pick them off.

We can cut our military budget in half and still have more than enough troops & equipment to protect our borders from invasion. The administrative staffing, the unnecessary weaponry, the unnecessary foreign bases etc... plenty of places to slash the budget. My guess is we would actually improve our capability to respond by cutting the bullshit red tape, providing the troops with the necessary weapons rather than the super supreme missile that can walk, chew gum and still miss the target by a couple clics.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That's a strawman Dixie. The military isn't my first priority in cutting spending. It's a realistic one. We have 3 golden pillars of spending in our government that account for 2/3 of all spending. If you realistically want to reduce spending and the size of government to the point where you can maintain our current tax structure and balance the budget then you have to consider how and where you are going to cut spending on these three programs. The military is one of those programs.

So you have to get realistic about this. If you want to maintain our current tax rates then all government programs have to be on the table and that includes the military. Hell Dixie, we could cut our military spending by 1/4 and that alone would, over time, would eliminate our budget deficit and we would still have the most powerful military in the world and would be spending more then the EU, Russia and China combined.

But that's not what I"m suggesting. Here's what I would suggest. Pass a balanced budget law. Cut military spending by 10 to 15%. Complete modernizing health care reform to include a public option, a single payer system and cost controls. Raise the cap on the FICA payroll tax to $160,000 and allow the Bush tax cuts to expire.

Painful? Hell yea but those are the kind of painful decisions and shared sacrifice that will be needed to solve this problem.

Ironically, the defense spending cuts of 10-15% are about the only suggestion I even partially agree with you on! We already have a "balanced budget law" it's called The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990... it hasn't worked, Congress always finds a loophole. We need a Balanced Budget AMENDMENT to the Constitution.

Okay, take your idea a step further, I would suggest a commission to find waste in EVERY government agency, including defense. I bet there would be at least 10-15% that could be cut without any dire consequence whatsoever. The HCR bullshit is going away, like it or not, no single-payer (government) system, let the private sector handle insurance as it has always done. No tax increases, extend Bush tax cuts for ALL! Add to that, corporate tax incentives for companies who A.) Create new jobs in America, and/or B.) Research "Green" technologies. You're never going to fix the unemployment problem by raising the taxes on those who create the jobs, it's idiotic to think you can. Price controls are also idiotic, they don't work, never have worked, and are another FAILED socialist policy we should completely abandon.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Again, in general I agree with you but would not a Balanced Budget Amendment tie the hands of government in times of crisis when deficit spending is needed? It's for that reason that I think we should enact a law requiring a balanced budget but not a constitutional amendment.

Not if written properly. It could provide caveats for times when GDP growth was below 'x' (obviously this would be more complex that simply looking at GDP, but I imagine you get what I am trying to say... despite being a mentally challenged person... as all Ohioans are)

I think where we consistently run into problems is the built in spending increases. The mindset that we have to increase spending every year in every department of every agency. The mindset where we get one party or another saying 'the other party wants to cut spending for education/military/etc... when in fact what they are doing is cutting the yearly INCREASE in spending for that area'. Both parties play this game quite well. It pisses me off.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Ironically, the defense spending cuts of 10-15% are about the only suggestion I even partially agree with you on! We already have a "balanced budget law" it's called The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990... it hasn't worked, Congress always finds a loophole. We need a Balanced Budget AMENDMENT to the Constitution.

Okay, take your idea a step further, I would suggest a commission to find waste in EVERY government agency, including defense. I bet there would be at least 10-15% that could be cut without any dire consequence whatsoever. The HCR bullshit is going away, like it or not, no single-payer (government) system, let the private sector handle insurance as it has always done. No tax increases, extend Bush tax cuts for ALL! Add to that, corporate tax incentives for companies who A.) Create new jobs in America, and/or B.) Research "Green" technologies. You're never going to fix the unemployment problem by raising the taxes on those who create the jobs, it's idiotic to think you can. Price controls are also idiotic, they don't work, never have worked, and are another FAILED socialist policy we should completely abandon.

Dixie, the specifics of my suggestion are not the point I was trying to make. (and by the way the suggestions I made for health care reform have been working in all modern industrial nations for more then 30 years). The point is, is that you're going to have to make some tough decisions. Do you want the Military at it's present level? Fine, are you willing to raise taxes or make some other hard decision?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Not if written properly. It could provide caveats for times when GDP growth was below 'x' (obviously this would be more complex that simply looking at GDP, but I imagine you get what I am trying to say... despite being a mentally challenged person... as all Ohioans are)

I think where we consistently run into problems is the built in spending increases. The mindset that we have to increase spending every year in every department of every agency. The mindset where we get one party or another saying 'the other party wants to cut spending for education/military/etc... when in fact what they are doing is cutting the yearly INCREASE in spending for that area'. Both parties play this game quite well. It pisses me off.

