Dem Budget: 2 TRILLION in NEW TAX HIKES, Deep Cuts at Pentagon

[candycorn]

Do we need to spend nearly 1/2 of all defense dollars spent by all nations on earth? We do now...outspending nearly all other countries combined.

While I am sure there is some waste, and redundancies that we can and should Cut. I have to say Yes we do need to continue to out spend the world. I know you libs feel uncomfortable living in the worlds most powerful Nation ever seen, but I rather like it. Everything we have here in this great nation today, we owe in Part to the fact that we have been the worlds Super Power. The world in turn Owes the last 60 Plus Years of unprecedentedly Peaceful Times on earth to that fact as well. Maybe you should brush up on Pre World War II History My Friend. Oh we have little wars sure, but before the USA became the worlds Super Power. World history is a long line of Brutal Conflict.

Fair enough....

Who is going to attack us? I'm curious...lay out the WWII model where an imperial government is going to rub us out.

Do we need a F22 Raptor...to replace the F18 Hornet, the F18 Super Hornet, and the F15. The F15 is currently superior to any other aircraft in terms of armaments, speed, maneuverability, and of course our pilots?

You clearly do not even know much about the planes you are judging.

First, The f22 Could and would never replace the super Hornet. The Super Hornet is a carrier Born Plane, the F22 is not.

A naval variant is planned.

Second, We do not need a replacement for the F18 Hornet, What the hell do you think the Super hornet is.

Plenty are still around.

Third, You are incorrect about the F15. It is superior to almost all aircraft out there. However Russia has recently Developed a new Plane, that most experts Believe will out class the F15 in armaments, speed, maneuverability. Not to mention that most of our F15 Fleet is aging, and can not last forever.

Developed...believed....Russia....okay Russia. LOL. How well did that "developed" Russian Space shuttle work? I forget.

About the only thing you got right is our Pilots, At least currently Out Class the rest of the world. Even most of our allies. (not because Americans are just better, It's Because our Air Force has the Best training, and best Aircraft, and A vast amount of actual Combat experience to draw from.

The F22 is, or was, to assure for Decades to come that nobody can challenge us in the air.

You guys are also missing the fact that yes, the F22 costs more than our Older Planes, but it is also much more capable. The Air force can do more with less with that plane. One F22 can do the Job that 2 or 3 Planes used to do. It really is that Advanced. Also the Super Cruise Technology alone means much less fuel used.

Like I said at the start, You clearly do not know Shit about the planes you are talking about. Yet seem to think you are an Expert on whether the F22 is needed.

Oh...I'll be the first to admit I'm not expert on the F22. I do know it has a short range and that in our "global war on terror", the only response that matters is numbers and a presence that can show up anywhere any time or be based worldwide. A bunch of F22's in Tampa are not a deterrent to anybody who is not in flight range of Tampa. Those F15's in Turkey...a bit more menacing than the 22's in Tampa...would you not agree?

I do know that we're $14 Trillion in debt....Developing something to fight enemies not yet born when what we had in the 90's would take care of the job is a waste and anything you say in defense of such largess would undoubtedly be....moronic.

Do we really need a Virginia Class sub? To replace the Seawolf Class and the Los Angeles Class which is FAR superior to anything any other Navy has built?

Rinse and Repeat. Our Los Angeles Class Sub will not remain Superior for ever.

Wow really? What nation is anywhere close to matching us sub-surface?

You do realize that even though we out spend them. The rest of the world is still Developing New weapons. Still trying to catch up with us. What Obama is suggesting is that we stop making sure we stay ahead.

BULL SHIT.

So we spend a less; we spend $0.48 of every dollar spent on defense worldwide. If we cut that back to $0.33; you mean we're going to end up being defenseless?

BULL SHIT.

As with the F22 issue, The same is true here as well. Our Existing Subs will not last forever. They do have a shelf life.

Hence the Super Hornet and the Seawolf Class.

The time for cuts is long past due. I can' speak to the taxes (I haven't read up on it)--but the cuts are much more than necessary; they are the right thing to do.

Well there you have it folks, If I would have read this one closer the first time, I would not even have responded to the rest of his Drivel. He just admitted, He Knows jack shit about what exactly is being cut yet is on board with it 100%. He about Fighter Aircraft and yet assures us the F22 isn't needed.

