Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MillCreek on October 22, 2012, 09:54:47 PM
-
So far, this is going a lot calmer than debates 1 and 2.
-
A bit. I think Romney got off a little slow but has done well once things got rolling.
-
The wife and I decided our time would be better spent in bed, She took a nap :facepalm: :rofl:
-
The wife and I decided our time would be better spent in bed, She took a nap :facepalm: :rofl:
......uh......not gonna say it...not gonna say it....
-
I have a meh feeling about this debate.
-
I have a meh feeling about this debate. Election
FTFY
-
Sequestration is not going to happen? That was news to me. I was sort of amused by the President's expressions tonight too. There was a lot of this going on with him ;/
edit: evidently David Plouffe is now saying that the sequestration cuts "shouldn't happen". Is that a worlds record for the quickest time between statement and back pedaling?
-
I think Romney seemed presidential. Obama seemed irritated and petty.
-
I think Romney seemed presidential. Obama seemed irritated and petty.
That.
bob
-
Lots of jabs, but no big punches. Call it a draw.
At least the moderator did a halfway decent job....
-
Lots of jabs, but no big punches. Call it a draw.
At least the moderator did a halfway decent job....
I agree with this.
-
Lots of jabs, but no big punches. Call it a draw.
At least the moderator did a halfway decent job....
Agreed on the draw. If Romney is no worse on foreign policy, he keeps the edge domestically. Romney on points. I'm not enthused, but modestly relieved...
-
I think Romney seemed presidential. Obama seemed irritated and petty.
Romney does have the quality about him, even you may not be agreeing with him, he does present his case in a calm rational manor.
-
Neither Romney nor Obama could afford to be overly aggressive in a foreign policy debate, and Romney is able to project a sense of strength while appearing calm. I don't think Obama has that ability. I think the debate was pretty much a tie, which makes it something of a win for Romney, whose foreign policy acumen has been questioned.
Former (I think) Nebraska Democrat Senator Bob Kerry once said, "Bill Clinton is an exceptional liar." I think Barack Obama is now the Picasso of the art of lying. Anything he said of substance was almost always a lie. When he talked about his foreign policy achievements, they were the achievements of the Bush administration, ones that Obama had opposed, or they were events that happened in spite of him. He talked about our alliance with Israel as if his snubbing of Netanyahu never happened, or that he tried to force the Israeli's to give over land to the Palestinians in exchange for nothing. He said that our economy is stronger than it was four years ago, that America is stronger than it was four years ago, that our relationships with our allies are stronger than they were four years ago.
Has this man no shame?
-
Has this man no shame?
What is no, Alex. I'll take Rhetorical questions for one thousand.
-
Has this man no shame?
He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize just for being black... and he accepted it (even though there's maybe a billion people in the world who are more qualified in that regard)
-
I'm stuck on staffduty . What is this horses and bayonet thing about?
-
I'm stuck on staffduty . What is this horses and bayonet thing about?
One is a knife, typically affixed to the front of a long arm, the other is a 4-legged placental mammal used for transportation or as a source of stationary motive power. Both are items our president thinks aren't used anymore in the military...ironic, only 3 days after the dedication of the horse soldiers statue at the 9/11 memorial in NYC.
-
Did Bengahzi come up?
-
First, actually, but was past over quickly.
Being that all Romney really had to do last night was not stumble or loose the debate, he comes out on top IMO even though the performance itself was more or less a draw. Romney did a reasonable job at making Obama look stupid and Obama did a good job of lying through his teeth.
-
I noticed on the split screen when Romney was talking, Obama was just glaring at him - from his expression, there was some real animosity.
Romney could have really skewered Obama on a number of issues . . . but I think he left Libya more or less alone since he figured Obama had some one-liners to throw out there. (Notice, though, how he worked in the words "hope" and "change" early on? Obama caught that, and was just glowering on the split screen; he was really ticked off. =D )
Towards the end when Romney cataloged some of the failures of the Obama administration - debt increase, unemployment, etc. - Obama had no response or defense.
None. Can't defend the indefensible - and I think this damaged Obama.
Otherwise, Obama's delivery seemed a little smoother than Romney, who stammered a bit.
And as on other debates, Romney was joined by quite a crowd afterwards, and Obama . . . only by Michelle. The Obamas had to go join the Romney crew so they wouldn't look all alone up there. =D
I don't think Obama's performance will blunt Romney's momentum - and I hope Romney's TV commercials skewer Obama the way he chose not to on TV.
