Frank calls for 25% cut in funding for military

[Cajuncowboy]

Frank envisions post-election stimulus from Democrats
Steve Urbon
By Steve Urbon
Standard-Times senior correspondent
October 24, 2008 6:00 AM
Links


NEW BEDFORD — After the November election, Democrats will push for a second economic stimulus package that includes money for the states' stalled infrastructure projects, along with help paying for healthcare expenses, food stamps and extended unemployment benefits, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said Thursday.

In a meeting with the editorial board of The Standard-Times, Rep. Frank, D-Mass., also called for a 25 percent cut in military spending, saying the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs, and that upper-income taxpayers are going to see an increase in what they are asked to pay.

The military cuts also mean getting out of Iraq sooner, he said.

"The people of Iraq want us out, and we want to stay over their objection," he said. "It's extraordinary." The Maliki government in Iraq "can't sell (the withdrawal deal with the U.S.) because it sounds like we're going to stay too long."

"I was teasing (U.S. Rep.) Jack Murtha (a key supporter of military budgets) and I said to him, 'For the first time, somebody else has got a bill that's almost as big as yours.' We don't need all these fancy new weapons. I think there needs to be additional review."

Rep. Frank called on President Bush to appoint a senior official to guide the economic stimulus packages through the transition to the Barack Obama or John McCain administration when it takes office in January.

And he said that if the Democrats can't find an adequate agreement on a stimulus package in the lame-duck Congress, they would rather wait until the new Congress takes over — likely with many more Democrats, if polling results bear fruit in the November voting.

The new package, he said, will be aimed at easing fears about lending and investing. "The psychological problem is even worse than the real problem," he said.

"There is money to lend and projects worth borrowing money to do. But people are afraid to lend. That's what we're trying to unfreeze."

States have many infrastructure projects — bridges, highways, etc. — that have been shut down because of a cash-flow problems, he said. So it is not the case that a stimulus will take months or years to wait for design and approval, since projects are already in progress or ready to go.

Also, he said, "we'll increase the federal share of medical care so states won't have to lay off people." Unemployment insurance benefits won't increase, he said, but the period of collecting them will, and eligibility requirements might be relaxed.

And, ultimately, there will be tax increases on the upper brackets. "We'll have to raise taxes ultimately. Not now, but eventually," he said.

[Cajuncowboy]

So we live in the most dangerous times in history and these fools want to cut the military spending by 25%?

Man, if America gives the dems a blank check, we are going to be living like the Flintstones in about 2 years.

We won't be able to defend ourselves, but that's ok, because we will all starve to death because no one will be able to get a job because Stupidbama thinks the answer is to tax the people creating jobs so they can't create them.

Maybe I was right when I said, tongue in cheek, that they want to screw this country up so bad, no one will want it.

Hope...Change!

[ConcordCowboy]

Your Sig...Election Day!

http://afrotc.osu.edu/common/home_osu.gif

[Sasquatch]

I totally support cutting the military budget by 25%. Defense is one of the most bloated and wasteful departments in our government. It's the poster child for what conservatives supposedly hate most about government.

[Cajuncowboy]

I totally support cutting the military budget by 25%. Defense is one of the most bloated and wasteful departments in our government. It's the poster child for what conservatives supposedly hate most about government.

Of course you do.

No big shock there.

[Cajuncowboy]

Your Sig...Election Day!


you wish dreamer.

BTW, you are going down tomorrow night.

The Lion will roar and will be chomping on those little buckeyes.

[Sasquatch]

Of course you do.

No big shock there.

What is shocking is that conservatives abandon their fiscal principles whenever anything military is involved. You guys should be insisting that Defense streamline its operations in a way that they can do more with less and that Europeans and other industrialized democracies start paying their fare share for a stable world order.

Throwing money at the problem, my dear Cajun, is not the solution. :D

[SuspectCorner]

So we live in the most dangerous times in history and these fools want to cut the military spending by 25%?

Man, if America gives the dems a blank check, we are going to be living like the Flintstones in about 2 years.

We won't be able to defend ourselves, but that's ok, because we will all starve to death because no one will be able to get a job because Stupidbama thinks the answer is to tax the people creating jobs so they can't create them.

Maybe I was right when I said, tongue in cheek, that they want to screw this country up so bad, no one will want it.

Hope...Change!


On arms, we outspend the rest of the world COMBINED. Yet lag dramatically in the rankings of developed nations when it comes to providing adequate education and healthcare.

Sooner or later we have to make some tough decisions. I say sooner. Sorry you don't agree. But either way - sooner.

[Cajuncowboy]

What is shocking is that conservatives abandon their fiscal principles whenever anything military is involved. You guys should be insisting that Defense streamline its operations in a way that they can do more with less and that Europeans and other industrialized democracies start paying their fare share for a stable world order.

Throwing money at the problem, my dear Cajun, is not the solution. :D

Umm, conservatives are all for supporting our military with the finest things we can. They are the back bone that keeps us safe. Leftists like you want to strip the military and make them more of a police agency than anything.

Thus making us less safe and unable to protect our interests at home and abroad.

[ConcordCowboy]

you wish dreamer.

BTW, you are going down tomorrow night.

The Lion will roar and will be chomping on those little buckeyes.

http://voicecats.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/script-ohio.gif

See You Tomorrow!

[Cajuncowboy]

On arms, we outspend the rest of the world COMBINED. Yet lag dramatically in the rankings of developed nations when it comes to education and healthcare.

Sooner or later we have to make some tough decisions. I say sooner. Sorry you don't agree. But either way - sooner.

Yep, we are wayyy behind everyone else. That's why people come to this country for their medical needs like the mayo clinic etc. And yeah, we're pretty dumb. We only lead the world in space technology, medical advances etc.

But ok, whatever. think whatever you want. America sucks. Go ahead.

[Cajuncowboy]

http://voicecats.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/script-ohio.gif

See You Tomorrow!

I was so tempted to go to that game. A friend from PA is going and he had tickets and wanted me to fly up to see it with him. But I'll be in front of the tube watching.

[SuspectCorner]

Yep, we are wayyy behind everyone else. That's why people come to this country for their medical needs like the mayo clinic etc. And yeah, we're pretty dumb. We only lead the world in space technology, medical advances etc.

But ok, whatever. think whatever you want. America sucks. Go ahead.

You're foolishly confusing a level of healthcare technology with the actual delivery of that care to the general populace. That seems to be a recurring problem among the Right-leaning - a somewhat narrow field of vision.

[Rogah]

I am not going to condemn Frank for this one because I think sometimes we see even the Brass at the Pentagon agree to recommend cutting certain unnecessary programs, certain projects, or whatever. But then the Congressmen that represent whatever state those projects are based in fight against the cuts tooth and nail... :banghead: :banghead:

But I certainly would never recommend cutting any funding that helps the men and women we send to war be thoroughly prepared and equipped.

[SuspectCorner]

I am not going to condemn Frank for this one because I think sometimes we see even the Brass at the Pentagon agree to recommend cutting certain unnecessary programs, certain projects, or whatever. But then the Congressmen that represent whatever state those projects are based in fight against the cuts tooth and nail... :banghead: :banghead:

But I certainly would never recommend cutting any funding that helps the men and women we send to war be thoroughly prepared and equipped.

You mean like that time they weren't adequately equipped when we hastily rushed them into Iraq?

[Rogah]

You mean like that time they weren't adequately equipped when we hastily rushed them into Iraq?No, I am not referencing any specific prior incident on the readiness of our troops. Please don't put words in my mouth.

All I am saying is that sometimes we see the military leaders themselves recommending spending cuts, which get overruled by the Congressmen who don't want their districts to lose some big project. I would support a cut in military spending if it was agreed to by the Generals who say such-and-such a program was indeed unnecessary.

25% seems a bit high, but I am sure there is some fat there to be trimmed (as there is in every other federal department).

[burmafrd]

Rumm y was not right all that much but he was absolutely right when he said you go to war with what you have. They were equiped as required by the T/O when they went to Iraq. Anyone like Suspect or Saskie trying to say they know anything about the military is kind of funny.

[burmafrd]

When the military has tried to cut waste and bloat in the past its congress that stops them. And the democrats are every bit as guilty as anyone else. For frank or any liberal to talk about waste in a government program is the height of hypocrisy.

[Sasquatch]

Umm, conservatives are all for supporting our military with the finest things we can. They are the back bone that keeps us safe.

That sounds like something right out of the Soviet Russia or Fascist Germany playbook. Were you genuflecting when you typed that?

Never forget, it's the government that controls the military, not you or me.

So, yes, I want to de-militarize US society and reduce the military to sane but still effective levels. We'll still be safe only spending as much as 4/5 of the world combined on defense, I'm sure.

[SuspectCorner]

Rumm y was not right all that much but he was absolutely right when he said you go to war with what you have. They were equiped as required by the T/O when they went to Iraq. Anyone like Suspect or Saskie trying to say they know anything about the military is kind of funny.



Well thank you Burm... you're pretty entertaining yourself - often more than you realize. :D




Military Equipment: Missing in Action

A new Defense audit says the Pentagon has failed to properly equip soldiers in Iraq—just as the President struggles to find support for a troop increase

by Dawn Kopecki ~ Business Week - January 30, 2007, 8:37PM EST

The Inspector General for the Defense Dept. is concerned that the U.S. military has failed to adequately equip soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially for nontraditional duties such as training Iraqi security forces and handling detainees, according to a summary of a new audit obtained by BusinessWeek.

The findings come as the Pentagon prepares to send another 21,500 troops to Iraq and as Democratic leaders levy threats to restrict funding for a war that's already cost about $500 billion. The Army alone expects to spend an extra $70 billion on an additional 65,000 permanent troops from fiscal year 2009 through 2013. According to Army officials, $18 billion of that will be spent on equipment.

Soldiers Poorly Equipped

The Inspector General found that the Pentagon hasn't been able to properly equip the soldiers it already has. Many have gone without enough guns, ammunition, and other necessary supplies to "effectively complete their missions" and have had to cancel or postpone some assignments while waiting for the proper gear, according to the report from auditors with the Defense Dept. Inspector General's office. Soldiers have also found themselves short on body armor, armored vehicles, and communications equipment, among other things, auditors found.

"As a result, service members performed missions without the proper equipment, used informal procedures to obtain equipment and sustainment support, and canceled or postponed missions while waiting to receive equipment," reads the executive summary dated Jan. 25. Service members often borrowed or traded with each other to get the needed supplies, according to the summary.

Pentagon officials did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment.

The audit supports news reports and other evidence that U.S. troops have been stretched too thin or have performed tasks for which they were ill-prepared. It is likely to add fuel to the opposition to President George W. Bush's decision to send more troops to Iraq in an effort to quell the violence there.

Controls Needed

Already, support for the troop increase is tepid in the Senate, where Democrats are preparing to vote on a nonbinding statement against the President's plan. While lawmakers have threatened to reduce funding for the war, few have publicly committed to using the "power of the purse" to block funding for the troop surge. "The thing we're going to do now is very important, to show the American people that the United States Senate, on a bipartisan basis, does not support an escalation," says Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). "Even the Republicans are very timid in their support for the President at this stage."

