Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/w ... nny-or-war" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Have at it John Boehner!

Going to be interesting to see how the new wave of tea party type Republicans coexist with the establishment Republicans.

Rand Paul wants defense spending on the table for spending cuts. That's always been the last things Republicans have wanted to touch.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Going to be interesting to see how the new wave of tea party type Republicans coexist with the establishment Republicans.

Rand Paul wants defense spending on the table for spending cuts. That's always been the last things Republicans have wanted to touch.

For every $ in defense cuts, cut entitlement programs $2.

Are Republicans so goddamn scared of shit hole foreign countries that we cannot even discuss the talks of cutting the defense budgets WITHOUT a cut to something that, wait-Heaven forbid-might help somebody. Look, I know both SS and medicaid/medicare are fucked up, I see it on a daily basis, so I do agree with letting people opt out, but let those who want it, let them have it.

I have a fucking problem with our continued insistence to police the rest of the world. You wanna end the war on terror? GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE MIDEAST AND QUIT KISSING ISRAEL'S FUCKING ASS!!!!!!!!

Again, these midterms were a joke as it pertains to "change".....yeah from one bunch of crooks to another.

catamount man wrote:Are Republicans so goddamn scared of shit hole foreign countries that we cannot even discuss the talks of cutting the defense budgets WITHOUT a cut to something that, wait-Heaven forbid-might help somebody. Look, I know both SS and medicaid/medicare are fucked up, I see it on a daily basis, so I do agree with letting people opt out, but let those who want it, let them have it.

I have a fucking problem with our continued insistence to police the rest of the world. You wanna end the war on terror? GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE MIDEAST AND QUIT KISSING ISRAEL'S FUCKING ASS!!!!!!!!

Again, these midterms were a joke as it pertains to "change".....yeah from one bunch of crooks to another.

Are pussified psychotic donks so goddamned hell-bent on giving away MY hard earned money to those who would chose to lay around and collect government "assistance" that they're afraid to put entitlement programs on the table when discussing cuts to defense spending?

AZGrizFan wrote:

catamount man wrote:Are Republicans so goddamn scared of **** hole foreign countries that we cannot even discuss the talks of cutting the defense budgets WITHOUT a cut to something that, wait-Heaven forbid-might help somebody. Look, I know both SS and medicaid/medicare are **** up, I see it on a daily basis, so I do agree with letting people opt out, but let those who want it, let them have it.

I have a **** problem with our continued insistence to police the rest of the world. You wanna end the war on terror? GET THE **** OUT OF THE MIDEAST AND QUIT KISSING ISRAEL'S **** ASS!!!!!!!!

Again, these midterms were a joke as it pertains to "change".....yeah from one bunch of crooks to another.

Are pussified psychotic donks so goddamned hell-bent on giving away MY hard earned money to those who would chose to lay around and collect government "assistance" that they're afraid to put entitlement programs on the table when discussing cuts to defense spending?

I agree. I'm not a Democrat. Perhaps you are too goddamn stupid to realize there are those of us out their who don't suck ass at the altar of the big 2 parties.

catamount man wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Are pussified psychotic donks so goddamned hell-bent on giving away MY hard earned money to those who would chose to lay around and collect government "assistance" that they're afraid to put entitlement programs on the table when discussing cuts to defense spending?

I agree. I'm not a Democrat. Perhaps you are too goddamn stupid to realize there are those of us out their who don't suck ass at the altar of the big 2 parties.

You're too goddamned stupid to realize you're not a democrat TODAY. But based on your track record that will most likely change tomorrow.

Dude, you are the most bi-polar fuck I've ever had the distinct pleasure of interacting with. Truly a joy to behold...

Obviously both entitlement programs need to be looked at seriously

1) Entitlement one - Team America World Police - Military
2) Entitlement two - Do nothing get money - Social Programs

Both are bloated poorly managed and far beyond whats prudent

Chizzang wrote:Obviously both entitlement programs need to be looked at seriously

1) Entitlement one - Team America World Police - Military
2) Entitlement two - Do nothing get money - Social Programs

Both are bloated poorly managed and far beyond whats prudent

I agree. Mr. Bipolar doesn't, apparently.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Going to be interesting to see how the new wave of tea party type Republicans coexist with the establishment Republicans.

Rand Paul wants defense spending on the table for spending cuts. That's always been the last things Republicans have wanted to touch.

For every $ in defense cuts, cut entitlement programs $2.