-
I noticed Romney apology tour zing, and "america doesn't dictate to other nations, we set other nations free from dicatators". When Romney spelled it out, Obama had no response, he deflected to some story about visiting Israel.
I think Romney came off very well on this debate. He was very assuring that he does not want to get involved in another war in Syria.
I wish he would have gone after fast and furious.
-
I really don't understand why Romney did not go after Obama hammer and tongs, there is so much material to work with to make a good critique of execution...
Britain gives piece of history as state gift, State Dept gives DVDs... that don't work in Europe
Amateur Hour!
Theatrical reset button with Russia, Russia rolls all over us in international politics in Syria and elsewhere
Amateur Hour!
Intentionally sending weapons to Mexican drug cartels, without cooperation of Mexican gov't, getting Mexican allies and Americans killed
Amateur Hour!
Going on an apology tour that weakens our allies and emboldens our enemies
Amateur Hour!
Letting the administration minions blame Benghazi on a youtube video for 2 weeks, when intelligence at the highest level knew within 24hrs that it was a pre-planned attack
Amateur Hour!
We've had amateur hour for 4yrs. When someone consistently can't get a critical job done right, its time to let them go.
This stuff basically writes itself.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.amuniversal.com%2Fecc350c0fa04012ff506001dd8b71c47%3Fwidth%3D900.0&hash=10a2ede4f0ec2a20344f1356d0a7ef1f4ff3be05)
-
Pretty much a draw but Romney was presidential and mature, Obama looked like a lawyer.
I was disappointed fast and furious was a no show.
-
Let's see -- Romney has been governor of a (formerly) major northeastern state, head of the U.S. Olympics, and ran a hugely successful corporation ... but he has no experience. Yet Obama, who cruised through college and law school on other people's money, then got a do-nothing job created for him by a major supporter, moved from that to a U.S. Senate seat bought by the Chicago political machine and then didn't complete his first term ... is criticising the other guy as not having enough experience to be president?
That's a knee-slapper, right there.
And then this: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/23/post-debate-msnbcs-matthews-claims-romney-supporters-fueled-by-racial-hatred/
So anyone who is against Obama is a racist, but the (mostly black) Obama supporters who are promising riots if Obama loses and threatening to assassinate Romney if he wins -- they're NOT racist?
-
What's so wrong with the bayonets and horses comment? He said the military has fewer of them. I don't know if he's correct about the bayonets. He's definitely right about the horses.
But how is that offensive?
-
What's so wrong with the bayonets and horses comment? He said the military has fewer of them. I don't know if he's correct about the bayonets. He's definitely right about the horses.
But how is that offensive?
Because rather than answer the question he opted to be his usual condescending arrogant ahole self.
-
What's so wrong with the bayonets and horses comment? He said the military has fewer of them. I don't know if he's correct about the bayonets. He's definitely right about the horses.
But how is that offensive?
First order logic. "Assumed similarities are not similar."
Romney: Our navy has shrunk, and this is a bad strategy.
Obama: Well, obviously, because we have fewer horses.
+
You're an idiot because you obviously don't understand that carriers & subs make "ships" unnecessary.
(It happens that we actually have more bayonets, but never mind that for now.)
So rather than discuss the actual strategic aspects of having a large vs small navy, he goes all rhetorical and strawman with a dash of red herring.
I'm not a naval officer, and I don't have the expertise that's conveyed by the local Holiday Inn Express, but I will opine anyway that having a small navy is a bad idea.
-
Let's see -- Romney has been governor of a (formerly) major northeastern state, head of the U.S. Olympics, and ran a hugely successful corporation ... but he has no experience. Yet Obama, who cruised through college and law school on other people's money, then got a do-nothing job created for him by a major supporter, moved from that to a U.S. Senate seat bought by the Chicago political machine and then didn't complete his first term ... is criticising the other guy as not having enough experience to be president?
That's a knee-slapper, right there.
And then this: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/23/post-debate-msnbcs-matthews-claims-romney-supporters-fueled-by-racial-hatred/
So anyone who is against Obama is a racist, but the (mostly black) Obama supporters who are promising riots if Obama loses and threatening to assassinate Romney if he wins -- they're NOT racist?
When liberals start calling everybody a racist -- because they've run out of arguments -- would it be wrong to shrug and say "yeah?" Racist has nothing to do with race anymore, it just means you won the debate. (if you're the victim of real racism, I guess it sucks to be you)
This has got to backfire on them someday, how can we accelerate the process... Maybe "Chris Matthews called me a Racist" T-shirts? Make it trendy.