In the summary of the Inspector General's audit, the equipment shortages were attributed to basic management failures among military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan. U.S. Central Command lacked standard policies for requesting and tracking equipment requirements or for equipping units to perform nontraditional duties. Auditors surveyed 1,100 service members stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan from all four military branches, the National Guard, and Reserves.

The Inspector General recommended that the Pentagon establish new internal controls and policies to address the funding, equipping, and sustaining forces performing nontraditional duties.

Kopecki is a correspondent in BusinessWeek's Washington bureau.

http://www.businessweek.com/print/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jan2007/db20070130_624241.htm

[ScipioCowboy]

Bottom line:

Our spending in this country is absolutely ridiculous. I believe in a strong military; however, balancing the budget and paying off the debt will not be possible unless we cut military spending.

[burmafrd]

And as usual you are wrong. When we went to war in 2003 they were properly equipped. Then as the war changed different requirements were brought forward. I know for someone like you its hard to understand but try.

[Rogah]

Never forget, it's the government that controls the military, not you or me.I think the genius of the American system of government and the military is that you and I sort of do control the military. Well, we control it in the sense that we as a society get to elect the person who will be Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.

The brilliance of the system is there is no requirement for serving in the military to be that Commander, nor do you have to serve in the military to partake in the election. Some of our Presidents have been great Generals, some have been lower ranked officers, one guy was a lowly Private (God bless you, James Buchanan) and some have never served at all.

[SuspectCorner]

And as usual you are wrong. When we went to war in 2003 they were properly equipped. Then as the war changed different requirements were brought forward. I know for someone like you its hard to understand but try.

Burm, please provide some support for your statements - I'll do likewise.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-12-17-turley_x.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1203-12.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/07/politics/07armor.html

http://www.detnews.com/2004/project/0407/13/a06-209336.htm

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2003/12/18/troops_seen_vulnerable_in_humvees/

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101041220-1006643,00.html

[Viper]

You mean like that time they weren't adequately equipped when we hastily rushed them into Iraq?

Sounds like you support not cutting the military.:D

Myself, I do think we could afford some cuts. I think it's time Europe protects itself. I also think Japan can cope without us. Korea doesn't want us, let's pull out. Our military is spread too thin.

[silverbear]

If there are going to be cuts in military spending, rather than setting goals like Frank proposes, we should just take a close look at all military programs, decide which are crucial, which can be pared back, and by how much, and still remain effective, and decide which can possibly be eliminated altogether...

And whatever you've saved when you've done that, be content with... off the cuff, I think that 25 per cent is rather too drastic, but again, if a close study shows that much waste, so be it...

IOW, setting a baseline for x percent of cuts might result in having to cut programs we need to maintain our defenses adequately... we shouldn't think in those terms...

[silverbear]

So we live in the most dangerous times in history and these fools want to cut the military spending by 25%?

Man, if America gives the dems a blank check, we are going to be living like the Flintstones in about 2 years.

It's funny how you blithely assume that if elected, Obama would give Barney Frank's opinions on the defense greater weight than David Petraeus' or Colin Powell's... for that matter, Obama would be more likely to come down closer to Jim Webb than Frank; he apparently came THIS close to tapping Webb for his VP candidate rather than Biden, but Jim said he had more work to do in the Senate...

Given that Obama chose a widely praised array of advisers on the economy, I'm more inclined to believe that his military advisers would be sober, pro-defense types, not Barney Frank...

But of course you WANT to believe that a President Obama would be a tool of Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank et al...

[SuspectCorner]

Sounds like you support not cutting the military.:D

Myself, I do think we could afford some cuts. I think it's time Europe protects itself. I also think Japan can cope without us. Korea doesn't want us, let's pull out. Our military is spread too thin.

Quite the contrary. But given the current military circumstances - it might not be the best time to be buying several "Cadillac" nuclear submarines.

[silverbear]

Umm, conservatives are all for supporting our military with the finest things we can.

Then I must not be a liberal after all, 'cause this Army brat agrees with that sentiment 1000 per cent...

However, there IS waste in the military, and it should be trimmed... but there are other aspects of the military that need to be beefed up, like base housing and veterans services and such, so ultimately my look at the Armed Forces might not save a whole lot of money...

[Sasquatch]

I think the genius of the American system of government and the military is that you and I sort of do control the military. Well, we control it in the sense that we as a society get to elect the person who will be Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.

The brilliance of the system is there is no requirement for serving in the military to be that Commander, nor do you have to serve in the military to partake in the election. Some of our Presidents have been great Generals, some have been lower ranked officers, one guy was a lowly Private (God bless you, James Buchanan) and some have never served at all.

A large standing professional military stationed around the globe is a very recent phenomenon in our nation's history. I'm not sure invoking tradition is the best way to make your case since up until the late 19th century people in general were leery of establishing such a force, seeing it as a potential instrument of tyranny.

[SuspectCorner]

It's funny how you blithely assume that if elected, Obama would give Barney Frank's opinions on the defense greater weight than David Petraeus' or Colin Powell's... for that matter, Obama would be more likely to come down closer to Jim Webb than Frank; he apparently came THIS close to tapping Webb for his VP candidate rather than Biden, but Jim said he had more work to do in the Senate...

Given that Obama chose a widely praised array of advisers on the economy, I'm more inclined to believe that his military advisers would be sober, pro-defense types, not Barney Frank...

But of course you WANT to believe that a President Obama would be a tool of Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank et al...

I doubt the reactionary elements of the Right realize what a centrist Dem Obama is becoming. Maybe when they quit racing around the room like their hair's on fire...

[Rogah]

I doubt the reactionary elements of the Right realize what a centrist Dem Obama is becoming. Maybe when they quit racing around the room like their hair's on fire...Well, he's certainly campaigning like a centrist... :D

[burmafrd]

only a flaming liberal would consider Obama a centrist.

As regards all that garbage you posted. Suspect. As far as I am concerned none of those are reliable links. NY Times. what a joke.

The troops were equiped correctly as of the time we went to war. I ought to know since I helped send them there in 2001. By 2003 some requirements had been changed but the stuff they needed to survive in combat and get the job done they had.
Now you can take that or leave it and I could care less what someone like you has to say about the military.

[SuspectCorner]

only a flaming liberal would consider Obama a centrist.

As regards all that garbage you posted. Suspect. As far as I am concerned none of those are reliable links. NY Times. what a joke.

The troops were equiped correctly as of the time we went to war. I ought to know since I helped send them there in 2001. By 2003 some requirements had been changed but the stuff they needed to survive in combat and get the job done they had.
Now you can take that or leave it and I could care less what someone like you has to say about the military.

Yep, that's me - flaming liberal.

As far as your "summary" of the several links I posted - I'd be more than a little surprised to find that you even read word one. Facts must greatly annoy you. Fortunately the "Law of Gravity" is not subject to a system of belief - otherwise you'd be well on your way to the International Space Station.

(Oh, and I also notice you have provided nothing outside of your own blustery opinions - gee, I didn't see THAT coming! :D Is your "search engine" down... permanently?)

[DaBoys4Life]

Yep, that's me - flaming liberal.

As far as your "summary" of the several links I posted - I'd be more than a little surprised to find that you even read word one. Facts must greatly annoy you. Fortunately the "Law of Gravity" is not subject to a system of belief - otherwise you'd be well on your way to the International Space Station.

(Oh, and I also notice you have provided nothing outside of your own blustery opinions - gee, I didn't see THAT coming! :D Is your "search engine" down... permanently?)

If the man said he was preparing the troops with their equipment for war I don't think that's opinion thats first hand facts unlike getting it from online articles such as your self....it's not 2nd hand information and what not you dig???

[SuspectCorner]

If the man said he was preparing the troops with their equipment for war I don't think that's opinion thats first hand facts unlike getting it from online articles such as your self....it's not 2nd hand information and what not you dig???

And the opinion of "the man" should override that of the Inspector General of the Defense Department? Maybe in your universe...

[BrAinPaiNt]

Rumm y was not right all that much but he was absolutely right when he said you go to war with what you have. They were equiped as required by the T/O when they went to Iraq. Anyone like Suspect or Saskie trying to say they know anything about the military is kind of funny.

Actually Rummy was not right. He only wanted to send 60-75k troops if I recall correctly while the military leaders wanted to send around 150k. So it wound up being a compromise and they sent a number between the two. It was not just a matter of less big equipment with Rummy it was the idea of sending less troops.

Something that if we would have had more troops there from the start it probably would have went better and we could have had enough troops to have watched the borders better as well.

So no...Rummy was not right.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Defense spending does indeed need to be cut and let's not let some of these yahoos in here try to act like cutting military spending means cutting off equipment to soldiers (and contrary to what Burm has said there has been troubles with not getting the right equipment and initial equipment in many cases).

The part of cutting military spending falls mostly in the areas of weapons manufacturers who are working on programs that are far behind or not meeting any goals whatsoever yet are getting paid bloated amounts of money on time.

Heck McCain has even said that one of the first things he is going to cut is military spending in the above area. DUH!

But I can see how some have to play the lib card and try to turn it into something different here.:laugh1:

[MetalHead]

Why not? The aging, gin-soaked queer was right on the money about Fannie Mae/Mac.

End of thread.

[BrAinPaiNt]

End of thread.


Ummm...No.

Nice try though.

Unless you want to infer that those apply to McCain as well since one of his top priorities is to cut military spending. Do you really think mccain is an aging homosexual? Besides McCain looks nor sounds anything like buddy hackett.

[MetalHead]

Ummm...No.

Nice try though.

Unless you want to infer that those apply to McCain as well since one of his top priorities is to cut military spending. Do you really think mccain is an aging homosexual? Besides McCain looks nor sounds anything like buddy hackett.

Do you have an ounce of trust for Barney Frank?

[BrAinPaiNt]

Do you have an ounce of trust for Barney Frank?

Never said I did but that is not the point here. You guys are railing on him for saying something that is also part of the main platforms for reducing spending that McCain has said....which is the definition of hypocrisy. So if you guys are going to rag Franks for this specific topic you better get to ragging on McCain for the same thing...but somehow I doubt you will. Again...nice try.

[MetalHead]

Never said I did but that is not the point here. You guys are railing on him for saying something that is also part of the main platforms for reducing spending that McCain has said....which is the definition of hypocrisy. So if you guys are going to rag Franks for this specific topic you better get to ragging on McCain for the same thing...but somehow I doubt you will. Again...nice try.

Is McCain suggesting cutting the military spending by 1/4?
I strongly doubt it.
McCain talks cutting spending,but reduce the military budget by that much is insanity.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Is McCain suggesting cutting the military spending by 1/4?
I strongly doubt it.
McCain talks cutting spending,but reduce the military budget by that much is insanity.

I doubt it is because we have a buttload of money being paid to the military industrial complex for equipment that we are not getting and may never get yet we are paying them on time.

We probably spend more on military than any other country. I think we spend more on military in our budget than any other area.

What we need to do is cut out the wasteful spending by a HUGE margin and redirect some of that money to the actual soldiers needs while just forgetting the rest of it.