This is one conk who is willing to take cuts in my cherished programs as long as unearned entitlements get cut - maybe more than just twice as much.

I don't have a problem with cuts in the military, but there need to be some other fixes first.

1. DO NOT replace military spending with supplemental defense spending. In other words, do not cut a military mess cook and then replace him with a private contractor. President GHW Bush started us on the road to cuts after Desert Storm, and then Bill Clinton really ramped them up later. What this ultimately led to was the military making use of contractors to perform jobs that service members used to. Mess cooks, gate guards, and even some security jobs wond up still being done, but by civilians. The end point of all this was the existence of private security companies all over Iraq.

2. Make inroads towards preserving our ready defense industries. In other words, we need to be just a little more protectionist in our trade practices. Why? Before WWII our military was not even in the top 5 in the world. BUT, even our enemies like Isoruku Yamamoto knew that we had the industrial capacity to develop the biggest military in the worl overnight. This was because our industrial base was centralized in our own country because it was still profitable to make things in the US. If we attract more industries back to America and out of Mexico/Honduras/Southeast Asia etc, then we do not have to maintain such a large standing military. If we had to fight a country like China tomorrow, we would be overwhelmed in a year because we cannot produce enough steel in our own country. Also keep in mind that when WWII started, there were comapnies like Martin Typewriter that used to make business machines that retooled and immediately began making carbines.

In other words, it is not the industries that currently make tanks that will bail us out of the next conflict. It is the tractor comapnies, the automakers, the tool and die folks, and even toy makers that will make the difference. If they are all in China and Mexico then we cannot utilize them in times of need.

Cuts to the military are fine and dandy, but there are more fundamental changes that need to be stressed first that will make all of our defense spending less necessary in times of peace. In short, bring US industries back home (there are a number of ways to do this) AND do not make cuts in the military without also making cuts in the military's workload/mandate.

CID1990 wrote:I don't have a problem with cuts in the military, but there need to be some other fixes first.

1. DO NOT replace military spending with supplemental defense spending. In other words, do not cut a military mess cook and then replace him with a private contractor. President GHW Bush started us on the road to cuts after Desert Storm, and then Bill Clinton really ramped them up later. What this ultimately led to was the military making use of contractors to perform jobs that service members used to. Mess cooks, gate guards, and even some security jobs wond up still being done, but by civilians. The end point of all this was the existence of private security companies all over Iraq.

2. Make inroads towards preserving our ready defense industries. In other words, we need to be just a little more protectionist in our trade practices. Why? Before WWII our military was not even in the top 5 in the world. BUT, even our enemies like Isoruku Yamamoto knew that we had the industrial capacity to develop the biggest military in the worl overnight. This was because our industrial base was centralized in our own country because it was still profitable to make things in the US. If we attract more industries back to America and out of Mexico/Honduras/Southeast Asia etc, then we do not have to maintain such a large standing military. If we had to fight a country like China tomorrow, we would be overwhelmed in a year because we cannot produce enough steel in our own country. Also keep in mind that when WWII started, there were comapnies like Martin Typewriter that used to make business machines that retooled and immediately began making carbines.

In other words, it is not the industries that currently make tanks that will bail us out of the next conflict. It is the tractor comapnies, the automakers, the tool and die folks, and even toy makers that will make the difference. If they are all in China and Mexico then we cannot utilize them in times of need.

Cuts to the military are fine and dandy, but there are more fundamental changes that need to be stressed first that will make all of our defense spending less necessary in times of peace. In short, bring US industries back home (there are a number of ways to do this) AND do not make cuts in the military without also making cuts in the military's workload/mandate.

CID1990 wrote:I don't have a problem with cuts in the military, but there need to be some other fixes first.

1. DO NOT replace military spending with supplemental defense spending. In other words, do not cut a military mess cook and then replace him with a private contractor. President GHW Bush started us on the road to cuts after Desert Storm, and then Bill Clinton really ramped them up later. What this ultimately led to was the military making use of contractors to perform jobs that service members used to. Mess cooks, gate guards, and even some security jobs wond up still being done, but by civilians. The end point of all this was the existence of private security companies all over Iraq.