Like I said I believe there is savings to be found cutting in Defense. Cuts that can be made that will not assure the end of the Air, Naval, and General Military Superiority of the USA. Which is how these cuts, Which I have read up on, Will assure IMO.

The Funniest thing about this to me. Is as a Constitutionalists/Libertarian. It is my belief that The Defense of this nation is one of the Few Legitimate Functions of the Federal Government. Yet the Fucks Tards want to cut Defense so they can Prop up their Unsustainable, Failing Massive inefficient Federal Social Welfare Programs. That as all Constitutionalists/Libertarians Know should not even really be a function of our Federal Government.

Social Welfare is best kept at more local Levels. the States and below. For many reasons, Key among them being Massive Federal Bureaucracies are inefficient, and wrought with waste, and more importantly Oversight, and accountability are better achieve on a smaller scale.

You liberals and your Love for the Fed. So out of touch with History.

Defend us, Negotiate Treaties, You know the things the Founders wanted the Fed to do. Do that, the each state handle the rest in their own way, and one their own terms. For Christ sake.

When will you learn. DC is nothing but a Pit of Money sucking Assholes that only care about the Next Election. They will spend 150% of Every penny we give them, and waste 60 cents of every dollar on inefficiency, and out right theft. As they reward their Backers at the expense, and on the backs, of all of us.

Holy shit Fools Open your god damn Eyes.

Yes...there you have it.

"pit of money sucking assholes"

Generalize much?

LOL. Too damn funny.

 

[martybegan]

That's not social security's fault. The US government borrows from the trust fund, not to mention everywhere else,

because the taxpayer isn't being asked to pay as you go. So yes, the taxpayer eventually has to pay Social Security back -

unless you believe the US government has no obligation to make good on its obligations.

You don't get it. The US didn't borrow from the trust fund, the trust fund WAS the borrowing.

SS ran a surplus every year X dollars. it used that to buy X dollars in treasuries. Those $$ given to the government FOR the treasuries were then used as general money for the budget.

Now that SS is running in the red, there is no more $$ going into treasuries, and now SS has to take money back from its prinicpal its been adding all this time.

Get it?

SS BUYS bonds from the treasury. That, by definition is lending to the treasury. YOU don't get it. I suggest you research buying and selling bonds.

You bascally repeated what I said, but put your own spin on it.

Lets try again.

SS has a surplus and buys treasuries. The government uses the money to fund the general fund, thus making up any deficit, or part of it.

SS no longer has a surplus. It cannot buy treasuries. Any deficit in the program is now covered by the return of principal on expiring treasuries, or if this is not enough to cover, by an outlay from the general fund.

So the general fund has now lost a repeatable source of buyup of treasuries, and when SS cashes in some to make up for its red ink, does not have that proven buyer to give it anothe loan.

The end result is that instead of a SOURCE of income for the general fun, SS is now a debit.

Clear enought?

 

[rightwinger]

Do we need to spend nearly 1/2 of all defense dollars spent by all nations on earth? We do now...outspending nearly all other countries combined.

While I am sure there is some waste, and redundancies that we can and should Cut. I have to say Yes we do need to continue to out spend the world. I know you libs feel uncomfortable living in the worlds most powerful Nation ever seen, but I rather like it. Everything we have here in this great nation today, we owe in Part to the fact that we have been the worlds Super Power. The world in turn Owes the last 60 Plus Years of unprecedentedly Peaceful Times on earth to that fact as well. Maybe you should brush up on Pre World War II History My Friend. Oh we have little wars sure, but before the USA became the worlds Super Power. World history is a long line of Brutal Conflict.

Fair enough....

Who is going to attack us? I'm curious...lay out the WWII model where an imperial government is going to rub us out.



A naval variant is planned.


Plenty are still around.


Developed...believed....Russia....okay Russia. LOL. How well did that "developed" Russian Space shuttle work? I forget.



Oh...I'll be the first to admit I'm not expert on the F22. I do know it has a short range and that in our "global war on terror", the only response that matters is numbers and a presence that can show up anywhere any time or be based worldwide. A bunch of F22's in Tampa are not a deterrent to anybody who is not in flight range of Tampa. Those F15's in Turkey...a bit more menacing than the 22's in Tampa...would you not agree?