It is amazing that we can keep funding programs that have showed little or no promise of ever being delivered but we can not even make sure we have enough night vision goggles or batteries to run those goggles for our troops on the ground, or extra armor for hummers and so on.

[Kangaroo]

I doubt it is because we have a buttload of money being paid to the military industrial complex for equipment that we are not getting and may never get yet we are paying them on time.

We probably spend more on military than any other country. I think we spend more on military in our budget than any other area.

What we need to do is cut out the wasteful spending by a HUGE margin and redirect some of that money to the actual soldiers needs while just forgetting the rest of it.

It is amazing that we can keep funding programs that have showed little or no promise of ever being delivered but we can not even make sure we have enough night vision goggles or batteries to run those goggles for our troops on the ground, or extra armor for hummers and so on.

Ding ding that is the issue what they do with the money; but then again 4 stars generals are politicians just greasing there wheels to go double dip when they retire and work for those contractors.

It is the entire upper half of the Military(pentagon level) and congress are great at wasting our money

[CowboyPrincess]

Barney Frank is a waste of human skin...



Someone needs to make a Barney the dinosaur Photoshop with Franks face

[VCDefectors]

As much as I disagreed with the decision to go to war in Iraq at the time, it would be more of a disaster to start cutting funds if even the essentials aren't being provided to soldiers. But, I'm all for trimming the fat. 25% seems a little high, though.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Barney Frank is a waste of human skin...



Someone needs to make a Barney the dinosaur Photoshop with Franks face

No need to do that photoshop...when already have these actual photos.

http://www.dvdexpresstt.com/Images/786936192445.jpeg

Just look at him and how he talks...I swear he is buddy hackett.:laugh2:

[burmafrd]

Well suspect ask me if I care first/ and if you find it hard to read then look at the date on that report and the time period that it talks about. I know that most reasonably intelligent people would understand it so you should just be able to figure it out.

Brain<The generals said it would take 150,000 to take Iraq/ NOthing was mentioned about holding it. RUmmy was right in that we could TAKE the country with less. At that time it was not thought we would disband the Iraqi Army. That decision was made after we took the country. HAD we maintained the Iraqi Army and used some units for security work, we would not have needed the extra troops.

[burmafrd]

Brain I thought you knew better

spend more money on the military then anything else/



Come on what about Welfare

Medicare

Take a look at the budget.


608 billion (+4.5%) - Social Security
$386 billion (+5.2%) - Medicare
$209 billion (+5.6%) - Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
$324 billion (+1.8%) - Unemployment/Welfare/Other mandatory spending
$261 billion (+9.2%) - Interest on National Debt
Discretionary spending: $1.114 trillion (+3.1%)
$481.4 billion (+12.1%) - United States Department of Defense

This is the 2008 budget
Notice how you cannot cut medicare/medicaid which together is more then the defense budget
And look how much else you CANNOT cut

[BrAinPaiNt]

Well suspect ask me if I care first/ and if you find it hard to read then look at the date on that report and the time period that it talks about. I know that most reasonably intelligent people would understand it so you should just be able to figure it out.

Brain<The generals said it would take 150,000 to take Iraq/ NOthing was mentioned about holding it. RUmmy was right in that we could TAKE the country with less. At that time it was not thought we would disband the Iraqi Army. That decision was made after we took the country. HAD we maintained the Iraqi Army and used some units for security work, we would not have needed the extra troops.

And yet they compromised at a number between what the Generals wanted and what Rummy wanted.

Look burm, I think even you will admit that one of the biggest problems with us in Iraq was Rummy. The guy was not the right guy for the job no matter his intentions.

I also happen to think that him stepping down was the start of us turning things around in Iraq, not the only reason, but one of the main reasons.

Now I know Bremmer was the main guy to suggest we disband the Iraq military and Busk OKed it but I have to wonder if Rummy opposed that or not.

[burmafrd]

Not sure if Rummy opposed it and you might remember if you bothered to try that I took a lot of shots at Rummy in the last few years. BUT unlike the libs I give the guy his due when he was right/ I wish you would to.

[footballfanny]

Maybe Mr. Frank will be the first one blown up when we can't defend ourselves anymore.

BOOM!!!!!

[Sasquatch]

We probably spend more on military than any other country.

Almost as much as every other country COMBINED. It's absurd.

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2007_top_10_countries_by_military_expenditur e_MER.svg)

On no other issue is conservative hypocrisy on limiting the power of government and fiscal responsibility more apparent than there willingness to write Defense blank check after blank check.

Europe and our other allies need to share a greater burden for maintaining global peace.

[iceberg]

What is shocking is that conservatives abandon their fiscal principles whenever anything military is involved. You guys should be insisting that Defense streamline its operations in a way that they can do more with less and that Europeans and other industrialized democracies start paying their fare share for a stable world order.

Throwing money at the problem, my dear Cajun, is not the solution. :D

then why does obama want more of it?

you put yourself in more catch 22's by your desire to pummell anything you don't agree with.

[Trouble]

Maybe Mr. Frank will be the first one blown up when we can't defend ourselves anymore.



Barney Frank has blown a few, but they weren't bombs.

How is this fluffy bunny nozzle still in office?




:starspin

[MetalHead]

Barney Frank has blown a few, but they weren't bombs.

How is this fluffy bunny nozzle still in office?




:starspin

Barney Frank is the purple Teletubbie.

[Trouble]

Barney Frank is the purple Teletubbie.



Artie, shame on you for insulting Purple Teletubbie like that.



Barney Frank will never be half the man his Mother was.




:starspin

[bbgun]

Barney Frank is the purple Teletubbie.

Funny how there's never any fat to be trimmed in the agencies and entitlements near and dear to Democrats' hearts. Go ahead; emaciate the military. That way, we won’t have the latest technology or gear when we fight the next war. We tried this in the 1970s and wound up with hostages that we could not rescue in Iran.

[Trouble]

Funny how there's never any fat to be trimmed in the agencies and entitlements near and dear to Democrats' hearts. Go ahead; emaciate the military. That way, we won’t have the latest technology or gear when we fight the next war. We tried this in the 1970s and wound up with hostages that we could not rescue in Iran.


That's the truth.

We could have paid off the national debt with John Murtha's pork spending alone. Here's a guy that has sent billions of dollars back to his worthless district in PA. and they have absolutely nothing to show for it.





:starspin

[Cajuncowboy]

That sounds like something right out of the Soviet Russia or Fascist Germany playbook. Were you genuflecting when you typed that?

Never forget, it's the government that controls the military, not you or me.

So, yes, I want to de-militarize US society and reduce the military to sane but still effective levels. We'll still be safe only spending as much as 4/5 of the world combined on defense, I'm sure.

I get it. You see a strong military as something from a fascist playbook. I don't think we need to see any more from you to know what you stand for.

[Cajuncowboy]

Then I must not be a liberal after all, 'cause this Army brat agrees with that sentiment 1000 per cent...

However, there IS waste in the military, and it should be trimmed... but there are other aspects of the military that need to be beefed up, like base housing and veterans services and such, so ultimately my look at the Armed Forces might not save a whole lot of money...

I knew you weren't ALL bad. :p:

[Sasquatch]

I don't think we need to see any more from you to know what you stand for.

Traditional American values, of course, which are firmly AGAINST large standing professional armies.

[Angus]

On arms, we outspend the rest of the world COMBINED. Yet lag dramatically in the rankings of developed nations when it comes to providing adequate education and healthcare.

Sooner or later we have to make some tough decisions. I say sooner. Sorry you don't agree. But either way - sooner.

Could that be because we have to protect the rest of the world, too? They have come to depend on the USA for safety.

Of course, we could let them fend for themselves, but Canada would soon be a Russian outpost.

:(

[sacase]

We really don't have a large standing Army. We have a very technological based Army that allows it to fight oppenents that are much larger in size and still win.

[CowboyFan74]

Yeah let's issue less bullets to our ground troops, that will improve their aim...:rolleyes:

If you are against the war fine but don't hobble our son's and daughters that are in harms way. Bring them home 1st if that's your stance you !@#$%^&:mad::mad::mad:

[Sasquatch]

We really don't have a large standing Army. We have a very technological based Army that allows it to fight oppenents that are much larger in size and still win.

Compared to what our forefathers envisioned, it's rather immense. And as Brain has pointed out, it's as much about the military establishment as it is about the actual service personnel. I believe we can still have an effective military after cutting the budget by 25%.

It's going to have to happen sooner or later so you might as well confront the problem now. We simply can't sustain this level of spending over a long period of time.

[Vintage]

We could cut 25% of our military budget... and still outspend other countries by a considerable margin.

Whether or not we should, is debatable. But there is no question we could. If other countries can "get by" with MUCH smaller spending on their military, we could.

[Vintage]

Compared to what our forefathers envisioned, it's rather immense. And as Brain has pointed out, it's as much about the military establishment as it is about the actual service personnel. I believe we can still have an effective military after cutting the budget by 25%.

It's going to have to happen sooner or later so you might as well confront the problem now. We simply can't sustain this level of spending over a long period of time.


So.... and this isn't meant as an attack on you. Why is it that some Democrats believe in a "living Constitution".... yet when it comes to something like the military, think we should adhere strictly to the Constitution and its original intent.

I have no idea if you believe that... and I'm not trying to imply you (specifically) do.... but its something I wonder about.

[Sasquatch]

So.... and this isn't meant as an attack on you. Why is it that some Democrats believe in a "living Constitution".... yet when it comes to something like the military, think we should adhere strictly to the Constitution and its original intent.

I have no idea if you believe that... and I'm not trying to imply you (specifically) do.... but its something I wonder about.

No idea. I'm not affiliated with the party in anyway.

But, for me, it's simply a matter of not wanting to spend that much of our treasury on projecting power abroad when we have very pressing needs at home and fairly wealthy allies who are more than capable of paying their fair share to maintain the global order.

As far as the Constitution is concerned, I don't worship the document like some and do not feel that doing so is in the spirit
of our forefathers. The Constitution is only as good as it's useful and protects what citizens feel to be their essential liberties. The moment that ceases to be the case, we should discard it. Not to do so would be to acquiesce to a tyranny of the dead over the living.

p.s. Feel free to attack me. You won't be the first, nor the last, I suspect.

[Vintage]

I don't wish to attack you. I was merely looking for an explanation... I saw that you kept getting called a "lib" and thought you could provide me with a different perspective on this, that's all.

In looking at who was doing the "lib" name calling.... I should have realized the accuracy on that was questionable at best.

[Sasquatch]

I don't wish to attack you. I was merely looking for an explanation... I saw that you kept getting called a "lib" and thought you could provide me with a different perspective on this, that's all.

In looking at who was doing the "lib" name calling.... I should have realized the accuracy on that was questionable at best.

No worries. I do think "lib" is apt, though, since I want socialized medicine and am quite liberal socially.

[Rogah]

It's going to have to happen sooner or later so you might as well confront the problem now. We simply can't sustain this level of spending over a long period of time.I agree 100%. Promise me you'll take the same stance when we start discussing cutting spending with regards to social programs :D

[Sasquatch]

I agree 100%. Promise me you'll take the same stance when we start discussing cutting spending with regards to social programs :D

Sure, just as soon as we set up socialized medicine.