2. Make inroads towards preserving our ready defense industries. In other words, we need to be just a little more protectionist in our trade practices. Why? Before WWII our military was not even in the top 5 in the world. BUT, even our enemies like Isoruku Yamamoto knew that we had the industrial capacity to develop the biggest military in the worl overnight. This was because our industrial base was centralized in our own country because it was still profitable to make things in the US. If we attract more industries back to America and out of Mexico/Honduras/Southeast Asia etc, then we do not have to maintain such a large standing military. If we had to fight a country like China tomorrow, we would be overwhelmed in a year because we cannot produce enough steel in our own country. Also keep in mind that when WWII started, there were comapnies like Martin Typewriter that used to make business machines that retooled and immediately began making carbines.

In other words, it is not the industries that currently make tanks that will bail us out of the next conflict. It is the tractor comapnies, the automakers, the tool and die folks, and even toy makers that will make the difference. If they are all in China and Mexico then we cannot utilize them in times of need.

Cuts to the military are fine and dandy, but there are more fundamental changes that need to be stressed first that will make all of our defense spending less necessary in times of peace. In short, bring US industries back home (there are a number of ways to do this) AND do not make cuts in the military without also making cuts in the military's workload/mandate.

100%....nay....1000% correct.

CID1990 wrote:I don't have a problem with cuts in the military, but there need to be some other fixes first.

1. DO NOT replace military spending with supplemental defense spending. In other words, do not cut a military mess cook and then replace him with a private contractor. President GHW Bush started us on the road to cuts after Desert Storm, and then Bill Clinton really ramped them up later. What this ultimately led to was the military making use of contractors to perform jobs that service members used to. Mess cooks, gate guards, and even some security jobs wond up still being done, but by civilians. The end point of all this was the existence of private security companies all over Iraq.

2. Make inroads towards preserving our ready defense industries. In other words, we need to be just a little more protectionist in our trade practices. Why? Before WWII our military was not even in the top 5 in the world. BUT, even our enemies like Isoruku Yamamoto knew that we had the industrial capacity to develop the biggest military in the worl overnight. This was because our industrial base was centralized in our own country because it was still profitable to make things in the US. If we attract more industries back to America and out of Mexico/Honduras/Southeast Asia etc, then we do not have to maintain such a large standing military. If we had to fight a country like China tomorrow, we would be overwhelmed in a year because we cannot produce enough steel in our own country. Also keep in mind that when WWII started, there were comapnies like Martin Typewriter that used to make business machines that retooled and immediately began making carbines.

In other words, it is not the industries that currently make tanks that will bail us out of the next conflict. It is the tractor comapnies, the automakers, the tool and die folks, and even toy makers that will make the difference. If they are all in China and Mexico then we cannot utilize them in times of need.

Cuts to the military are fine and dandy, but there are more fundamental changes that need to be stressed first that will make all of our defense spending less necessary in times of peace. In short, bring US industries back home (there are a number of ways to do this) AND do not make cuts in the military without also making cuts in the military's workload/mandate.

Great stuff Cid... and the two easiest ways to do that are get rid of the corporate income tax http://www.fairtax.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and can the unions on military contracts.

blueballs wrote:

CID1990 wrote:I don't have a problem with cuts in the military, but there need to be some other fixes first.

1. DO NOT replace military spending with supplemental defense spending. In other words, do not cut a military mess cook and then replace him with a private contractor. President GHW Bush started us on the road to cuts after Desert Storm, and then Bill Clinton really ramped them up later. What this ultimately led to was the military making use of contractors to perform jobs that service members used to. Mess cooks, gate guards, and even some security jobs wond up still being done, but by civilians. The end point of all this was the existence of private security companies all over Iraq.

2. Make inroads towards preserving our ready defense industries. In other words, we need to be just a little more protectionist in our trade practices. Why? Before WWII our military was not even in the top 5 in the world. BUT, even our enemies like Isoruku Yamamoto knew that we had the industrial capacity to develop the biggest military in the worl overnight. This was because our industrial base was centralized in our own country because it was still profitable to make things in the US. If we attract more industries back to America and out of Mexico/Honduras/Southeast Asia etc, then we do not have to maintain such a large standing military. If we had to fight a country like China tomorrow, we would be overwhelmed in a year because we cannot produce enough steel in our own country. Also keep in mind that when WWII started, there were comapnies like Martin Typewriter that used to make business machines that retooled and immediately began making carbines.

In other words, it is not the industries that currently make tanks that will bail us out of the next conflict. It is the tractor comapnies, the automakers, the tool and die folks, and even toy makers that will make the difference. If they are all in China and Mexico then we cannot utilize them in times of need.

Cuts to the military are fine and dandy, but there are more fundamental changes that need to be stressed first that will make all of our defense spending less necessary in times of peace. In short, bring US industries back home (there are a number of ways to do this) AND do not make cuts in the military without also making cuts in the military's workload/mandate.

