Riots in the streets 2008-2013 style.

[Bob_S]

It seems as though our government finally pushed through the budget last night in the wee hours.

Awwww.... dammit. 

[Woody]

Awwww.... dammit. 

It is really sad. All that show to shave a few tens of billion from a budget that is in the red by many many times that. Hopefully there is the needed backlash and we start to do what is really needed, cut back severly on many aspects of the federal government. Delegate the things that are state responsibilities back to the states. Focus on the constitutional mandate of the federal government and stop trying to stick fingers where they don't belong. Will this mean many "red" states will suffer from lack of federal propping up? Yup, so be it.

[fathertime]

It is really sad. All that show to shave a few tens of billion from a budget that is in the red by many many times that. Hopefully there is the needed backlash and we start to do what is really needed, cut back severly on many aspects of the federal government. Delegate the things that are state responsibilities back to the states. Focus on the constitutional mandate of the federal government and stop trying to stick fingers where they don't belong. Will this mean many "red" states will suffer from lack of federal propping up? Yup, so be it.

I do find it strange that after all that negotiation all they could do was shave off 38 billion or less.  When the deficit  is 1.6 trillion, you would think we would be talking 100's of billions less of spending. 
I think we do need to military spending on the table now as well as everything else...namely getting our men out of those mideast hellholes.  I don't know what happens to those military men but we gotta be using our resources to build/improve this country of ours.

Fathertime!

[Jeff S]

Even with the 38 billion gone, we'll be spending more than last year. Only in America can spending more this year than last be termed a "cut."

[ignorante]

I do find it strange that after all that negotiation all they could do was shave off 38 billion or less.  When the deficit  is 1.6 trillion, you would think we would be talking 100's of billions less of spending. 
I think we do need to military spending on the table now as well as everything else...namely getting our men out of those mideast hellholes.  I don't know what happens to those military men but we gotta be using our resources to build/improve this country of ours.

Fathertime!

FT, you could cut out the military budget entirely, and it still will not fix the real problem, which is entitlement spending.  It will not be long before entitlement spending swallows everything and leaves no room for things like a military budget.  There is no political will to touch entitlements.  Why?  Because the American voters do not want politicians to do that.  Even hinting at tinkering with them draws severely negative reactions.  Do you remember what happened when the last President suggested putting 2% of social security payroll taxes into private accounts?

As long as people talk about things that do not matter, which is pretty much anything in the budget that is not entitlement spending, the long term problem is not going to be fixed.

[jm21-2]

Even with the 38 billion gone, we'll be spending more than last year. Only in America can spending more this year than last be termed a "cut."

They tried to sell us that here in WA....they made "deep cuts" to the budget...."cut it to the bone"....but never mentioned it was a proposed budget they were cutting and for a while at least was more than last year. I think they finally got it down to less than last year but haven't been keeping up...

[fathertime]

Ignorante,

I am not against cutting entitlement spending as well.  What did you have in mind exactly?

Here is a nice pie chart showing where are money was budgeted last year.  Please tell me how and where you would like to see the cuts. 
Perhaps Ray can tell me if this chart includes the actual price of the 3 wars we are currently involved in.  I am thinking that this might be just a baseline cost of our military/defense, but I'm not certain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

Thanks,

Fathertime!

[ignorante]

It is not this year's budget I am talking about.  It is the projected growth of entitlement spending. We can't keep doing it.

As for an answer to your question - that's easy for me.  Cut Social Security, Medicaire and Medicaid to 0.   They are not authorized in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, anyway.

As for defense department spending at 20%, it used to be, along with NASA in the 1960s, a majority of the federal budget. 

What changed?

The growth of entitlement spending.

Military:




Entitlements (just three of them)
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/entitlement-spending-double

[ignorante]

Better chart including military spending with the entitlements.

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/entitlements-consume-economy

[Researcher]

     Well Obama revealed his plan to balance the budget. The biggest cut would be defense!
Hey FT, you think he reads this forum?