[Cochese]

Cut the military spending. Do we really need hundreds of half billion dollar F-22's to fight a guerilla style insurgency in the desert? They piss money away like its nothing, and thats just what we know about. God only knows how much the black projects cost.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't think it ever hurts to review all budgets and cut programs that are not effective. However, that already happens.

In Vietnam, we had the War won a few times and our Government elected to cut the budget. That War lasted much longer then it needed to. This whole War is because our Government elected not to fund Al Queda and the Afghanistani in the War against Russia. Had we supported them publically, much of what has transpired may not have occured. The truth is that we did fund them against the Russians but we did it covertly so they really never new we funded them. Of course, we did it by running drugs but we did do it. After the War, had we funded them and helped them rebuild, rather then just walking away, again we may not have had to go to War.

Cut funding on this War and we cost more lives. The soldiers do not make policy. They deserve the very best we can provide them. I am against cutting funding to our Soldiers in the best of times. I'm diametrically opposed to doing it in times of War.

[Jordan55]

Taken from an article written by Melanie Phillips

Obama dismisses the threat from Islamism, shows zero grasp of the strategic threat to the region and the world from the encirclement of Israel by Iran, displays a similar failure to grasp the strategic importance of Iraq, thinks Israel is instead the source of Arab and Muslim aggression against the west, believes that a Palestinian state would promote world peace and considers that Israel – particularly through the ‘settlements’ – is the principal obstacle to that happy outcome. Accordingly, Obama has said he wants Israel to return to its 1967 borders – actually the strategically indefensible 1948 cease-fire line, known accordingly as the ‘Auschwitz borders’.

Obama would thus speak to Iran’s genocidal mullahs without preconditions on his side (the same mullahs have now laid down their own preconditions for America: pull all US troops out of the Middle East, and abandon support for ‘Zionist’ Israel) but has said he would have problems dealing with an Israeli government headed by a member of Israel’s Likud Party. In similar vein, it is notable that Obama opposed the congressional resolution labelling the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization, which passed the Senate by a wide margin with support from both parties. And had he had his way, there would have been no ‘surge’ in Iraq and America would instead have run up the white flag, with the incalculable bloodbath and strengthening of the jihad that would have followed.

Obama assumes that Islamic terrorism is driven by despair, poverty, inflammatory US policy and the American presence on Muslim soil in the Persian Gulf. Thus he adopts the agenda of the Islamists themselves. This is not surprising since many of his connections suggest that that the man who may be elected President of a country upon which the Islamists have declared war is himself firmly in the Islamists’ camp. Daniel Pipes lists Obama’s extensive connections to Islamists in general and the Nation of Islam in particular, and concludes with this astounding observation:

Obama's multiple links to anti-Americans and subversives mean he would fail the standard security clearance process for Federal employees. Islamic aggression represents America’s strategic enemy; Obama’s many insalubrious connections raise grave doubts about his fitness to serve as America's commander-in-chief.



Here’s why. McCain believes in protecting and defending America as it is. Obama tells the world he is ashamed of America and wants to change it into something else. McCain stands for American exceptionalism, the belief that American values are superior to tyrannies. Obama stands for the expiation of America’s original sin in oppressing black people, the third world and the poor.

Obama thinks world conflicts are basically the west’s fault, and so it must right the injustices it has inflicted. That’s why he believes in ‘soft power’ — diplomacy, aid, rectifying ‘grievances’ (thus legitimising them, encouraging terror and promoting injustice) and resolving conflict by talking. As a result, he will take an axe to America’s defences at the very time when they need to be built up. He has said he will ‘cut investments in unproven missile defense systems’; he will ‘not weaponize space’; he will ‘slow our development of future combat systems’; and he will also ‘not develop nuclear weapons,’ pledging to seek ‘deep cuts’ in America’s arsenal, thus unilaterally disabling its nuclear deterrent as Russia and China engage in massive military buildups.

McCain understands that an Islamic war of conquest is being waged on a number of diverse fronts which all have to be seen in relation to each other. For Obama, however, the real source of evil in the world is America. The evil represented by Iran and the Islamic jihadists is apparently all America’s fault. ‘A lot of evil’s been perpetuated based on the claim that we were fighting evil,’ he said. Last May, he dismissed Iran as a tiny place which posed no threat to the US -- before reversing himself the very next day when he said Iran was a great threat which had to be defeated. He has also said that Hezbollah and Hamas have ‘legitimate grievances’. Really? And what might they be? Their grievances are a) the existence of Israel b) its support by America c) the absence of salafist Islam in the world. Does Obama think these ‘grievances’ are legitimate?

To solve world conflict, Obama places his faith in the UN club of terror and tyranny, which is currently fuelling the murderous global demonisation of Israel for having the temerity to defend itself and is even now preparing for a rerun of its own anti-Jew hate-fest of Durban 2, which preceded 9/11 by a matter of days.

McCain understands that Israel is the victim rather than the victimiser in the Middle East, that it is surrounded by genocidal enemies whose undiminished intention is to destroy it as a Jewish state, and that is both the first line of defence against the Islamist attack on the free world and its most immediate and important target.

[Maikeru-sama]

Cut the military spending. Do we really need hundreds of half billion dollar F-22's to fight a guerilla style insurgency in the desert? They piss money away like its nothing, and thats just what we know about. God only knows how much the black projects cost.

What do ya mean Black :D ?

In all seriousness, in times of financial stress, I see no problem with reducing Government Expenditures.

I have read too many articles and seen too many individuals get grilled on Capital Hill about corrupt government contracts and waste.

I believe in a small government and a military that is funded well enough to at least respond to an attack.

Every inch of the government, including the military and social programs need to be examined.

[Cochese]

Cut the military spending. Do we really need hundreds of half billion dollar F-22's to fight a guerilla style insurgency in the desert? They piss money away like its nothing, and thats just what we know about. God only knows how much the black projects cost.

What do ya mean Black :D ?

In all seriousness, in times of financial stress, I see no problem with reducing Government Expenditures.

I have read too many articles and seen too many individuals get grilled on Capital Hill about corrupt government contracts and waste.

I believe in a small government and a military that is funded well enough to at least respond to an attack.

Every inch of the government, including the military and social programs need to be examined.

I know you are kidding, but I am talking about the kind of stuff that Area 51 does. We dont need f-22s. We have a predator program that is amazing in what it does. I just suggested the F-22 as some fat we could trim from the budget.

[Phrozen Phil]

Could that be because we have to protect the rest of the world, too? They have come to depend on the USA for safety.

Of course, we could let them fend for themselves, but Canada would soon be a Russian outpost.

:(

Too late , Comrade. MOOOOOOWHAAAAAA. Welcome to Canuckistan. :p:

We actually don't need foreign troops on our soil, and that includes you running dog Imperialists. :p: ;) :D

[Trouble]

In a meeting with the editorial board of The Standard-Times, Rep. Frank, D-Mass., also called for a 25 percent cut in military spending.



It sounds like Barney Frank is just mad because the military wont spend any money on "Gay Bombs"




:starspin

[Phrozen Phil]

It sounds like Barney Frank is just mad because the military wont spend any money on "Gay Bombs"




:starspin

Are those the Rainbow coloured ones?

[burmafrd]

A lesson for those that want a smaller military. deterence is better then having to fight. A lot cheaper in the long run.
F-22's are not needed right now/ but in 5-10 years if China keeps building THEIR military like THEY HAVE been doing; or Putin and Russia get cranked up again= we will NEED them. And we could be in a world of hurt without them.
That is called reality. Its not neat and clean like so many libs seem to think it is. Its dirty and you have to be ready to get down in the mud and slug it out. Or in this case take out their aircraft long before they get close to our guys.

[Cochese]

A lesson for those that want a smaller military. deterence is better then having to fight. A lot cheaper in the long run.
F-22's are not needed right now/ but in 5-10 years if China keeps building THEIR military like THEY HAVE been doing; or Putin and Russia get cranked up again= we will NEED them. And we could be in a world of hurt without them.
That is called reality. Its not neat and clean like so many libs seem to think it is. Its dirty and you have to be ready to get down in the mud and slug it out. Or in this case take out their aircraft long before they get close to our guys.

YAWN. We did the MAD thing two decades ago. Times are a changing.

[CowboyFan74]

A lesson for those that want a smaller military. deterence is better then having to fight. A lot cheaper in the long run.
F-22's are not needed right now/ but in 5-10 years if China keeps building THEIR military like THEY HAVE been doing; or Putin and Russia get cranked up again= we will NEED them. And we could be in a world of hurt without them.
That is called reality. Its not neat and clean like so many libs seem to think it is. Its dirty and you have to be ready to get down in the mud and slug it out. Or in this case take out their aircraft long before they get close to our guys.


An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Sheep will never think like shepherds'. When we fully grasp that we won't bother arguing with them, we'll just get it done. I'm convinced when McCain becomes the Commander-in-Chief, they will scream bloody murder but the boogey man will be on the run, where he belongs...

[burmafrd]

Figures just say no still has no clue.

times are changing- and we still need to be able to kick butt when we need to.

[Cochese]

Figures just say no still has no clue.

times are changing- and we still need to be able to kick butt when we need to.




And we could kick all the *** we need with jets that arent the F-22.

Come on now, you can do better than this.

[DaBoys4Life]

What do ya mean Black :D ?

In all seriousness, in times of financial stress, I see no problem with reducing Government Expenditures.

I have read too many articles and seen too many individuals get grilled on Capital Hill about corrupt government contracts and waste.

I believe in a small government and a military that is funded well enough to at least respond to an attack.

Every inch of the government, including the military and social programs need to be examined.

I think there are other areas that could be cut in funding that doesn't have to cut our war budget. For example the over crowding of prison. We really need to do something about that.

[Kangaroo]

I think there are other areas that could be cut in funding that doesn't have to cut our war budget. For example the over crowding of prison. We really need to do something about that.

That is easy but American courts can not stomach what it takes most the time. See we no longer punish we have this thing called rehabilitation. We do not make prison a place people do not want to come.

The basic all TV's should be removed period end of story. All weights should be removed.

I think we should go back to chain gangs busting rocks and stuff.
That what happen again because some business person would lose some contract and some politician would lose his campaign kickbacks

That me anyways

[burmafrd]

So Just Say No - you know NOTHING about aircraft. The F-15 and F-16 do fine right NOW. BUT the Russians are due to come out with new aircraft in a couple of years that will be better. Chinese are working on them as well. BuT I guess you are fine with sending our guys out there in inferior planes. After all you won't care- you won't be in them.

[Phrozen Phil]

So Just Say No - you know NOTHING about aircraft. The F-15 and F-16 do fine right NOW. BUT the Russians are due to come out with new aircraft in a couple of years that will be better. Chinese are working on them as well. BuT I guess you are fine with sending our guys out there in inferior planes. After all you won't care- you won't be in them.

Care to tell us the details about these "new aircraft" or is this just speculation?

[ABQCOWBOY]

There are two things, IMO, that are central to this discussion.