Great stuff Cid... and the two easiest ways to do that are get rid of the corporate income tax http://www.fairtax.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and can the unions on military contracts.

Both of which we had during WWII.

BTW, great post Cid.

blueballs wrote:

CID1990 wrote:I don't have a problem with cuts in the military, but there need to be some other fixes first.

1. DO NOT replace military spending with supplemental defense spending. In other words, do not cut a military mess cook and then replace him with a private contractor. President GHW Bush started us on the road to cuts after Desert Storm, and then Bill Clinton really ramped them up later. What this ultimately led to was the military making use of contractors to perform jobs that service members used to. Mess cooks, gate guards, and even some security jobs wond up still being done, but by civilians. The end point of all this was the existence of private security companies all over Iraq.

2. Make inroads towards preserving our ready defense industries. In other words, we need to be just a little more protectionist in our trade practices. Why? Before WWII our military was not even in the top 5 in the world. BUT, even our enemies like Isoruku Yamamoto knew that we had the industrial capacity to develop the biggest military in the worl overnight. This was because our industrial base was centralized in our own country because it was still profitable to make things in the US. If we attract more industries back to America and out of Mexico/Honduras/Southeast Asia etc, then we do not have to maintain such a large standing military. If we had to fight a country like China tomorrow, we would be overwhelmed in a year because we cannot produce enough steel in our own country. Also keep in mind that when WWII started, there were comapnies like Martin Typewriter that used to make business machines that retooled and immediately began making carbines.

In other words, it is not the industries that currently make tanks that will bail us out of the next conflict. It is the tractor comapnies, the automakers, the tool and die folks, and even toy makers that will make the difference. If they are all in China and Mexico then we cannot utilize them in times of need.

Cuts to the military are fine and dandy, but there are more fundamental changes that need to be stressed first that will make all of our defense spending less necessary in times of peace. In short, bring US industries back home (there are a number of ways to do this) AND do not make cuts in the military without also making cuts in the military's workload/mandate.

Great stuff Cid... and the two easiest ways to do that are get rid of the corporate income tax http://www.fairtax.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and can the unions on military contracts.

Cid, BB!

Chizzang wrote:Obviously both entitlement programs need to be looked at seriously

1) Entitlement one - Team America World Police - Military
2) Entitlement two - Do nothing get money - Social Programs

Both are bloated poorly managed and far beyond whats prudent

Nice post!

There's room for cuts in the Military. I was reading that there is over 300 active Admirals.

Here's another cut.

With the report that the Presidents trip to India will cost 200 Million a day and he'll be taking 34 warships, multiple jets thousands of people, two helicopters, reporters and soldiers for security maybe just stay home and use web conferencing

Bronco wrote:There's room for cuts in the Military. I was reading that there is over 300 active Admirals.

Here's another cut.

With the report that the Presidents trip to India will cost 200 Million a day and he'll be taking 34 warships, multiple jets thousands of people, two helicopters, reporters and soldiers for security maybe just stay home and use web conferencing

I think that rumor has been debunked.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Bronco wrote:There's room for cuts in the Military. I was reading that there is over 300 active Admirals.

Here's another cut.

With the report that the Presidents trip to India will cost 200 Million a day and he'll be taking 34 warships, multiple jets thousands of people, two helicopters, reporters and soldiers for security maybe just stay home and use web conferencing

I think that rumor has been debunked.

Yes, it has. But don't let that stop a good lie.

93henfan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
I think that rumor has been debunked.

Yes, it has. But don't let that stop a good lie.

Well, it IS a doozey.

Send granny off to war.
she's a mean old beast.
they'll never know what hit 'em.

AZGrizFan wrote:

93henfan wrote:
Yes, it has. But don't let that stop a good lie.

Well, it IS a doozey.

I just saw the CBO's audited numbers for a trip President Clinton took to Africa in 1998. Clinton traveled to 6 countries in 11 days with 1,300 travelers. In 2010 inflation-adjusted dollars, the trip cost $5.2 million per day.

93henfan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Well, it IS a doozey.

I just saw the CBO's audited numbers for a trip President Clinton took to Africa in 1998. Clinton traveled to 6 countries in 11 days with 1,300 travelers. In 2010 inflation-adjusted dollars, the trip cost $5.2 million per day.

Why in the FUCK does a president need 1300-2000 people with him?