-
Meghan Kelly is reporting the media broke out in cheers when Obama came out with his bayonet comment.
How illustrative would it have been for a split screen between the candidate speaking and the media room? How great would it have been for a "reporter" to been seen high-fiving a colleague then go on camera playing the dispassionate reporter. Shame often provides effective correction to unacceptable behavior.
-
Oh, OK. From what I've been hearing here, and on the radio, it sounded like people found it disrespectful of the military. I should ask my corpse-man friend what he thinks of it. ;)
"Chris Matthews called me a Racist" T-shirts?
Want.
-
Shame often provides effective correction to unacceptable behavior.
So does going bankrupt...
http://www.businessinsider.com/its-official-newsweek-will-be-sold-to-former-stereo-equipment-mogul-sidney-harman-who-reportedly-bid-1-in-excha-2010-8
-
So rather than discuss the actual strategic aspects of having a large vs small navy, he goes all rhetorical and strawman with a dash of red herring.
It's a debate between two politicians, neither of whom honestly give a *expletive deleted*it about the navy - they just want votes. Were you honestly expecting either of them to "discuss the actual strategic aspects of having a large vs small navy"? Even if Obama was an ass about it, the point he was making was valid. (http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/fact-checking-romneys-claims-about-us-navy)
-
Shame often provides effective correction to unacceptable behavior.
We are discussing reporters and politicians, you do realize that they are pretty much universally immune to shame.
-
One word was missing last night: Mexico.
Two words were missing from the other debates: Federal Reserve.
Hmmm. Wonder why...
-
It's a debate between two politicians, neither of whom honestly give a *expletive deleted* about the navy - they just want votes. Were you honestly expecting either of them to "discuss the actual strategic aspects of having a large vs small navy"? Even if Obama was an ass about it, the point he was making was valid. (http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/fact-checking-romneys-claims-about-us-navy)
IMO, the comment isn't really valid. Horses were replaced buy jeeps and trucks and tanks. Do we have fewer of those? Maybe, but we still have Cavalry and mobile infantry. We didn't get rid of them when we picked up air forces and nukes. The horse was replace by better transportation. What exactly are we replacing ships with?
Also, naval power doesn't mean much if you don't have the ships to send to the area of concern. I thought I saw a note this morning that Romney was getting some of those numbers from Obama's SecDef.
-
Never mind the reality that US in A'stan rode to battle on horses. They even went so far as to import a particular mule into country. Special tactics were developed to integrate the detonation of an air burst (2,000 pounder), dissipation of the shockwave, and arrival of Northern Alliance Calavry to overrun whatever was left of a Taliban position. Special Forces went to wrangler school out west to develop key skills in handling horses and mules. The need for mobility in warfare has not changed. All US forces did was to adapt to ground reality.
-
Never mind the reality that US in A'stan rode to battle on horses.
Did they have a bugler? That would be really cool if they had a bugler.
-
Did they have a bugler? That would be really cool if they had a bugler.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kEM2vQXeik
-
It's a debate between two politicians, neither of whom honestly give a *expletive deleted* about the navy - they just want votes. Were you honestly expecting either of them to "discuss the actual strategic aspects of having a large vs small navy"? Even if Obama was an ass about it, the point he was making was valid. (http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/fact-checking-romneys-claims-about-us-navy)
From what I heard, the navy has been trying to tell everyone they need more ships than what Obama's left them with. I'm sure Romney knows the navy has carriers and submarines, and I'm also sure Obama doesn't know that the navy calls submarines "boats," not "ships," even though he seems bright enough to understand they operate below water.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kEM2vQXeik
http://youtu.be/53szBDUt7kM :laugh:
-
You're an idiot because you obviously don't understand that carriers & subs make "ships" unnecessary.
Aren't carriers and subs classified as "ships"?....and do we not have fewer of those now than 10 years ago?
-
IMO, the comment isn't really valid. Horses were replaced buy jeeps and trucks and tanks. Do we have fewer of those? Maybe, but we still have Cavalry and mobile infantry. We didn't get rid of them when we picked up air forces and nukes. The horse was replace by better transportation. What exactly are we replacing ships with?
Also, naval power doesn't mean much if you don't have the ships to send to the area of concern. I thought I saw a note this morning that Romney was getting some of those numbers from Obama's SecDef.