1) Do you have what it takes to fight a blood war? Now, many here are not really going to understand this but essentially, what it breaks down to is this. Our defensive and offensive capabilities are contingent upon being able to use superior technilogical capabilities to wage war or defend our people. If you take a step back in this regard, you then must come to terms with the fact that now you will have to wage war based on attricion. Some will call this a scare tactic approach but history proves that it is not. You win Wars by either forcing your opponent to lose more people and resources then they want to or you make a commitment to winning no matter what the price in bodies costs.

2) What is the result of cutting defense budgets? History has also shown what results when this approach is used. I can think of no time in our history where cutting defense has proven bennificial in times of conflict. In the 30s, we cut defense budgets and we put ourselves in a position of weakness. Both the Germans and the Japanese had far superior Armed Forces then we did and only the fact that two oceans seperated us from there military forces saved us. It was fully two years of 100% focused resources that allowed us to turn the tide. In the 40s, we cut defense after having accomplished an unquestioned Military Superiority around the world and it cost us Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War. In the 90s, Defense and Intelligence Budgets were cut and the results were 9/11 and what has transpired in this War. Now, some may question this fact and that's fine but the reality is that we depended on British Intelligence for confirmation of WMD, we were blind to the 9/11 events and we have been one step behind Bin Laden for many years when we should have been one step in front of him and put a bullet in his BrainPan before he ever became a problem. What are the causes and effects of cutting Defense?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Care to tell us the details about these "new aircraft" or is this just speculation?


It's widely speculated that China is interested in Aquiring the new F35 Stike Fighter, currently being designed by LMC. The US has tentatively promised to purchase over 2K of these new fighters. However, if the Defense Budget is cut, this may go out the window. If it does, China will be there to pick up the order.

The Russians already have a fighter, the SU30 Air Superiority Fighter, that is superior to anything anybody else in the world has, in terms of Dog Fighting and aero dynamic maneuverability. They have not had the money to mass produce it but, that is changing. This is a superior aircraft.

http://www.crazyaviation.com/movies/CA_SU-30.wmv video

[Sasquatch]

There are two things, IMO, that are central to this discussion.

1) Do you have what it takes to fight a blood war? Now, many here are not really going to understand this but essentially, what it breaks down to is this. Our defensive and offensive capabilities are contingent upon being able to use superior technilogical capabilities to wage war or defend our people. If you take a step back in this regard, you then must come to terms with the fact that now you will have to wage war based on attricion. Some will call this a scare tactic approach but history proves that it is not. You win Wars by either forcing your opponent to lose more people and resources then they want to or you make a commitment to winning no matter what the price in bodies costs.

2) What is the result of cutting defense budgets? History has also shown what results when this approach is used. I can think of no time in our history where cutting defense has proven bennificial in times of conflict. In the 30s, we cut defense budgets and we put ourselves in a position of weakness. Both the Germans and the Japanese had far superior Armed Forces then we did and only the fact that two oceans seperated us from there military forces saved us. It was fully two years of 100% focused resources that allowed us to turn the tide. In the 40s, we cut defense after having accomplished an unquestioned Military Superiority around the world and it cost us Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War. In the 90s, Defense and Intelligence Budgets were cut and the results were 9/11 and what has transpired in this War. Now, some may question this fact and that's fine but the reality is that we depended on British Intelligence for confirmation of WMD, we were blind to the 9/11 events and we have been one step behind Bin Laden for many years when we should have been one step in front of him and put a bullet in his BrainPan before he ever became a problem. What are the causes and effects of cutting Defense?

I think you're leaving out some iimportant questions:

1. Can we afford to be the world's policeman? Let's face it, "defense" is really a euphemism for projecting power abroad. It has little to do with the actual physical protection of the United States and its people, only "vital interests" elsewhere.

2. Will reducing the military budget by 25% really impact our military's ability to defend our national "interests"? Maybe it will force the bureaucrats in Defense to be more efficient and our politicians to be less cavalier about entering into foreign conflicts. Why do conservatives invoke "throwing money at the problem will not help" for everything under the sun except for the military? It's arbitrary and makes no sense, since Defense is also a massive bureaucracy that presumably can be streamlined and rendered more efficient.

You seem to be implying that there is a correlation between spending on less defense and global conflicts whereas I would guess that a counter case could be made the countries spending more on defense tend to go to war more frequently.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think you're leaving out some iimportant questions:

1. Can we afford to be the world's policeman? Let's face it, "defense" is really a euphemism for projecting power abroad. It has little to do with the actual physical protection of the United States and its people, only "vital interests" elsewhere.

2. Will reducing the military budget by 25% really impact our military's ability to defend our national "interests"? Maybe it will force the bureaucrats in Defense to be more efficient and our politicians to be less cavalier about entering into foreign conflicts.

You seem to be implying that there is a correlation between spending on less defense and global conflicts whereas I would guess that a counter case could be made the countries spending more on defense tend to go to war more frequently.


Perhaps. However, the question, at least IMO, should be can we afford not to? It is a very unpopular role, I know. The problem is that we can no longer promise the American people that we can keep them safe if we do not fill this role. The real terrorist threats a country needs to be concerned with are not blowing up a bus or even a building. It's the release of Chemical or Biological weapons and the threat of Nuclear Weapons. This, in turn, brings into play the threat of economic terrorisam.

There is one trueism in the world IMO. That is that there will always be an aggressor. There will always be someobdy who wants what you have. You can make the defense that those who spend less on War wage less War but the flip side of this is that they also do not have the means to prevent aggressors from taking what they have. The US fills the role of protector for a great many countries in the world today. If the US stopped filling that role, there are other countries who would step in to take what those countries have. The only solution to this would be a one world economy and I don't know that anybody is ready for that. It is a question of lead or follow. If we lead, our destiny is in our own hands. If we follow, our destiny is left to fate.

[Cochese]

[quote=ABQCOWBOY;2377998]It's widely speculated that China is interested in Aquiring the new F35 Stike Fighter, currently being designed by LMC. The US has tentatively promised to purchase over 2K of these new fighters. However, if the Defense Budget is cut, this may go out the window. If it does, China will be there to pick up the order.

The Russians already have a fighter, the SU30 Air Superiority Fighter, that is superior to anything anybody else in the world has, in terms of Dog Fighting and aero dynamic maneuverability. They have not had the money to mass produce it but, that is changing. This is a superior aircraft.

http://www.crazyaviation.com/movies/CA_SU-30.wmv video


Lol at linking to that anti-semitic supersite.

Let me guess, global air superiority is the Jews fault?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Lol at linking to that anti-semitic supersite.

Let me guess, global air superiority is the Jews fault?


If you are currently making your living on the art of "Guess Work", let please recommend to you that you get back in school.

The link was simply to illustrate the Russian SU30s superior manueverability. Nothing more. The question was asked, what are these New Aircraft and I was simply providing what information I new of.

Sometimes, a Cigar is really just a Cigar.

[Cochese]

If you are currently making your living on the art of "Guess Work", let please recommend to you that you get back in school.

The link was simply to illustrate the Russian SU30s superior manueverability. Nothing more. The question was asked, what are these New Aircraft and I was simply providing what information I new of.

Sometimes, a Cigar is really just a Cigar.

Manueverability is overrated. This isnt top gun, pilots get missile locks from miles away.

Russia doesnt even have a 5th generation fighter, hell they only have TWELVE 4.5 generation fighters, while we have pumped 65 billion into building hundreds of planes that most likely wont ever see combat.

[Sasquatch]

It is a question of lead or follow. If we lead, our destiny is in our own hands. If we follow, our destiny is left to fate.

Dictating through coercion is not leadership, it's coercing people to do things that you have not convinced them to undertake willingly.

Given your line of reasoning, I would argue that the opposite is true, that having a disproportionate amount of force undermines our ability to lead effectively because instead of engaging people, treating them respect, and allowing for the possibility that their objections might constrain our behavior we browbeat, intimidate, and disregard world opinion at our leisure because we have the force to do so with impunity. The temptation of power is too great to allow for honest engagement with others on an equal footing, without which you cannot lead people in the sense of having them follow you of their own free will.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Manueverability is overrated. This isnt top gun, pilots get missile locks from miles away.

Russia doesnt even have a 5th generation fighter, hell they only have TWELVE 4.5 generation fighters, while we have pumped 65 billion into building hundreds of planes that most likely wont ever see combat.

I guess I don't understand what it is you are trying to accomplish here.

The question was asked. I answered it. If you don't like the answer, that's fine but it's not relivant.

[Cochese]

I guess I don't understand what it is you are trying to accomplish here.

The question was asked. I answered it. If you don't like the answer, that's fine but it's not relivant.


Hey, where did your Rense link go?

[iceberg]

If there are going to be cuts in military spending, rather than setting goals like Frank proposes, we should just take a close look at all military programs, decide which are crucial, which can be pared back, and by how much, and still remain effective, and decide which can possibly be eliminated altogether...

And whatever you've saved when you've done that, be content with... off the cuff, I think that 25 per cent is rather too drastic, but again, if a close study shows that much waste, so be it...

IOW, setting a baseline for x percent of cuts might result in having to cut programs we need to maintain our defenses adequately... we shouldn't think in those terms...

agreed. but i think we can do this for all programs currently in place. before obama goes program crazy, i'd like to see him do what he said he'd do, go through the budget line by line and take out the "fat".

that alone would take care of his 1st year, huh?

i'm sure there are things we can and should do in the military to cut back. this is a time where cutting back is necessary.

but we need to look at all groups. we need to look at all grants we give away. we need to look at the welfare and unemployment systems as well. if anything is funded by the government, it needs to be examined, but i'd also say by someone NOT in the government.

it's been proven for a very long time the gov usually brings a lot of overhead to the table and is the last thing needed for quick movement.

paying back our debt should be a top priority, not expanding gov into healthcare and so on. let's better use what we have vs. go make stuff up and fling it on the wall.

education should be on top as well. so should energy needs/updates.

now, will any of that happen? not from obama near as i can tell. he wants more gov into anything and everything and that's expensive and again, a lot of overhead.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Hey, where did your Rense link go?


I changed it so as not to offend anybody. I hope that this is not offensive to you.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Dictating through coercion is not leadership, it's coercing people to do things that you have not convinced them to undertake willingly.

Given your line of reasoning, I would argue that the opposite is true, that having a disproportionate amount of force undermines our ability to lead effectively because instead of engaging people, treating them respect, and allowing for the possibility that their objections might constrain our behavior we browbeat, intimidate, and disregard world opinion at our leisure because we have the force to do so with impunity. The temptation of power is too great to allow for honest engagement with others on an equal footing, without which you cannot lead people in the sense of having them follow you of their own free will.


What Government, would you say, resembles what you have described in your post?

[iceberg]

What Government, would you say, resembles what you have described in your post?

i'd be interested in this as well but it tends to give something concrete to relate to. not a strong point here.

[ABQCOWBOY]

i'd be interested in this as well but it tends to give something concrete to relate to. not a strong point here.