I do know that we're $14 Trillion in debt....Developing something to fight enemies not yet born when what we had in the 90's would take care of the job is a waste and anything you say in defense of such largess would undoubtedly be....moronic.


Wow really? What nation is anywhere close to matching us sub-surface?


BULL SHIT.

So we spend a less; we spend $0.48 of every dollar spent on defense worldwide. If we cut that back to $0.33; you mean we're going to end up being defenseless?

BULL SHIT.



Hence the Super Hornet and the Seawolf Class.

The time for cuts is long past due. I can' speak to the taxes (I haven't read up on it)--but the cuts are much more than necessary; they are the right thing to do.

Well there you have it folks, If I would have read this one closer the first time, I would not even have responded to the rest of his Drivel. He just admitted, He Knows jack shit about what exactly is being cut yet is on board with it 100%. He about Fighter Aircraft and yet assures us the F22 isn't needed.

Like I said I believe there is savings to be found cutting in Defense. Cuts that can be made that will not assure the end of the Air, Naval, and General Military Superiority of the USA. Which is how these cuts, Which I have read up on, Will assure IMO.

The Funniest thing about this to me. Is as a Constitutionalists/Libertarian. It is my belief that The Defense of this nation is one of the Few Legitimate Functions of the Federal Government. Yet the Fucks Tards want to cut Defense so they can Prop up their Unsustainable, Failing Massive inefficient Federal Social Welfare Programs. That as all Constitutionalists/Libertarians Know should not even really be a function of our Federal Government.

Social Welfare is best kept at more local Levels. the States and below. For many reasons, Key among them being Massive Federal Bureaucracies are inefficient, and wrought with waste, and more importantly Oversight, and accountability are better achieve on a smaller scale.

You liberals and your Love for the Fed. So out of touch with History.

Defend us, Negotiate Treaties, You know the things the Founders wanted the Fed to do. Do that, the each state handle the rest in their own way, and one their own terms. For Christ sake.

When will you learn. DC is nothing but a Pit of Money sucking Assholes that only care about the Next Election. They will spend 150% of Every penny we give them, and waste 60 cents of every dollar on inefficiency, and out right theft. As they reward their Backers at the expense, and on the backs, of all of us.

Holy shit Fools Open your god damn Eyes.

Yes...there you have it.

"pit of money sucking assholes"

Generalize much?

LOL. Too damn funny.

Fuck all manned fighter aircraft. Time to develop fighter drones that are not limited by the physical limitations of pilots in terms of G forces and stamina. A fighter drone would be lighter, faster and more maneuverable. If you lose a drone, nobody cares. drones cannot be POWs, drones do not have families

 

[martybegan]

While I am sure there is some waste, and redundancies that we can and should Cut. I have to say Yes we do need to continue to out spend the world. I know you libs feel uncomfortable living in the worlds most powerful Nation ever seen, but I rather like it. Everything we have here in this great nation today, we owe in Part to the fact that we have been the worlds Super Power. The world in turn Owes the last 60 Plus Years of unprecedentedly Peaceful Times on earth to that fact as well. Maybe you should brush up on Pre World War II History My Friend. Oh we have little wars sure, but before the USA became the worlds Super Power. World history is a long line of Brutal Conflict.

Fair enough....

Who is going to attack us? I'm curious...lay out the WWII model where an imperial government is going to rub us out.



A naval variant is planned.


Plenty are still around.


Developed...believed....Russia....okay Russia. LOL. How well did that "developed" Russian Space shuttle work? I forget.



Oh...I'll be the first to admit I'm not expert on the F22. I do know it has a short range and that in our "global war on terror", the only response that matters is numbers and a presence that can show up anywhere any time or be based worldwide. A bunch of F22's in Tampa are not a deterrent to anybody who is not in flight range of Tampa. Those F15's in Turkey...a bit more menacing than the 22's in Tampa...would you not agree?

I do know that we're $14 Trillion in debt....Developing something to fight enemies not yet born when what we had in the 90's would take care of the job is a waste and anything you say in defense of such largess would undoubtedly be....moronic.