         Researcher

[Alabamaboy!]

I think it would be great to chop defense a lot. Look at who has been causing problems for us....a handful of crazy guys who hijacked a couple planes, a bunch of unsophisticated "gangs" in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. Afghanistan has shown that people living lives a step ahead of the Amish can hold their own in a guerrilla type war. And these days that is all there is. They do not need trillions to tangle with the US. Why do we need so much money to fight back?

Look at how we gained our independence from England, it was through guerrilla type fighting methods. Not with tremendous spending.

[ignorante]

You could cut defense to zero and the deficit would still be there.  And it will keep getting worse. 

So - what is the real issue?  What is growing?

Check out today's Wall Street Journal editorial on the President's suggestions for tax increases.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730104576260911986870054.html

Under the Obama tax plan, the Bush rates would be repealed for the top brackets. Yet the "cost" of extending all the Bush rates in 2011 over 10 years was about $3.7 trillion. Some $3 trillion of that was for everything but the top brackets—and Mr. Obama says he wants to extend those rates forever. According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans—most of whom are far from wealthy—were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't cover Mr. Obama's deficit for this year.

Obviously, we cannot tax our way out of it or take it out of the military.

What is still growing? And growing?

Did you look at the chart three posts up?

Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

These three things are the problem - and they are becoming a bigger problem every year that we ignore them.

[robert angel]

For all the lives lost by men and women in our military and the TRILLIONS spent, we still can't find a six foot, four inch tall terrorist in a land full of midgets and low ceiling caves, a terrorist who is dependent on western medications, with diabetes, heart and kidney illnesses that require him to lay down for hours at a time.

Almost 6000 American men and women have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the surviving soldiers are paid so poorly in conflicts having cost trillions of US dollars, that they typically have to live paycheck to paycheck. All the while, other non military people, far from harm's way, call the shots and make fortunes, profiting from it all.

Not that any infrastructure we set up in these counties will likely provide democracy as planned for more than five or ten years, we still need to extricate ourselves with as much honor as possible and cut our losses, both human and financial.

[fathertime]

     Well Obama revealed his plan to balance the budget. The biggest cut would be defense!
Hey FT, you think he reads this forum?



         Researcher

If Obozo read this forum I'd probably be assassinated. 

I haven't seen the plan yet but I only want to defense insofar as it takes us out of these stupid 3rd world pisspots.  I think it is great that we have the most advanced weaponry and would like to continue to have that.

I would also like our military to be for rent from now on.  If a country needs our soldiers they can start renting the willing ones out but it won't be cheap.

Fathertime! 

[Ray]

FT,

I think isolationism is once again becoming more popular.

But before you propose that we pull out of every hotspot and stay out of other countries' business, consider the fact that other countries with evil intentions would just love to see that happen. If we don’t project our influence in this world, others surely will, to our ultimate regret.

Would you intervene with troops if Iran invaded Iraq, or Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia, in an effort to take control of world oil supplies? If Iran blockaded the Persian Gulf, which other countries would be willing or able to confront them militarily?

Would you intervene if North Korea invaded the south? How about if China invaded Taiwan?

Right now, the US I believe is the only thing standing in the way of some whacko dictators from going on a conquering spree. If that's OK with you and the majority to let them do as they wish with no intervention, then I believe that our grandchildren will be living in a much more dangerous world that we now have.

I do agree with you that we should require the oil-rich countries to pay dearly for our help when they ask for it.

Ray

[fathertime]

FT,

I think isolationism is once again becoming more popular.

But before you propose that we pull out of every hotspot and stay out of other countries' business, consider the fact that other countries with evil intentions would just love to see that happen. If we don’t project our influence in this world, others surely will, to our ultimate regret.

Would you intervene with troops if Iran invaded Iraq, or Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia, in an effort to take control of world oil supplies? If Iran blockaded the Persian Gulf, which other countries would be willing or able to confront them militarily?

Would you intervene if North Korea invaded the south? How about if China invaded Taiwan?