Well, to be honest, I didn't know what the answer to that question would be. I mean, I can't really think of any which leads me to believe that it may not be possible. I don't believe it's possible. I've seen to many parts of the world where human beings are just to damned barbaric to one another. I have no illusions on what Governments will do to other Governments if they see weakness. I am one who needs that Liberal faction to even me out because, while I wouldn't characterize myself as Far Right, in this area, I probably am. I just trust people to show there worst sides if they think they can get away with it, militarily.

[burmafrd]

I would rather be militarily strong and the rest of the world not like it then be militarily weak and have to depend on others good will to survive.

[Viper]

the su-30 is a very dangerous weapon, it reminds me of the f15 on roids.

[iceberg]

Well, to be honest, I didn't know what the answer to that question would be. I mean, I can't really think of any which leads me to believe that it may not be possible. I don't believe it's possible. I've seen to many parts of the world where human beings are just to damned barbaric to one another. I have no illusions on what Governments will do to other Governments if they see weakness. I am one who needs that Liberal faction to even me out because, while I wouldn't characterize myself as Far Right, in this area, I probably am. I just trust people to show there worst sides if they think they can get away with it, militarily.

looks like he didn't know the answer either.

[Sasquatch]

What Government, would you say, resembles what you have described in your post?

NATO seems to provide a structure that allows that kind of relationship.

My larger point was with your use of the term "lead" which I felt obscures the reality of the situation.

[ABQCOWBOY]

NATO seems to provide a structure that allows that kind of relationship.

My larger point was with your use of the term "lead" which I felt obscures the reality of the situation.


I would not consider NATO as they are not a Government, per say. However, not everybody likes NATO or even agrees with their policies. There are good leaders and bad leaders. However, and I can only speak from personal experience, I've seen the various brands of leadership throughout the world. Of every country in the world, that has had the opportunity to lead, I believe that the US has done the best job of it. We have had our failures but on the whole, I believe that we have been pretty humain in our leadership.

[sacase]

Compared to what our forefathers envisioned, it's rather immense. And as Brain has pointed out, it's as much about the military establishment as it is about the actual service personnel. I believe we can still have an effective military after cutting the budget by 25%.

It's going to have to happen sooner or later so you might as well confront the problem now. We simply can't sustain this level of spending over a long period of time.

Sassy, I was told this while I was purchasing my Benz....you don't make good cars out of cheap parts.

We spend a lot of money our our military, but it allows us to have troops on the ground anywhere in the world in 18 hours. No other country in the world can do that. Hell Europe is still trying to get their airlift capabilities up to par and they still can't do it. We are able to fight and win 2 full scale wars at the same time in different parts of the world. That is what our military is designed to do.

Much of our effectiveness is due to how advanced in our military technology. Sure we could field a larger army on less money, but the American people are so risk adverse, that when the casualties started to come in, they couldn't stomach them, espcially when we have the means to protect them better.

We are by far the best and most experienced military force in the world and I know I am proud to have served with them. We really can do some amazing things. You start cutting that spending and you start doing serious damage.

[sacase]

Care to tell us the details about these "new aircraft" or is this just speculation?

SU-37

[Sasquatch]

Sassy, I was told this while I was purchasing my Benz....you don't make good cars out of cheap parts.

We spend a lot of money our our military, but it allows us to have troops on the ground anywhere in the world in 18 hours. No other country in the world can do that. Hell Europe is still trying to get their airlift capabilities up to par and they still can't do it. We are able to fight and win 2 full scale wars at the same time in different parts of the world. That is what our military is designed to do.

Much of our effectiveness is due to how advanced in our military technology. Sure we could field a larger army on less money, but the American people are so risk adverse, that when the casualties started to come in, they couldn't stomach them, espcially when we have the means to protect them better.

We are by far the best and most experienced military force in the world and I know I am proud to have served with them. We really can do some amazing things. You start cutting that spending and you start doing serious damage.

Why wouldn't that apply to education or other programs? Republicans seem to think that money does not necessarily equate with excellence in everything except the military. That makes no sense since Defense is a government bureaucracy like any other.

[trickblue]

On arms, we outspend the rest of the world COMBINED. Yet lag dramatically in the rankings of developed nations when it comes to providing adequate education and healthcare.

Sooner or later we have to make some tough decisions. I say sooner. Sorry you don't agree. But either way - sooner.

Education is NEVER going to improve as long as the bureaucrats in the NEA are involved...

If we are going to spend less on the military, then cut our taxes...

Instead they will spend it on something else... after all, it's not about us, it's about them...

[ABQCOWBOY]

Why wouldn't that apply to education or other programs? Republicans seem to think that money does not necessarily equate with excellence in everything except the military. That makes no sense since Defense is a government bureaucracy like any other.

I would imagine that this is because Conservatives, at least myself, believe that education is something that each person should earn for themselves. They view it as something to be obtained through hard work as opposed to improved federal funding spent on the System, per say. Now, I'm taking some liberties here because I'm answering your question according to my personal belief of why. This is not to say that all Conservatives view it this way but I'd imagine that this is at least part of the reasoning behind the why.

[Sasquatch]

I would imagine that this is because Conservatives, at least myself, believe that education is something that each person should earn for themselves. They view it as something to be obtained through hard work as opposed to improved federal funding spent on the System, per say. Now, I'm taking some liberties here because I'm answering your question according to my personal belief of why. This is not to say that all Conservatives view it this way but I'd imagine that this is at least part of the reasoning behind the why.

You are aware that the military is a huge "socialistic institution" with the government providing health care, pensions, and a variety of other services that in other contexts the right routinely lambastes?

[ABQCOWBOY]

You are aware that the military is a huge "socialistic institution" with the government providing health care, pensions, and a variety of other services that in other contexts the right routinely lambastes?


No, I would not agree with this. I am aware of the fact that many try to paint the military in this manner but I do not hold with this characterization. The Military, is not Socialist, Democratic, Marxist or anything else. The Military is commen to all societies regardless of political affiliation. This autonomy transends this kind of Characterization IMO.

[Sasquatch]

No, I would not agree with this. I am aware of the fact that many try to paint the military in this manner but I do not hold with this characterization. The Military, is not Socialist, Democratic, Marxist or anything else. The Military is commen to all societies regardless of political affiliation. This autonomy transends this kind of Characterization IMO.

How else would you characterize government administered social programs such as those that are provided to military personnel?

[ABQCOWBOY]

How else would you characterize government administered social programs such as those that are provided to military personnel?

The question of what is "provided" is the real question IMO. To me, these things are not a provision of the state. To me, these things are earned through service. That, to me, is a clear distinction.

[Rackat]

The question of what is "provided" is the real question IMO. To me, these things are not a provision of the state. To me, these things are earned through service. That, to me, is a clear distinction.
I agree. Having these services is a perk of your employment. I see no distinction between that and the employer offered perks in the civilian sector.

[Sasquatch]

The question of what is "provided" is the real question IMO. To me, these things are not a provision of the state. To me, these things are earned through service. That, to me, is a clear distinction.

But the right constantly speaks of the long lines and poor service of state administered health care. Why on earth wouldn't you want to dismantle the VA Hospital system and give our veterans the high-quality private sector health care they deserve?

[Rackat]

But the right constantly speaks of the long lines and poor service of state administered health care. Why on earth wouldn't you want to dismantle the VA Hospital system and give our veterans the high-quality private sector health care they deserve?
You're obfuscating the original argument you presented because the answer did not fit your agenda.

[Sasquatch]

You're obfuscating the original argument you presented because the answer did not fit your agenda.

What agenda is that? I'm just trying to understand the convoluted logic of the right which rails against socialism on the one hand but supports it on the other.

[ABQCOWBOY]

But the right constantly speaks of the long lines and poor service of state administered health care. Why on earth wouldn't you want to dismantle the VA Hospital system and give our veterans the high-quality private sector health care they deserve?


I have not read that Private Health Care would be provided to any Veterans in either Candidates Health Plan. Now, if I'm in error on this, I am very interested in reading up on this. Now, I will also say that VA care has come a very long way in the past several years. It can be better but it is a far cry from where it once was. The real issue with VA benifits are not the quality of care, IMO. The real issue is the red tape and that is not going to improve IMO. Benifits for Vets will still have to be approved and processed through a Government entity, of some sort. That means that there will still be problems.

[ABQCOWBOY]

What agenda is that? I'm just trying to understand the convoluted logic of the right which rails against socialism on the one hand but supports it on the other.

.
We are not going to agree that the Military is a Socialist entity. Perhaps if we discuss another part of Society, we can come to a better understanding.

Your point about VA health care is not something that is going to illustrate, at least not to me, the declarative associating the Military with Socialisam.

[Sasquatch]

.
We are not going to agree that the Military is a Socialist entity. Perhaps if we discuss another part of Society, we can come to a better understanding.

Your point about VA health care is not something that is going to illustrate, at least not to me, the declarative associating the Military with Socialisam.

It's socialized health care for military personnel. Is that better?

[ABQCOWBOY]

It's socialized health care for military personnel. Is that better?


Is it better? I don't know if it will be better or not. I've often heard the Government tell me that it will be better but many times, the opposite proves to be true. No, I don't believe it will be better.

Vets usually care for fellow Vets in VA hospitals. I don't know that the private sector would show as much care for a Vet if it were Socialized. If/when it is Socialized, I believe that the standard of care will decline across the board. Free enterprise drives service levels. Historically, when you standardize anything, the service levels on said standardization decline. That's just human nature. Lastly, I've never seen military or VA benifits improve under a Democratic Administration. Typically, they decline so it's hard for me to say that I believe it would be better. That's just me.

[Sasquatch]

Is it better? I don't know if it will be better or not. I've often heard the Government tell me that it will be better but many times, the opposite proves to be true. No, I don't believe it will be better.

Vets usually care for fellow Vets in VA hospitals. I don't know that the private sector would show as much care for a Vet if it were Socialized. If/when it is Socialized, I believe that the standard of care will decline across the board. Free enterprise drives service levels. Historically, when you standardize anything, the service levels on said standardization decline. That's just human nature. Lastly, I've never seen military or VA benifits improve under a Democratic Administration. Typically, they decline so it's hard for me to say that I believe it would be better. That's just me.

I meant is it a more accurate description. :p:

[Rackat]

What agenda is that? I'm just trying to understand the convoluted logic of the right which rails against socialism on the one hand but supports it on the other.
The agenda of tieing the military to socialized medicine when the medical care, PX, and other amenities are provided as perks. Due to the purchasing powwer of the government, these can be provided at little or no cost to the servicemember and their family.

[CowboyPrincess]

It's socialized health care for military personnel. Is that better?


bull hockey! Have you seen the care our vets get? My rabbit gets better care then they do. The VA hospitals are nasty, smelly and full of doctors that flunked out in the private practice or public health sectors.

Our military men deserve the best medical care possible. Without them, we wouldn't have the freedoms we enjoy in picking out our own health care professionals. They don't get that choice. They get what they get and God help them if the guy is a quack and kills them.

Most large employers provide medical insurance and a group of approved doctors in that plan.... whats the difference? That they are military and don't fit into your argument the way you want them to???

