|
|
Post by sdtosf on Nov 24, 2010 23:01:48 GMT -8
USA spends $663 Billion a year on defense! 2nd country is China at $98B. Cut this in half and you get $331.5B for defense which is still a 3-1 spend over China.
Then give tax payers that make over $1MM a 90% tax break to provide jobs for the poor making under $1MM Cuts in defense will pay for tax breaks.
Go GOP thanks for looking out for my millions!
|
|
|
|
Post by sdtosf on Nov 24, 2010 23:02:16 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 25, 2010 6:38:38 GMT -8
Better to cut the entire Dept of Education and the Dept of Energy before cutting the fat from Defense. Get low hanging fruit first.
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 25, 2010 7:41:21 GMT -8
Better to cut the entire Dept of Education and the Dept of Energy before cutting the fat from Defense. Get low hanging fruit first. Win, I have to say, you are consistent!  Since you are convinced the Departments of Education and Energy should be cut, please tell us why. I would think that those two departments are addressing two of America's most urgent issues. I would like to know, specifically how these departments have failed and what you would replace them with, assuming that you think education and energy issues need attention. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Nov 25, 2010 11:35:06 GMT -8
Better to cut the entire Dept of Education and the Dept of Energy before cutting the fat from Defense. Get low hanging fruit first. Win, I have to say, you are consistent! Since you are convinced the Departments of Education and Energy should be cut, please tell us why. I would think that those two departments are addressing two of America's most urgent issues. I would like to know, specifically how these departments have failed and what you would replace them with, assuming that you think education and energy issues need attention. win is only interested in the Defense Dept. as that is who pays his pensions. Looking out for number 1 is what conservatives do best. Let the Devil take the hindmost is their mantra. |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Nov 25, 2010 12:19:28 GMT -8
USA spends $663 Billion a year on defense! 2nd country is China at $98B. Cut this in half and you get $331.5B for defense which is still a 3-1 spend over China. Then give tax payers that make over $1MM a 90% tax break to provide jobs for the poor making under $1MM Cuts in defense will pay for tax breaks. Go GOP thanks for looking out for my millions! I have no idea What your second or third paras means nor the data you imply. With that said, start by cutting unneeded congressional earmarks not asked for by the DOD. Beyond that, instead of a simplistic, gutless numerical cut, why don't you specify what is unneeded? So tell me why you point the finger at the GOP and not the party that has the Exec and legislature? |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Nov 25, 2010 12:29:49 GMT -8
PS, the Chinese numbers are misleading. The spending as a factor of GDP is overwhelming. That is because of their economy and the role the PLA plays in it. Learn up and get back with us. Here's a hint, look at Japan's thirst for natural resources in the 30's and superimpose the PLA on China's worldwide activities.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdtosf on Nov 25, 2010 14:16:41 GMT -8
"Then give tax payers that make over $1MM a 90% tax break to provide jobs for the poor making under $1MM Cuts in defense will pay for tax breaks."
"Go GOP thanks for looking out for my millions"
These statements are just a joke. However I would much rather have Social Security and Medicare then I would want over $600 Billion a year in defense spending. I can use the first two but I cannot use the overbloated defense budget. Just think cut defense in 1/2 and save $3 Trillion over 10 years. No need to cut anywhere else unless it can make a department more efficient. We still outspend China 3-1!
|
|
|
|
Post by hbaztec on Nov 25, 2010 14:51:20 GMT -8
What about the Trillion that was unaccounted for at the DOD? DOD does need some sort of oversight and accountability and not a blank check.
|
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Nov 25, 2010 14:54:48 GMT -8
"Then give tax payers that make over $1MM a 90% tax break to provide jobs for the poor making under $1MM Cuts in defense will pay for tax breaks." "Go GOP thanks for looking out for my millions" These statements are just a joke. However I would much rather have Social Security and Medicare then I would want over $600 Billion a year in defense spending. I can use the first two but I cannot use the overbloated defense budget. Just think cut defense in 1/2 and save $3 Trillion over 10 years. No need to cut anywhere else unless it can make a department more efficient. We still outspend China 3-1! Feel free to reference my points about details, China, etc in your response. It was in your court .... |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 25, 2010 17:26:53 GMT -8
I'm sure there's probably $100 Billion in the defense budget that could be cut without a significant cut in safety and security.