It's pretty simple, a 1917 ship != a 2012 ship. Not only is a ship today different than a ship back then, the nature of warfare has changed a bit and some of the things we needed ships for we can do with missiles, planes, drones, robots, or space lasers. That's not to say we don't need ships, or even that we might not need more ships but simply saying 'we have fewer ships now than before' is an insultingly stupid approach and deserves the stupid zinger that it got in response.
Our deficit/debt is out of control, and at least in my (uneducated) opinion, the Navy will need to work with less just like everyone else. Fewer ships means we police the world a little less and that's fine by me. :police:
Never mind the reality that US in A'stan rode to battle on horses... The need for mobility in warfare has not changed. All US forces did was to adapt to ground reality.
Well that strawman had no chance against you and your cavalry!
-
Aren't carriers and subs classified as "ships"?....and do we not have fewer of those now than 10 years ago?
Yes and no, sort of...
The way I've heard it explained is you get on a ship and you get in a boat.
On a sub the official title of the senior (by position)enlisted (E-9) is Chief of the Boat.
Submarines are built at the General Dynamics Electric Boat division.
Sometimes it's just tradition.
-
Our deficit/debt is out of control, and at least in my (uneducated) opinion, the Navy will need to work with less just like everyone else. Fewer ships means we police the world a little less and that's fine by me.
In reality what happens is you get the same number of missions with fewer assets. Higher op tempo, less time spent in upkeep/maintenance/training which usually results in more down time due to equipment failures and other causes which leave the remaining assets to pick up the slack causing less time spent in upkeep/maintenance/training which usually results in more down time due to equipment failures and other causes which leave the remaining assets to pick up the slack causing less time spent in upkeep/maintenance/training which usually results in more down time due to equipment failures and other causes which leave the remaining assets to pick up the slack causing...
Not mention the burn out factor for people.
-
Something like 90% of world commerce is on the oceans, and there are around 8 or 10 "choke points" that need to be kept open. (Suez and Panama canals, Straits of Hormuz, Straits of Malacca, Straits of Gibraltar, Bab el Mandeb, etc.) And we can't depend on, say, the Chinese to keep commerce flowing around Korea, the Philippines, Japan, etc. So it's not just a matter of how powerful the individual ships are, but how many ships we have.
For every big aircraft carrier, we need a LOT of other ships - subs, cruisers, destroyers, oilers, various cargo and troop carriers, minesweepers, and so forth and so on.
How many? Don't ask me, I can't put a number on it. But at about half the size of Reagan's "600 ship" navy, I can at least wonder if we've cut too much.
And Obama's deflection of Romney's comment - questioning the size of our navy with references to horse cavalry and infantry bayonets - falls into the category of ignoratio elenchi - an irrelevant conclusion, the fallacy of presenting an argument that may be valid, but which doesn't address the issue at hand. I was taken to task in grammar school for doing this in a school assignment, so it's a bit disheartening to see it coming from the leader of the Free World.
-
Something like 90% of world commerce is on the oceans, and there are around 8 or 10 "choke points" that need to be kept open. (Suez and Panama canals, Straits of Hormuz, Straits of Malacca, Straits of Gibraltar, Bab el Mandeb, etc.) And we can't depend on, say, the Chinese to keep commerce flowing around Korea, the Philippines, Japan, etc. So it's not just a matter of how powerful the individual ships are, but how many ships we have.
For every big aircraft carrier, we need a LOT of other ships - subs, cruisers, destroyers, oilers, various cargo and troop carriers, minesweepers, and so forth and so on.
How many? Don't ask me, I can't put a number on it. But at about half the size of Reagan's "600 ship" navy, I can at least wonder if we've cut too much.
And Obama's deflection of Romney's comment - questioning the size of our navy with references to horse cavalry and infantry bayonets - falls into the category of ignoratio elenchi - an irrelevant conclusion, the fallacy of presenting an argument that may be valid, but which doesn't address the issue at hand. I was taken to task in grammar school for doing this in a school assignment, so it's a bit disheartening to see it coming from the leader of the Free World.
Standard Obama, though.
-
Am I the only one here that thinks DoD spending will need to be cut along with SS, MediX, and everything else?