Right now, the US I believe is the only thing standing in the way of some whacko dictators from going on a conquering spree. If that's OK with you and the majority to let them do as they wish with no intervention, then I believe that our grandchildren will be living in a much more dangerous world that we now have.

I do agree with you that we should require the oil-rich countries to pay dearly for our help when they ask for it.

Ray

Hey Ray!

I suppose it would depend on the exact situation, but if naked aggression occurs like in the examples you described then I might not be opposed to bombing the bejesus out of the aggression, but no more of this pattycake crapola like 'shock and awe', I would want to see  a full assault without mercy.  If it is a war, then call it a war and take no prisoners if it compromises our goals in any way.  We continue to lose these stupid 'engagements' at least partially because of the cost and all the careful consideration of how the civilians are going to be affected.  I don't know that we can continue to have this policy and actually defeat the enemy without bankrupting ourselves in the process.

Lately we have been intervening in country's internal problems and that I generally don't support that type of action.

What do you think bozo, am I still father-bozo? 

Fathertime!   

[robert angel]

Does anybody really think for a minute that we'd do anything more than rattle our sabers and offer lip service if the Chinese decided to take Taiwan by force? You think we'd have a trade embargo? We're so symbiotic codependent right now that I can almost hear the sucking sounds.

On the other hand, I bet we'd have another disastrous Korean 'war' if north korea made a move on the south and I bet China would do what we'd do in the case of them taking Taiwan, namely rattle and offer lip service, but to a much lesser extent.

Any which way it goes, the USA will find a way to waste billions of dollars in 'aid'...

[Ray]

Hey, at least all those billions in defense spending are providing good jobs for defense workers and indirectly helping the economy.

I would rather spend the dollars on bombs that are put to good use than flush it away on handouts for the lazy-ass "gimme crowd".

Is it right that family of 9-11 victims became millionaires at the taxpayers' expense?

Is it right that Katrina victims in New Orleans got brand new homes built and tons of cash even though they were too stupid or too cheap to purchase flood insurance?

Will all future victims and their families, of hurricanes, earthquakes, or terrorist attacks, now expect to be made millionaires at our expense?

Will unemployment benefits be extended forever, until death, for those who lost their jobs in the recession?

I don't get it(?)

Ray

[fathertime]

Hey, at least all those billions in defense spending are providing good jobs for defense workers and indirectly helping the economy.

I would rather spend the dollars on bombs that are put to good use than flush it away on handouts for the lazy-ass "gimme crowd".

Is it right that family of 9-11 victims became millionaires at the taxpayers' expense?

Is it right that Katrina victims in New Orleans got brand new homes built and tons of cash even though they were too stupid or too cheap to purchase flood insurance?

Will all future victims and their families, of hurricanes, earthquakes, or terrorist attacks, now expect to be made millionaires at our expense?

Will unemployment benefits be extended forever, until death, for those who lost their jobs in the recession?

I don't get it(?)

Ray

I agree with what you say about Katrina, 9/11, and even unemployment benefits. 


If I were president I would bring back about 200,000 of our able bodied troops.  I’d quickly train them illegal immigrant apprehension techniques.  I would make it public that these 200,000 troops are going to be employed in apprehending suspected illegal immigrants, who would be deported immediately. All members of society would be that everybody will be required to provide proof of legal status, just so the crybaby ACLU can feel that no one group is getting picked on.  I would then dispatch these troops first to farming communities, and other areas were it is suspected there are lots of illegals.   When they find that 90% of the grape/strawberry pickers are illegal, they can deport them and the soldiers will then do the work themselves until suitable American citizens are procured for whatever wage it takes to get the job done. 

1. Out of fear, half the illegals would leave before the sweeps happened. 
2. We would be paying our troops money to do something that actually had benefit for OUR country.
3. When all is said and done there would be less crime, welfare, and the schools would be much better. 