How about we cut spending on the mating cycle of a cockroach and leave the military alone

[Sasquatch]

The agenda of tieing the military to socialized medicine. When the medical care, PX, and other amenities are provided as perks. Due to the purchasing powwer of the government, these can be provided at little or no cost to the servicemember and their family.

Is it private sector insurance or care? If not, it's socialized medicine. It is what it is.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I meant is it a more accurate description. :p:

:laugh2:

I'm affraid not. Of course, that may be directly related to the fact that it is me you are asking.

:o:

[Rackat]

Is it private sector insurance or care? If not, it's socialized medicine. It is what it is.
As a matter of fact, it does include private sector insurance as well as private sector care. So, you're right, it is what it is, which is NOT socialized medicine.

[Sasquatch]

As a matter of fact, it does include private sector insurance as well as private sector care. So, you're right, it is what it is, which is NOT socialized medicine.

I would call that a hybrid system, with some private sector elements and some socialized care. ;)

[Rackat]

I would call that a hybrid system, with some private sector elements and some socialized care. ;)
Which would fit your agenda of trying to pidgeon-hole it as a form of socialized medicine. So, I can understand why you would. :)

[Sasquatch]

Which would fit your agenda of trying to pidgeon-hole it as a form of socialized medicine. So, I can understand why you would. :)

According to your last post, you agree that there are these two elements in the medical care provided to veterans. So what exactly is your objection to my characterization?

[Rackat]

According to your last post, you agree that there are these two elements in the medical care provided to veterans. So what exactly is your objection to my characterization?
I object to your characterization of it being socialized medicine when, as CowboyPrincess (iirc) pointed out, it is no different than a civilian employer providing access to care for his/her employees.

[Sasquatch]

I object to your characterization of it being socialized medicine when, as CowboyPrincess (iirc) pointed out, it is no different than a civilian employer providing access to care for his/her employees.

Civilian employers provide private sector insurance for private sector hospitals. VA hospitals are run by the government which is the definition of socialized health care.

[sacase]

How else would you characterize government administered social programs such as those that are provided to military personnel?

Military members don't sit around idly. The work hard, train even harder and do something that very few people in this country are willing to do, sacrifice their lives for their country. All of those benifits are earned through hard work and sacrifice.

[Rackat]

Civilian employers provide private sector insurance for private sector hospitals. VA hospitals are run by the government which is the definition of socialized health care.
Who is the largest employer in the US?

[Sasquatch]

Military members don't sit around idly. The work hard, train even harder and do something that very few people in this country are willing to do, sacrifice their lives for their country. All of those benifits are earned through hard work and sacrifice.

Statistics show that plenty of hard working people lack health care.

Labor statistics also show that the unemployment rate among veterans is higher than the general population: 15.6% in 2006 and 10.5% in 2007.

Not making any generalizations here but I think you might want to reconsider yours.

[Doomsday101]

Statistics show that plenty of hard working people lack health care.

Labor statistics also show that the unemployment rate among veterans is higher than the general population: 15.6% in 2006 and 10.5% in 2007.

Not making any generalizations here but I think you might want to reconsider yours.

And according to many statistics many of the uninsured are not even legal US citizens the overall uninsured is not as high as you think and there are many who choose not to buy insurance despite the fact they make enough to purchase it, I know quite a few who are like that. In my case I do have it but I also get paid less than these friends

[CowboyPrincess]

Statistics show that plenty of hard working people lack health care.

Labor statistics also show that the unemployment rate among veterans is higher than the general population: 15.6% in 2006 and 10.5% in 2007.

Not making any generalizations here but I think you might want to reconsider yours.

So unemployment went down 5.1% in one year.. I would say that vets are more active in finding new work too. In 2006 there was quite a few vets that came home to no job and quite a large group that also came back disabled or injured and needed healing or re-education to get back into the market.

Problem with your rate argument is that there is a higher percentage of disabled, injured or mentally ill persons coming back from a war and in some cases are taking whatever job they can get with not being able to work anymore at their previous job before going overseas. Factor that in and just count those vets that are physically able to work and I bet the rate is at least cut in half

[sacase]

Statistics show that plenty of hard working people lack health care.

Labor statistics also show that the unemployment rate among veterans is higher than the general population: 15.6% in 2006 and 10.5% in 2007.

Not making any generalizations here but I think you might want to reconsider yours.

What's to consider. When you are on active duty you work your butt off, you are far from unemployeed. Your arguement was about active duty benifits, now you are shifting to veterans?

Did you ever consider things like voluntary unemployeement? Mental issues from service? or even lack of a skill? Infantryman or tanker doesn't exactly translate into civilian world jobs

[Sasquatch]

So unemployment went down 5.1% in one year.. I would say that vets are more active in finding new work too. In 2006 there was quite a few vets that came home to no job and quite a large group that also came back disabled or injured and needed healing or re-education to get back into the market.

Problem with your rate argument is that there is a higher percentage of disabled, injured or mentally ill persons coming back from a war and in some cases are taking whatever job they can get with not being able to work anymore at their previous job before going overseas. Factor that in and just count those vets that are physically able to work and I bet the rate is at least cut in half

Here's an article explaining possible reasons and attempts to remedy the problem: LINK (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-14-veterans-jobs_x.htm)

[Sasquatch]

Your arguement was about active duty benifits, now you are shifting to veterans?

I thought the discussion was all inclusive.

[Maikeru-sama]

Education is NEVER going to improve as long as the bureaucrats in the NEA are involved...

If we are going to spend less on the military, then cut our taxes...

Instead they will spend it on something else... after all, it's not about us, it's about them...

Actually, Education is never going to change unless you place a premium on teaching jobs.

If you force all teachers to have a Masters Degree and you offer more money, then you will have more of the best and brightest flock to those positions.

[CowboyPrincess]

I thought the discussion was all inclusive.

Actually the benefits to active duty and veterans are like night and day. They are totally separate. They get treated in the same hospitals but are treated with totally different departments, regs and guidelines

[ABQCOWBOY]

Actually, Education is never going to change unless you place a premium on teaching jobs.

If you force all teachers to have a Masters Degree and you offer more money, then you will have more of the best and brightest flock to those positions.


Actually, I think it's even more extreme then that. In order for a premium to be set on teaching jobs, they actually have to become premium. That means that the best and brightest would have to choose teaching over public sector. That's a pretty tall order IMO. I just don't see it happening.

[iceberg]

Actually, Education is never going to change unless you place a premium on teaching jobs.

If you force all teachers to have a Masters Degree and you offer more money, then you will have more of the best and brightest flock to those positions.

i stand behind you 100% on this one, maikeru.

teachers are paid NOTHING in reality. i know this is going to come across as a slam to teachers but it's not. if you increase the pay, you widen the potential workforce. you make the job not pay much, you ask for a lot of dedication or you get people qualified to make $35k a year because they can't make more.

that either makes sense or someone will be insulted. maybe both. no insult intended, just an observation on my part.

[trickblue]

Actually, Education is never going to change unless you place a premium on teaching jobs.

If you force all teachers to have a Masters Degree and you offer more money, then you will have more of the best and brightest flock to those positions.

I agree to an extent as we do need more good teachers and pay is a joke, BUT, there are also some excellent teachers out there that were born to teach, no matter what the salary...

The problem we have in Texas is that now instead of teaching the basic 3 R's, they have to "teach the test" (TAKS)... The higher the scores, the more money they get. It's ridiculous really...

[iceberg]

I agree to an extent as we do need more good teachers and pay is a joke, BUT, there are also some excellent teachers out there that were born to teach, no matter what the salary...

The problem we have in Texas is that now instead of teaching the basic 3 R's, they have to "teach the test" (TAKS)... The higher the scores, the more money they get. It's ridiculous really...

those are the ones i respect the most. a friend who's the same as family to me is one. he does it cause he loves it but could likely make more elsewhere. tough choices to make.

if we paid teachers more i think we open up the pool of potential teachers to more people who now would do it cause it paid better.

[ABQCOWBOY]

those are the ones i respect the most. a friend who's the same as family to me is one. he does it cause he loves it but could likely make more elsewhere. tough choices to make.

if we paid teachers more i think we open up the pool of potential teachers to more people who now would do it cause it paid better.


There is a teach here locally who has been teaching for 18 years. He's really a fine teacher. He's stepping down this year and going into the private sector. I asked him why he was doing it, money or the kids, why step down after 18 years? He told me that it was because of the system and how you were limited to how you could run your class and actually teach. He said that between what the school board handed down as curriculum, the limited ability to discipline students, the lack of parent focus and the change in students themselves (he specifically said that students today believe they are entitled to grades. Said that they have very little ability to figure things out unless specifically told) that it just want worth it to him any longer. He said it wasn't about money. Said that they had offered him more money to stay on. He said he just didn't believe in the school system any longer.

Was hard to listen to.

[iceberg]

There is a teach here locally who has been teaching for 18 years. He's really a fine teacher. He's stepping down this year and going into the private sector. I asked him why he was doing it, money or the kids, why step down after 18 years? He told me that it was because of the system and how you were limited to how you could run your class and actually teach. He said that between what the school board handed down as curriculum, the limited ability to discipline students, the lack of parent focus and the change in students themselves (he specifically said that students today believe they are entitled to grades. Said that they have very little ability to figure things out unless specifically told) that it just want worth it to him any longer. He said it wasn't about money. Said that they had offered him more money to stay on. He said he just didn't believe in the school system any longer.

Was hard to listen to.

it does sound familiar in many areas. this is one reason why i hate the government coming in saying they'll fix it.

terrorism - botched
economy - botched
energy - botched

the last thing we need is more gov in our lives and i'll be against anyone (so no one thinks i'm just mr neutral) who says they want more gov in our daily lives.

when they show me they can be effective and get results, i'll listen.

[Phrozen Phil]

those are the ones i respect the most. a friend who's the same as family to me is one. he does it cause he loves it but could likely make more elsewhere. tough choices to make.

if we paid teachers more i think we open up the pool of potential teachers to more people who now would do it cause it paid better.

My son has been a teacher for a number of years now. He chose the profession because he wanted to teach, not because he could make big bucks. I don't believe most teachers take on that profession because it's easy, they view as a calling, a vocation that has personal meaning for them. He's well paid by most standards and had to pay his dues (in terms of experience) before he got his permanent contract. His performance is evaluated each year by his Principal and his professional association.
He likes what he does and he is actively involved in professional development, particularly in the technology area.

I asked him the other day if he had second thoughts about his choice. He had originally wanted to be a Televison Producer and went to school for two years before changing his mind. He told me that all of his education and past choices led him to his current choice. If you pay them and value them, teachers can be a great asset to your community. Ignore them or devalue them and you get a descent into mediocrity. The same could apply to any profession. He intends to continue his education, and is looking forward to getting his Masters, but most of all, he just likes working with the kids.

[ABQCOWBOY]

My son has been a teacher for a number of years now. He chose the profession because he wanted to teach, not because he could make big bucks. I don't believe most teachers take on that profession because it's easy, they view as a calling, a vocation that has personal meaning for them.