The big 3 are DOD, Medicare/aid, and SS. All 3 need to be cut to balance the budget.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww-tc.pbs.org%2Fwnet%2Fwideangle%2Ffiles%2F2008%2F07%2Fwa_japan_milexp_graph1.jpg&hash=0f56277486113be5af38c7e82db8f5eba17cddef)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brookings.edu%2F%7E%2Fmedia%2FResearch%2FFiles%2FArticles%2F2012%2F9%2Fsequestration%2520singer%2FMilitary%2520Expenditures.jpg&hash=f0220c5c46f9b2d4191586496aa1b7cb51d67ddf)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brookings.edu%2F%7E%2Fmedia%2FResearch%2FFiles%2FArticles%2F2012%2F9%2Fsequestration%2520singer%2FMilitary%2520Expenditures%2520as%2520a%2520Percentage%2520of%2520GDP.jpg&hash=2724d5882efd4b8314f0834811d3510638edaab6)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fa%2Fa5%2FUS_defense_spending_by_GDP_percentage_1910_to_2007.png&hash=38429ae23caf2d485943d275caad16d1abfd788a)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg-fotki.yandex.ru%2Fget%2F5502%2Fivgnnm.2%2F0_6de73_3f08613_XL&hash=79ca835fcc75cbb7ca269b1406859bc8c763b47d)
-
Am I the only one here that thinks DoD spending will need to be cut along with SS, MediX, and everything else?
The big 3 are DOD, Medicare/aid, and SS. All 3 need to be cut to balance the budget.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww-tc.pbs.org%2Fwnet%2Fwideangle%2Ffiles%2F2008%2F07%2Fwa_japan_milexp_graph1.jpg&hash=0f56277486113be5af38c7e82db8f5eba17cddef)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brookings.edu%2F%7E%2Fmedia%2FResearch%2FFiles%2FArticles%2F2012%2F9%2Fsequestration%2520singer%2FMilitary%2520Expenditures.jpg&hash=f0220c5c46f9b2d4191586496aa1b7cb51d67ddf)
. . .
What happened to Israel, Syria, and Iran in the second graph?
I just saw a report that "welfare" spending totals over $1,000,000,000,000 annually - a figure which DOES NOT INCLUDE Social Security or Medicare.
Source: http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2012/10/welfare-is-at-an-all-time-high
The article states that by discussing welfare programs individually rather than collectively, the size and scope are largely hidden from view - as is the fact that many recipients receive aid from multiple programs at the same time. Welfare spending has exceeded defense spending for over 20 years, and over the next 10, we're on track to spend $2 on welfare for every $1 we spend on defense.
I know where I'd start cutting . . .
-
Am I the only one here that thinks DoD spending will need to be cut along with SS, MediX, and everything else?
The big 3 are DOD, Medicare/aid, and SS. All 3 need to be cut to balance the budget.
No! As we all know, the budget can be balanced and the economy recovered solely by cutting taxes, cutting welfare and other entitlements and raising the defense budget! Haven't you been listening to the electoral campaigns? [tinfoil]
-
Everything should be cut some. There's a lot of waste in DoD spending. A LOT.
-
Everything should be cut some. There's a lot of waste in DoD spending. A LOT.
The waste is seldom what gets cut. Not just in DoD. They cut back on the most essential and visible parts, like police patrols in high-crime areas, fire-fighters, the public library, then point the finger and glare at the budget-cutter (or tax cut referendum leaders) when things fall apart.
The upper-middle managers drawing big salaries and doing nothing (how many assistant superintendents does a small school district need?) *never* get touched. (or in this case, at least a third of the Pentagon if you include their support staff)
-
Well, I WOULD suggest voting for a candidate who wants to cut the redundancy, the useless lumps, etc...
but then I'd just be accused of casting a vote for obama by supporting who I actually believe in
-
Everything should be cut some. There's a lot of waste in DoD spending. A LOT.
At <4% of our GDP I don't think defense is excessive, BUT I'm concerned - very concerned - that we're not getting the bang for the the buck that we should be, thanks to mandated spending on asinine stuff like spare parts for vehicles no longer in service, "green" ammunition development, expensive biofuel for ships, the practice of farming out the manufacture of simple M16 magazines to "disadvantaged" businesses . . . the list of similar examples is very, very long.
-
It's pretty simple, a 1917 ship != a 2012 ship. Not only is a ship today different than a ship back then, the nature of warfare has changed a bit and some of the things we needed ships for we can do with missiles, planes, drones, robots, or space lasers. That's not to say we don't need ships, or even that we might not need more ships but simply saying 'we have fewer ships now than before' is an insultingly stupid approach and deserves the stupid zinger that it got in response.
Our deficit/debt is out of control, and at least in my (uneducated) opinion, the Navy will need to work with less just like everyone else. Fewer ships means we police the world a little less and that's fine by me. :police:
Well that strawman had no chance against you and your cavalry!