The problem is that the Democrats and those on the far left just want to slash and burn without doing it smartly. Most of them have NO experience with the military and don't really understand national defense on a strategic level. The cuts should be made by those with military and intelligence gathering experience. People in the DOD should have the final say as to what they truly need and what they can live without (without reducing safety and security).
Cuts need to be made in all departments, and the DOD is just one of them. But all cuts should be done with great care and great deliberation. The cuts/reductions should go hand in hand with a new defense plan that outlines exactly how the new budget will work, and how everything is to be implemented.
Pet projects that have no real military or security benefits should be the first things to go...
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 25, 2010 19:45:47 GMT -8
Better to cut the entire Dept of Education and the Dept of Energy before cutting the fat from Defense. Get low hanging fruit first. Win, I have to say, you are consistent! Since you are convinced the Departments of Education and Energy should be cut, please tell us why. I would think that those two departments are addressing two of America's most urgent issues. I would like to know, specifically how these departments have failed and what you would replace them with, assuming that you think education and energy issues need attention. The Dept. of Education interferes in issues that should be local. We would be better off letting local School Boards run things without unthinking underfunded mandates. Dept. of Energy was created to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. There has been zero progress and as a matter of fact it is worse than when Carter made the ill advised move. Just cut them and no replacement is called for. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 25, 2010 19:54:34 GMT -8
What about the Trillion that was unaccounted for at the DOD? DOD does need some sort of oversight and accountability and not a blank check. Which trillion is that? No one is questioning the need for good management, accounting for expenditures to the tax payer and lean running programs. Defense is one of the few legit functions of the Federal Government. It needs competent oversight. Congress has not been able to provide that function and therein lies a big part of the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Nov 25, 2010 20:40:41 GMT -8
We do not need a military. When a country has a military it seems compelled to use it to kill others around the world. If we totally disbanded and disarmed, we could be a pacifist state and pay off our national debt in twenty years.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Nov 25, 2010 20:50:22 GMT -8
Better to cut the entire Dept of Education and the Dept of Energy before cutting the fat from Defense. Get low hanging fruit first. Win, I have to say, you are consistent! Since you are convinced the Departments of Education and Energy should be cut, please tell us why. I would think that those two departments are addressing two of America's most urgent issues. I would like to know, specifically how these departments have failed and what you would replace them with, assuming that you think education and energy issues need attention. You assume that those two departments are actually making a positive contribution to this country. That's debatable. The Dept. of Educ is really not needed. Energy could be handled within the Dept. of the Interior. As for cutting defense spending, there are no doubt many areas where that could be done with little or no negative effect on national security. For one thing, we could reduce or eliminate our forces in Europe. The Euros have been given a free ride for half a century depending on the U.S. defense umbrella. Time for them to pull their own weight. (I would say the same about Korea, but with the current situation, I'm not sure.) AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 26, 2010 8:17:59 GMT -8
Win, I have to say, you are consistent! Since you are convinced the Departments of Education and Energy should be cut, please tell us why. I would think that those two departments are addressing two of America's most urgent issues. I would like to know, specifically how these departments have failed and what you would replace them with, assuming that you think education and energy issues need attention. You assume that those two departments are actually making a positive contribution to this country. That's debatable. The Dept. of Educ is really not needed. Energy could be handled within the Dept. of the Interior. As for cutting defense spending, there are no doubt many areas where that could be done with little or no negative effect on national security. For one thing, we could reduce or eliminate our forces in Europe. The Euros have been given a free ride for half a century depending on the U.S. defense umbrella. Time for them to pull their own weight. (I would say the same about Korea, but with the current situation, I'm not sure.) AzWm We agree here. I think that there are many countries, even some you would not think of, who benefit from the stability our military umbrella supplies. And those countries are not confined to Europe. I see no reason why the beneficiaries should not be asked to contribute. As far as the departments of energy and education are concerned, I think they have an important role to play in our transition away from oil, in the case of Dept. of Energy and our kids educational achievement in the case of Dept. of Education. As I said previously, private industry (as it is constituted in this country) is ill equipped to take the risks necessary to fund future infrastructure changes that will be necessary to transition away from oil. In the case of education, (this is probably my most conservative view) the cure is making sure parents are engaged. I think teachers are maligned for problems caused by the fact that parents are inattentive. I would like to see some initiative to involve parents. I think Department of Defense schools are excellent because the base C.O. deals with any issues found therein. They make sure parents are involved. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Nov 27, 2010 11:36:20 GMT -8
Since I have over 30 years public school teaching experience I can tell you that if the family is not a strong force supporting education, there is not much the teacher can do. Oh, sure, a super teacher can try a lot of things to make a class more effective, but the attitude of the student is absolutely crucial.