I don't think that I agree with this. Not specific to your Son's reasoning, I've seen my share of teachers who are not interested in teaching over the years. I have four kids, who have all attended public schools. I've seen some good teachers but mostly, I've seen a great many who are teaching because they were looking for a job. At least, that is my perception of the situation. Perhaps I'm seeing something that is not as commen to the rest of the country as it is here.

[Maikeru-sama]

I had a debate with my supervisor and the CIO of the former company I worked at about Education.

They felt that voucher were the answer. Basically, you give parents the ability to send their kids to a private school, because Public School get money based on attendance, if standards stayed the same, more kids would leave, less money for Public Schools and they would be forced to shape up.

I disagree.

I think society has to make Teaching like Sports, Lawyers, Doctors and other professionals.

Like the aforementioned fields, you have to make the requirements to get a teaching job high enough that those requirements automatically limit the number of people that are qualified. Once you limit the number of people that are qualified, a couple of things will happen. First, there will be a shortage of teachers, so they will demand higher salaries. Second, once salaries start to increase, the more talented people in society will gravitate towards those jobs because of the pay. Third, if you get the most talented in any society into a given field, the quality will improve.

Right now teaching is viewed as a "anybody can do it job", unlike Lawyers, Athletes and Doctors.

You can't just wake up and decide to be a doctor or a lawyer. You have to jump through several hoops to acheive this and the greater the barrier to entry, the greater the amount of money you can make because the huge barrier to entry.

We have to make teaching like this and there is no doubt education will be better.

[Maikeru-sama]

I don't think that I agree with this. Not specific to your Son's reasoning, I've seen my share of teachers who are not interested in teaching over the years. I have four kids, who have all attended public schools. I've seen some good teachers but mostly, I've seen a great many who are teaching because they were looking for a job. At least, that is my perception of the situation. Perhaps I'm seeing something that is not as commen to the rest of the country as it is here.

I agree.

I know it is a great fantasy to think people take some of these jobs because it is a calling.

Folks, money talks, I know that is a cold truth but that is how it is.

Doctors, Lawyers, Athletes etc etc gravitate to those fields mostly because it is so lucrative.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I had a debate with my supervisor and the CIO of the former company I worked at about Education.

They felt that voucher were the answer. Basically, you give parents the ability to send their kids to a private school, because Public School get money based on attendance, if standards stayed the same, more kids would leave, less money for Public Schools and they would be forced to shape up.

I disagree.

I think society has to make Teaching like Sports, Lawyers, Doctors and other professionals.

Like the aforementioned fields, you have to make the requirements to get a teaching job high enough that those requirements automatically limit the number of people that are qualified. Once you limit the number of people that are qualified, a couple of things will happen. First, there will be a shortage of teachers, so they will demand higher salaries. Second, once salaries start to increase, the more talented people in society will gravitate towards those jobs because of the pay. Third, if you get the most talented in any society into a given field, the quality will improve.

Right now teaching is viewed as a "anybody can do it job", unlike Lawyers, Athletes and Doctors.

You can't just wake up and decide to be a doctor or a lawyer. You have to jump through several hoops to acheive this and the greater the barrier to entry, the greater the amount of money you can make because the huge barrier to entry.

We have to make teaching like this and there is no doubt education will be better.

In theory, your methods might work. However, how do you pay for this. In order for your theory to work, the teaching jobs must be on par with the best paying jobs in any given field. Now, how does this get budgeted and what do you do to work around the teaching shortage until this plan reaches the optimal stage for success?

[Maikeru-sama]

In theory, your methods might work. However, how do you pay for this. In order for your theory to work, the teaching jobs must be on par with the best paying jobs in any given field. Now, how does this get budgeted and what do you do you work around the teaching shortage until this plan reaches the optimal stage for success?

We live in the richest country in the world, money was never ever the issue with education.

The last stats that I read, stated that America was still paying more per child than any country in the world and it wasn't even close. Something like $32,000 per child or something like that.

We pay athletes all of this money because we have placed a premium on that field, if salary levels increased for teachers because you are getting better quality, I doubt there will be any complaints.

This subject is somewhat personal to me. Earlier this year while I was studying for the GRE, I had to help my neice who was in the 8th Grade at the time study for the TAKS test. She had already failed it and this was her only shot to take it again.

She waited until the last minute to ask me to help, so I was limited on what I could show her. Not to bag on her but she couldn't even do some very basic math (Geometry, Ratios, Fractions etc etc). Come to find out, the majority of the 8th graders in her school failed the TAKS Math section and one of the main problems was her math teacher was on maternity leave, the replacement was a Psychologist or something and told them the first day, don't ask me any math questions because that is not my background.

That should never happen.

She ended up failing the test because she waited to the 11th hour to inform people of this situation. However, she did well enough that they allowed her to go to the 9th Grade.

Also, this not the inner city, this was Mansfield, TX, a suburb.

[ABQCOWBOY]

We live in the richest country in the world, money was never ever the issue with education.

The last stats that I read, stated that America was still paying more per child than any country in the world and it wasn't even close. Something like $32,000 per child or something like that.

We pay athletes all of this money because we have placed a premium on that field, if salary levels increased for teachers because you are getting better quality, I doubt there will be any complaints.

This subject is somewhat personal to me. Earlier this year while I was studying for the GRE, I had to help my neice who was in the 8th Grade at the time study for the TAKS test. She had already failed it and this was her only shot to take it again.

She waited until the last minute to ask me to help, so I was limited on what I could show her. Not to bag on her but she couldn't even do some very basic math (Geometry, Ratios, Fractions etc etc). Come to find out, the majority of the 8th graders in her school failed the TAKS Math section and one of the main problems was her math teacher was on maternity leave, the replacement was a Psychologist or something and told them the first day, don't ask me any math questions because that is not my background.

That should never happen.

She ended up failing the test because she waited to the 11th hour to inform people of this situation. However, she did well enough that they allowed her to go to the 9th Grade.

Also, this not the inner city, this was Mansfield, TX, a suburb.

Well, I understand that we are spending a lot of money in this country but if I understand your proposal, you are suggesting that we pay top dollar for our educators. Now, I'm not saying this is wrong. I'm simply asking, how we pay for this? The cost to do this would be substantial. Further, it would be increasingly expensive. The reasoning behind this is that the private sector will always pay top dollar for talent. That's a given so in order to retain these teachers, you would have to stay competative on wage scales. The commercial market will simply pay what the market will support and pass the costs on to the consumers. However, education will have to budget for salaries because they don't work the same way commercial companies do. How would you structure this under your plan?

[Maikeru-sama]

ABQ, I know where you are going with this, "Privatization" :D .

The questions you ask are very valid.

I would love to have education privatized but I doubt the Government would let go because it is a very powerful tool and Cities make alot of money off of School Taxes.

Now I know most of the conservatives will disagree with my idea, but what is so wrong with paying higher taxes to keep good teachers teaching?

I certainly wouldn't have a problem with it, if we are getting results.

Besides, if we can give $800 Billion to Wall St., what is so wrong with using taxes dollars to pay teachers competitive salaries if we are seeing results?

Everyone who is for small government, go ahead and call me a hypocrit because I am for small government. But if the government won't let go of Public Schools, but the Maikeru-sama Plan has been implented with success, not sure why it would be a bad idea to use taxes to keep those results good.

[Havoc]

So we live in the most dangerous times in history and these fools want to cut the military spending by 25%?

Man, if America gives the dems a blank check, we are going to be living like the Flintstones in about 2 years.

We won't be able to defend ourselves, but that's ok, because we will all starve to death because no one will be able to get a job because Stupidbama thinks the answer is to tax the people creating jobs so they can't create them.

Maybe I was right when I said, tongue in cheek, that they want to screw this country up so bad, no one will want it.

Hope...Change!

Wow...:lmao:

[Cajuncowboy]

Wow...:lmao:

Intelligent response.

:rolleyes:

[BrAinPaiNt]

Wow...:lmao:

You gotta give my buddy a break. I think he had a lunch date with Rush and Rush spiked his coffee with Oxycotin.

[ABQCOWBOY]

ABQ, I know where you are going with this, "Privatization" :D .

The questions you ask are very valid.

I would love to have education privatized but I doubt the Government would let go because it is a very powerful tool and Cities make alot of money off of School Taxes.

Now I know most of the conservatives will disagree with my idea, but what is so wrong with paying higher taxes to keep good teachers teaching?

I certainly wouldn't have a problem with it, if we are getting results.

Besides, if we can give $800 Billion to Wall St., what is so wrong with using taxes dollars to pay teachers competitive salaries if we are seeing results?

Everyone who is for small government, go ahead and call me a hypocrit because I am for small government. But if the government won't let go of Public Schools, but the Maikeru-sama Plan has been implented with success, not sure why it would be a bad idea to use taxes to keep those results good.


No, your wrong. I am one of those who will feel the pinch under a Barrack Obama plan. Even so, I made the choice to keep my kids in Public Schools. I did this for a reason. I did this because I fear elitest attitudes that can become previlant in private schools. Now, this is certainly not a conviction against private schooling. In fact, this was a very difficult decision for me. The thing that swayed me was the fact that my wife and I both received our educations from the public educational system. Listen, you are approaching this discussion from an advisarial perspective. I am asking you how your plan would solve the inevitable problems I see it facing. I am a big fan of public education because I believe that people must be connected and not disconnected if we are to succeed. I believe public schooling does this. My children must learn to deal with real world problems. They must learn to work with people and they must learn the hard lessons that public school will teach. They must learn that PT Barnum was right. There is one born every day.

The truth of the matter is that it is much too costly to overhaul the public educational system so if that is in fact what is going to happen, we need to have a system in place that will not fail us. I respect your ideas about public education but I see fundemental flaws in its future. I have also listened to Mr. Obama's plans for public education and I must say that I see the same flaws in his proposals. All of it sounds very good but there is no information on how he plans to solve many of the same obsticals we are discussing, here in this thread, you and I. This is not personal. This is me trying to learn how it will work because right now, I'm not convinced and that's a lot of why I can not support Mr. Obama. His numbers do not make sense to me. I, in good conscions, can not support something that I know could have a very good chance of failing, and then leaving the problem for my children to solve. Just does not make sense to me.

BTW, I beleived that giving 700 Billion dollars away was one of the stupidest things our political system has ever done. The whole, "if we can give away" concept is just not something I can get with.

[Joe Rod]

I totally support cutting the military budget by 25%. Defense is one of the most bloated and wasteful departments in our government. It's the poster child for what conservatives supposedly hate most about government.

I've worked on quite a few DOD Contracts in my day and boy are you ever correct, sir! You can easily cut costs simply by demanding better accountability and better budgeting from the government and government contractors. No sacrifice of product or how we equip our military is necessary.

[iceberg]

I've worked on quite a few DOD Contracts in my day and boy are you ever correct, sir! You can easily cut costs simply by demanding better accountability and better budgeting from the government and government contractors. No sacrifice of product or how we equip our military is necessary.

i would think that almost every gov agency would be the same way. it's not the military that's the problem, but the gov red tape and rules for everything that farts.

this is a huge reason why i don't want MORE government when they can't even get what we have today right. fix what you have, prove you can, THEN come expand.

just like the rest of us have to do.