Wow, I think you missed my point and Romney's point. The answer has already been stated well by others so no need to repeat again.
-
What happened to Israel, Syria, and Iran in the second graph?
First graph is top 19 according to % of gdp.
Second graph is top 10 in absolute dollars, compared in % gdp.
So in the second graph, I believe the economies of Israel, Syria, and Iran are just too small for the absolute dollars to compare with the big nations.
Also, these graphs are coming from different sources, so the calculations, the source numbers might be slightly different. I like using multiple sources (where possible) to help balance any source bias.
-
when i think of cutting waste i think we have entirely too many politicians ans their associated infrastructure and riff raff. i would favor a rif chinese style. have em count off by 3's. have 3's step forward and treat em like mao woulda. tell the rest there will be a performance evaluation in 6 months and poor numbers means another count off.
-
The "waste" lies in what we refuse to use. What good is a trillion-dollar military with two-bit rules of engagement and four-bit strategies?
-
The "waste" lies in what we refuse to use. What good is a trillion-dollar military with two-bit rules of engagement and four-bit strategies?
This. This this this.
-
I seem to recall a recent pie chart that showed how much was spent on what areas of government.
After all the hype I'd heard about how much money we "waste" on the military and NASA, I was kinda shocked to see how small the actual proportions were.
Education and welfare are the elephants in the room, but they're not recognized as such because they're dressed as sacred cows.
What the hell is FedGov doing in education? There's a whole bureaucratic superstructure that could be eliminated -- BILLIONS of dollars worth -- without doing any damage to education at all.
Welfare? Can we PLEASE get FedGov the hell out of the welfare business?
Education and welfare are NOT the domain of FedGov.
Military? Sure, clean it up, tune it up, but . . . when you're done, it should be the scariest damn military on the planet.
NASA? One of the very few places where FedGov actually does real science, one of the very few places seen to have huge benefits socially and technologically? I'm okay with some funding for them, along with their sharing that research with private firms who want to get into the space business.
[diversion]
Tell me something, those of you with a libertarian bent,
if someone offered the opportunity to colonize the moon,
granted governmental autonomy, would you sign up for that?
If I were thirty years younger, I would soooo be down
with that. Probably get killed doing it, but gawd, what a ride.
[/diversion]
I'm sure there are thousands of FedGov employees worried about what happens to their jobs when their section of the bureaucracy is eliminated. So retrain them. If their current skill set is actually useful, help get them placed.
Some of them, clearly, will not wind up in cushy jobs and will be earning well below their accustomed rate of income. That's completely expected. There's no guarantee in life that spending four or six or eight years in school equates to actual value. Those of us who live in the real world tend to get paid according to the value of what we do, not what our "tenure" dictates.
Oh, one more thing, if you work for dot-gov, you don't have a union. That concept is an abomination. It's parasitic and actively works against efficiency.
Oh, look, I seem to be ranting.
-
[diversion]
Tell me something, those of you with a libertarian bent,
if someone offered the opportunity to colonize the moon,
granted governmental autonomy, would you sign up for that?
If I were thirty years younger, I would soooo be down
with that. Probably get killed doing it, but gawd, what a ride.
[/diversion]
Hells to the yeah.
Or any space-based installation.
I think a space-town complete with hydroponics and machine shop, arranged in a wheel-hub system and spinning to generate artificial gravity, would be awesome. A few dozen people on it. Drone-based mining of the asteroid belt. Zero-gee assembly factory for more permanent space installations.
I think gravity wells are just a trap and an inherent cost liability to all future exploration or growth and I'd prefer just plain old space, but I could get on board with the moon, too.
-
Tell me something, those of you with a libertarian bent,
if someone offered the opportunity to colonize the moon,
granted governmental autonomy, would you sign up for that?
If I were thirty years younger, I would soooo be down
with that. Probably get killed doing it, but gawd, what a ride.
The moon is a harsh mistress...
-
I seem to recall a recent pie chart that showed how much was spent on what areas of government.
After all the hype I'd heard about how much money we "waste" on the military and NASA, I was kinda shocked to see how small the actual proportions were.
Education and welfare are the elephants in the room, but they're not recognized as such because they're dressed as sacred cows.
What the hell is FedGov doing in education? There's a whole bureaucratic superstructure that could be eliminated -- BILLIONS of dollars worth -- without doing any damage to education at all.
Welfare? Can we PLEASE get FedGov the hell out of the welfare business?