I am convinced that ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION is one of this nations worst problems and has created a state of financial emergency. I don’t buy that govt provided 12-14million number I always hear.  I say at least 20 million maybe more, live here now. As you might imagine I am totally disgusted with how the representing us stupid citizens.

Fathertime!   

[Researcher]

      I agree FT. We need to get out of the business of nation building and start rebuilding the one we have. It seems we always look for any reason to invade the countries that are the easiest to take over. How much terrorist activity is traced back to Iran and Syria? We aren't going to send the military there.The reason we can't find Bin Laden is because he is probably in one of these countries, like Pakistan, that we will not invade.I would rather see dollars going to help our own in this country than rebuilding another country for its citizens, who don't want us there to start with.

      There should be a remake of the 1959 movie The Mouse That Roared.It's about a small country that is in a financial bind and decides to attack the US, quickly surrender and get foreign aid.I think it is even more relevant today except countries don't have to provoke us.We are more than willing to shell out the cash to any country.



                                           



         Researcher

[Woody]

Meanwhile, the surviving soldiers are paid so poorly in conflicts having cost trillions of US dollars, that they typically have to live paycheck to paycheck. All the while, other non military people, far from harm's way, call the shots and make fortunes, profiting from it all.

I agree in that combat pay should more readily reflect the danger of the situation, but the reason soldiers are living paycheck to paycheck is because they are stupid with their money. Before I left the Army, I had over $2000/month after all bills with which to feed and entertain myself. Why? Because I lived within my means. The fact of the matter is that stateside pay in the military is pretty damn decent these days. My brother is probably about to take a fulltime E7 slot in the National Guard as the area funeral guard director, that is much, much more pay than he can reasonably expect to make in this area as a civilian(If this was D.C., that would be an entirely different story).

I don't feel sorry for the paycheck to paycheck guys in the Army, two of which I consider my best friends. (Well, one cleaned up his act. The other....it will be a few years.)

[Woody]

Does anybody really think for a minute that we'd do anything more than rattle our sabers and offer lip service if the Chinese decided to take Taiwan by force? You think we'd have a trade embargo? We're so symbiotic codependent right now that I can almost hear the sucking sounds.

Exactly. If China took Taiwan by force (Which, honestly, I don't think they will. Twenty years ago maybe, not anymore.), we wouldn't do a damn thing.

[Woody]

1. Out of fear, half the illegals would leave before the sweeps happened. 
2. We would be paying our troops money to do something that actually had benefit for OUR country.
3. When all is said and done there would be less crime, welfare, and the schools would be much better.

Won't happen. At least, not with Active Duty soldiers. It would be illegal.
Take a quick read: http://op-for.com/2009/02/title_10_title_32_posse_comita.html

[no comment]

If I were president I would bring back about 200,000 of our able bodied troops.  I’d quickly train them illegal immigrant apprehension techniques.  I would make it public that these 200,000 troops are going to be employed in apprehending suspected illegal immigrants, who would be deported immediately. All members of society would be that everybody will be required to provide proof of legal status, just so the crybaby ACLU can feel that no one group is getting picked on.  I would then dispatch these troops first to farming communities, and other areas were it is suspected there are lots of illegals.   When they find that 90% of the grape/strawberry pickers are illegal, they can deport them and the soldiers will then do the work themselves until suitable American citizens are procured for whatever wage it takes to get the job done.

I'm not so sure the president has the power to use the military domestically without a state of emergency.  Maybe one of the attorneys knows.  I sure don't want the military picking grapes or strawberries.

[fathertime]

Hey NC and Woody.

First, thanks for the link Woody.

I was just spouting off here, I am not the president and I realize my idea would more than likely never come to pass.

  As far as I'm concerned it is more productive for the army to be temporary picking strawberries, then to be engaging in other countries internal conflicts.  I'd rather them be paid to do practically anything before I'd want them to get paid to risk life and limb for more nation building for those middle east nations.

I wonder how many more illegals crossed into the country since I first wrote the idea a few days ago. 

Fathertime!