Too many people think that teachers should all be like Jaime Escalante ("Stand and Deliver"). That's like saying all left-handed pitchers should be as good as Sandy Kofax. As with any profession, teachers are generally going to range from so-so to pretty good.
There are some who should be making a living doing something else, and there a few who are miracle workers, but most will be in that middle range. They can do a good job but they are unlikely to overcome the cancerous effects of those two or three real hoodlums (and that's all it takes) who can sink a class faster than the iceberg sank the Titanic.
As for the Dept. of Education, it has become so influenced by political forces that it's unlikely to do much good. Mainly a waste of money in my view.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Nov 30, 2010 16:44:33 GMT -8
USA spends $663 Billion a year on defense! 2nd country is China at $98B. Cut this in half and you get $331.5B for defense which is still a 3-1 spend over China. Then give tax payers that make over $1MM a 90% tax break to provide jobs for the poor making under $1MM Cuts in defense will pay for tax breaks. Go GOP thanks for looking out for my millions! I have no idea What your second or third paras means nor the data you imply. With that said, start by cutting unneeded congressional earmarks not asked for by the DOD. Beyond that, instead of a simplistic, gutless numerical cut, why don't you specify what is unneeded? So tell me why you point the finger at the GOP and not the party that has the Exec and legislature? Both parties are equally guilty because there are hardly any Congressional districts or states that don't have defense industry businesses or military installations of some sort or another. And I agree with you on earmarks but the reality is defense is big business that often keeps many districts afloat. But that aside, how many carrier groups do we have? Something like 12 or 14. Why do we need the presence we have in Europe? I'd suggest consolidating everything in Germany at Ramstein, in great part because Ramstein apparently has great medical facilities but also because it's our headquarters base, and then close all other bases. Close all bases in the British Isles, Italy, Okinawa and Japan, but keep Subic and Diego Garcia. And I'm being nice - William's hero, Ron Paul, would close all of them. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Nov 30, 2010 16:46:39 GMT -8
PS, the Chinese numbers are misleading. The spending as a factor of GDP is overwhelming. That is because of their economy and the role the PLA plays in it. Learn up and get back with us. Here's a hint, look at Japan's thirst for natural resources in the 30's and superimpose the PLA on China's worldwide activities. While the Chinese desire for natural resources is at least as great as that of the Japanese in the '30s, but Chinese aren't looking at doing it through conquest. Doesn't make them all that less dangerous than Japan in the '30s, but it does mean they are doing it in a different manner. Besides, I'm never convinced Chinese arrogance will lead them to anything other than an eventual economic collapse. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Nov 30, 2010 16:56:10 GMT -8
I have no idea What your second or third paras means nor the data you imply. With that said, start by cutting unneeded congressional earmarks not asked for by the DOD. Beyond that, instead of a simplistic, gutless numerical cut, why don't you specify what is unneeded? So tell me why you point the finger at the GOP and not the party that has the Exec and legislature? Both parties are equally guilty because there are hardly any Congressional districts or states that don't have defense industry businesses or military installations of some sort or another. And I agree with you on earmarks but the reality is defense is big business that often keeps many districts afloat. But that aside, how many carrier groups do we have? Something like 12 or 14. Why do we need the presence we have in Europe? I'd suggest consolidating everything in Germany at Ramstein, in great part because Ramstein apparently has great medical facilities but also because it's our headquarters base, and then close all other bases. Close all bases in the British Isles, Italy, Okinawa and Japan, but keep Subic and Diego Garcia. And I'm being nice - William's hero, Ron Paul, would close all of them. =Bob Too many Tecates there, Mister Global Strategy Political Science Genius? Subic was turned over to the Philippines over ten years ago. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Naval_Base_Subic_Bay |
|