Education and welfare are NOT the domain of FedGov.
Military? Sure, clean it up, tune it up, but . . . when you're done, it should be the scariest damn military on the planet.
This. ALL of this, a BILLION TIMES. Doesn't seem like rocket surgery to me, but...
NASA? One of the very few places where FedGov actually does real science, one of the very few places seen to have huge benefits socially and technologically? I'm okay with some funding for them, along with their sharing that research with private firms who want to get into the space business.
[diversion]
Tell me something, those of you with a libertarian bent,
if someone offered the opportunity to colonize the moon,
granted governmental autonomy, would you sign up for that?
If I were thirty years younger, I would soooo be down
with that. Probably get killed doing it, but gawd, what a ride.
[/diversion]
HELL YES. I'd do it now, rather than 20 years ago, though I also would be at... high risk of death due to physical incapacity. Can't go back thirty years, 'cause I was 11 thirty years ago.
My wife? Probably not down with that idea.
I'm sure there are thousands of FedGov employees worried about what happens to their jobs when their section of the bureaucracy is eliminated. So retrain them. If their current skill set is actually useful, help get them placed.
Some of them, clearly, will not wind up in cushy jobs and will be earning well below their accustomed rate of income. That's completely expected. There's no guarantee in life that spending four or six or eight years in school equates to actual value. Those of us who live in the real world tend to get paid according to the value of what we do, not what our "tenure" dictates.
Oh, one more thing, if you work for dot-gov, you don't have a union. That concept is an abomination. It's parasitic and actively works against efficiency.
This as well. Unionized against the people you're allegedly working for, who are paying your checks at gunpoint? Screw that.
-
I would sign up in a second to colonize space. Even a one-way trip.
-
I would just like to send all governments to the moon, or beyond >:D
But if I could go to some rustic Firefly moon where there are horses to ride ... :cool:
-
when i think of cutting waste i think we have entirely too many politicians ans their associated infrastructure and riff raff. i would favor a rif chinese style. have em count off by 3's. have 3's step forward and treat em like mao woulda. tell the rest there will be a performance evaluation in 6 months and poor numbers means another count off.
I'm not sure you could get away with doing this to the politicians, but doing it with the staffers and other servants in the Capitol would be a good thing. If they had fewer staffers to read and draft 3000 page bills, maybe they would start being more concise.
-
Another idea for cutting the budget: Tie congressional salaries to the median average national income, make it taxable, and remove any per diems or special expense funds. For housing when in session build a military-spec BEQ facility within walking distance of the capitol and their offices.
ETA:
The median national income is: $46,326
The non-taxable base salary for a first term congressman is: $174,000
The average Members Representation Allowance -
(the allowance each senator/congressman gets to hire staffers, etc.): $1,446,009
-
Another idea for cutting the budget: Tie congressional salaries to the mean average national income, make it taxable, and remove any per diems or special expense funds. For housing when in session build a military-spec BEQ facility within walking distance of the capitol and their offices.
Pennies, in the grand scheme of things. And detrimental to foreign relations or Statesmanship.
I don't mind Critters having six figure incomes.
What I mind is the insider trading schemes they manufacture while in office to make millions. If you want that to continue for sure, then cut their salaried pay. They'll all look for ways to pad their bottom line a bit more by quietly listening to corporate lobbyists and buy stocks in companies likely to benefit from pending or undrafted legislation.
-
Pennies, in the grand scheme of things. And detrimental to foreign relations or Statesmanship.
I don't mind Critters having six figure incomes.
What I mind is the insider trading schemes they manufacture while in office to make millions. If you want that to continue for sure, then cut their salaried pay. They'll all look for ways to pad their bottom line a bit more by quietly listening to corporate lobbyists and buy stocks in companies likely to benefit from pending or undrafted legislation.
This. Congresscritters' wallets aren't filled by their salaries, they're filled by this stuff. We could get rid of a good chunk of the problems with congress if the insider trading exemption for congressmen didn't exist. Of course, good luck getting congress to pass that particular change... =|
-
This. Congresscritters' wallets aren't filled by their salaries, they're filled by this stuff. We could get rid of a good chunk of the problems with congress if the insider trading exemption for congressmen didn't exist. Of course, good luck getting congress to pass that particular change... =|
Couldn't you do an end-run around congress through the courts? Equal application of the law and all that jazz. *waits for a resident legal-weasel to elucidate the matter*
-
The other part is the revolving door from political appointed and elected positions to corp board of directors.