Yes, I see where you're going but is that level of complexity possible with a constitutional amendment? Also, can it get passed? Most constitutional amendments are concisely stated principles or policies. Can you be that concise and principled with a balanced budget amendment? I like the idea if it's workable.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, the specifics of my suggestion are not the point I was trying to make. (and by the way the suggestions I made for health care reform have been working in all modern industrial nations for more then 30 years). The point is, is that you're going to have to make some tough decisions. Do you want the Military at it's present level? Fine, are you willing to raise taxes or make some other hard decision?

Did I say I wanted defense spending to remain at present levels? Gee... it looks like the text of my post indicates I would like to see a committee find 10-15% waste in defense spending and cut it, along with waste in every other department of government. I am really sorry you are incapable of reading, but all I can do is post it, if you fail to read it, I can't do anything about that.

And some reforms do need to be made to health care, but the first thing that is going to happen is, this Obamacare Nightmare is going to be repealed, and we're going to start over. I don't give a fuck what other industrialized nations have done for 30 years, it has nothing to do with the United States of America.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Yes, I see where you're going but is that level of complexity possible with a constitutional amendment? Also, can it get passed? Most constitutional amendments are concisely stated principles or policies. Can you be that concise and principled with a balanced budget amendment? I like the idea if it's workable.

Yes, I think it can be written in such a manner.

Can it get passed? No. I seriously doubt ANY amendment could get passed. The two parties would find a way to disagree and blame each other over issues like...

1) Is Water Wet
2) Is the sky Blue
3) Is 1/3 real

Etc....


Can I be that concise and principled with a bb amendment... absolutely. Can the politicians in DC.... not a chance in hell.

They would create a 2000 page documents, fill it with amendments that had nothing to do with the issue and later we would find out that the amendment forgot to address the issue of the balanced budget.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

They would create a 2000 page documents, fill it with amendments that had nothing to do with the issue and later we would find out that the amendment forgot to address the issue of the balanced budget.

You are confusing a "BILL" with a Constitutional Amendment. Two completely different things.

 

[Socrtease]

We spent 663,255,000,000 in 2009 for military spending. China was second with 98,800,000,000. So if we cut our military spending by 15% the chinese would invade and conquer us? Really? Wow we must be some real pussies by that estimation.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

We spent 663,255,000,000 in 2009 for military spending. China was second with 98,800,000,000. So if we cut our military spending by 15% the chinese would invade and conquer us? Really? Wow we must be some real pussies by that estimation.

well... you are... but that is expected from those in NM.

Seriously... you were in... what is your estimation on the amount of unnecessary administrative, R&D etc.. that goes on? what about overseas bases... do we really need force projection capabilities in Western Europe?

 

[midcan5]

"Anti-government sentiment in the United States has risen and fallen in different eras. During the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson, U.S. government programs were expanded; Social Security and Medicare came into being, artists and the arts received federal support, the plight of poor American children was addressed on several fronts, and the Southern system of racial apartheid was gradually but dramatically dismantled. It was this last intervention that roused anti-government feeling in many white Americans. They were particularly outraged when Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy called out the National Guard to enforce racial integration of public educational institutions." Caroline Hamilton (http://www.hnn.us/articles/129715.html)

 

[Bfgrn]

"Anti-government sentiment in the United States has risen and fallen in different eras. During the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson, U.S. government programs were expanded; Social Security and Medicare came into being, artists and the arts received federal support, the plight of poor American children was addressed on several fronts, and the Southern system of racial apartheid was gradually but dramatically dismantled. It was this last intervention that roused anti-government feeling in many white Americans. They were particularly outraged when Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy called out the National Guard to enforce racial integration of public educational institutions." Caroline Hamilton (http://www.hnn.us/articles/129715.html)

Circulated in Dallas Texas on November 21, 1963

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

We spent 663,255,000,000 in 2009 for military spending. China was second with 98,800,000,000. So if we cut our military spending by 15% the chinese would invade and conquer us? Really? Wow we must be some real pussies by that estimation.

How much waste do you figure the Chinese tolerate in spending? Reckon they allow $500 hammers and $1500 toilet seats? Do you imagine they spend $40 billion a year to maintain helium storage facilities? I figure they probably get a little more bang for their buck in China, because totalitarian communist regimes generally don't put up with what we routinely deal with here.

I'll say this again, I have no problem with cutting 10...15...even 20% of the military budget, so long as this is applied to ALL budgets across the board! We're not going to just let liberals use the military budget to continue spending us into oblivion, or to avoid cutting your pet entitlements. Whittle down all you want to, but it's going to be done across the board, that's only fair, and it's the most reasonable solution.