I like Glenn's idea of 50% marginal tax on gov't to private hires, for political appointees and elected officials...
In other words:
Appointed by cabinet or pres or senator to some gov't or political job... @$85k/yr
Then when voted out or retire, hired as private industry (board member, lobbying, etc) for $200k/yr
That 115k increase should be taxed at 50%, without deduction.
-
Critter pensions. Eliminate?
-
The budget cannot, realistically, be cut without a massive moral re-think of our culture and core precepts. The odds of that happening within "these United States" are close to zero at this point in our collective history. Too many have become convinced that the job of government is to take care of the "disadvantaged," a group that grows by the year. There is no reform possible from that starting point. Meanwhile, we play games and wait for the implosion.
-
The other part is the revolving door from political appointed and elected positions to corp board of directors.
I like Glenn's idea of 50% marginal tax on gov't to private hires, for political appointees and elected officials...
In other words:
Appointed by cabinet or pres or senator to some gov't or political job... @$85k/yr
Then when voted out or retire, hired as private industry (board member, lobbying, etc) for $200k/yr
That 115k increase should be taxed at 50%, without deduction.
Agreed, but I would make it 50-75% marginal on the amount above the maximum pay gade for the position (no need to reduce the critters salaries, they arent bad) and set a term, I.e. it only applies during AND for 5-10years following service. This will encourage both younger and semi-retired critters, discourage people trying to make the bulk of their career in lucrative post-service (ie 40yr olds serving for a few house terms, then making bank for their late 40's/50's, and encourage turnover in the ranks.
-
Living in/around the District of Criminals has got to be pretty expensive.
I envy neither their salary nor their neighborhood.
-
@birdman
Yup, I forgot to mention the time limit for the extra tax.
-
NoVa is pretty damn nice...but expensive.
-
NoVa is pretty damn lame...and expensive. And the traffic is *expletive deleted*it
Ftfy
-
Ftfy
Yes...carpooling to work with me driving was SOOOO bad :-P
-
Yes...carpooling to work with me driving was SOOOO bad :-P
You forget that I didn't always do that.
Plus any time I had things to do outside of work.
Seems any time I go up that way to take care of something I get stuck in godawful traffic ... Even on a weekend afternoon
-
I miss our commutes though.
Even though my current commute (15 minute back road blast) rocks
-
Were I POTUS or SECDEF. I would demand a 10% cut yearly of the 5-Sided Puzzle Palace. Not Defense, just within the walls of the Pentagon. (Now if you want to send those folks/slots out to line units (as in beef up or make more), I'd be good with that. There are far to many high ranking officers (and enlisted) running around the Pentagon. I'd close-up all the offices in one entire side of that building.
Same with the rest of the .gov. Get rid of DOE (both of them), along with a few others, a phase out, over say over 4 years. While the rest of the .gov has to reduce by 10% each year. And if you can't find 10% to cut without cutting those that, you know, actually deal with the US taxpayer (like Park Rangers, and VA Docs and Nurses) then you're fired and and I find a new Cabinet member to do the job. (BTW, the VA gets put under the DOD. Once you join the DOD is "responsible" for you, until you die, and then they're responsible for your grave.)
-
And you aren't running WHY?
Scout has my vote!
-
There isn't a business in this country that could not sustain an immediate 10% across the board budget cut. Business can do it; gov't should be able to comfortably do it. Once the cuts have been booked come back with a second 10% across the board cut. Then we can investigate structural changes such as getting out of student loans, medical insurance, home loans, loan guarantees, or loans to government at interest.
-
The problem is that businesses look to cut the fat, while government goes out of its way to put the meat on the chopping block. Whether it's local government threatening to cut police and fire instead of the ten "backup assistant superintendents in charge of EEO and diversity" or federal government threatening to cut navigation charting instead of 27,346 "Coordinators in charge of coordination and plan planning".
-
yup^^^ wish it were not true
-
There isn't a business in this country that could not sustain an immediate 10% across the board budget cut. Business can do it; gov't should be able to comfortably do it. Once the cuts have been booked come back with a second 10% across the board cut. Then we can investigate structural changes such as getting out of student loans, medical insurance, home loans, loan guarantees, or loans to government at interest.
This. Bring the chain-saw.
-
There isn't a business in this country that could not sustain an immediate 10% across the board budget cut.
???
Are you living in a different county? I thought small business were hanging on by the skin of their teeth and any additional strain (such as taxes) would wreak havoc and destroy what little recovery we've had.