Wow really? What nation is anywhere close to matching us sub-surface?


BULL SHIT.

So we spend a less; we spend $0.48 of every dollar spent on defense worldwide. If we cut that back to $0.33; you mean we're going to end up being defenseless?

BULL SHIT.



Hence the Super Hornet and the Seawolf Class.

Well there you have it folks, If I would have read this one closer the first time, I would not even have responded to the rest of his Drivel. He just admitted, He Knows jack shit about what exactly is being cut yet is on board with it 100%. He about Fighter Aircraft and yet assures us the F22 isn't needed.

Like I said I believe there is savings to be found cutting in Defense. Cuts that can be made that will not assure the end of the Air, Naval, and General Military Superiority of the USA. Which is how these cuts, Which I have read up on, Will assure IMO.

The Funniest thing about this to me. Is as a Constitutionalists/Libertarian. It is my belief that The Defense of this nation is one of the Few Legitimate Functions of the Federal Government. Yet the Fucks Tards want to cut Defense so they can Prop up their Unsustainable, Failing Massive inefficient Federal Social Welfare Programs. That as all Constitutionalists/Libertarians Know should not even really be a function of our Federal Government.

Social Welfare is best kept at more local Levels. the States and below. For many reasons, Key among them being Massive Federal Bureaucracies are inefficient, and wrought with waste, and more importantly Oversight, and accountability are better achieve on a smaller scale.

You liberals and your Love for the Fed. So out of touch with History.

Defend us, Negotiate Treaties, You know the things the Founders wanted the Fed to do. Do that, the each state handle the rest in their own way, and one their own terms. For Christ sake.

When will you learn. DC is nothing but a Pit of Money sucking Assholes that only care about the Next Election. They will spend 150% of Every penny we give them, and waste 60 cents of every dollar on inefficiency, and out right theft. As they reward their Backers at the expense, and on the backs, of all of us.

Holy shit Fools Open your god damn Eyes.

Yes...there you have it.

"pit of money sucking assholes"

Generalize much?

LOL. Too damn funny.

Fuck all manned fighter aircraft. Time to develop fighter drones that are not limited by the physical limitations of pilots in terms of G forces and stamina. A fighter drone would be lighter, faster and more maneuverable. If you lose a drone, nobody cares. drones cannot be POWs, drones do not have families

Drones can have thier control signals jammed. You can't jam a pilot. Also if you go with robotics, thier flight patterns at the current level of technology tend to be predictable.

A jammed drone either falls out of the sky, or just sits there ready to be shot down.

 

[Toro]

SS and the Treasury are both arms of the federal government. So when SS buys bonds from the Treasury, the government is loaning money to itself. No real money has changed hands. All that has occurred is that a worthless I.O.U. is filed away in a cabinet somewhere.

SS doesn't actually buy any Treasury bonds. It debits the accounts of the SS trusts as if they bought the bonds. If it sounds confusing, that's because it is.

I don't agree. If the money is loaned out of SS to the general fund, then SS has bought treasuries,

they loan the money, they collect interest, the full faith and credit of the US is behind paying the money back.

Whatever the differences between that and, say, you or me buying a treasury bond are, are not differences that make a difference,

and if a difference doesn't make any difference, it's not a difference. I think I heard that last night

I could be completely wrong, but that's not my understanding of how the trusts work. I thought that all assets in the trusts were nonmarketable liabilities, i.e. no Treasury bonds.

The reason why people say that the trust fund doesn't really exist, or that it is all IOUs, or an accounting gimmick, is because, in the true tangible sense, that is correct. The trusts don't buy and sell US Treasury bonds. Instead, the government debits and credits the accounts within the trusts as if they really were buying and selling bonds, with the cash flowing through the government in the same manner as it would have had the bonds really existed. If there is a surge in SS receipts, the government debits the SS trust accounts and credits the Treasury, which has the exact same affect as the Treasury issuing a bond to the trusts for that amount of funds. The economics are exactly the same as issuing a bond to the trust, but they don't and instead just skip the middleman and issue nonmarketable government bonds to the trust, which don't "really" exist in the tangible sense.

Special-issue securities, Social Security trust funds

 

[candycorn]

While I am sure there is some waste, and redundancies that we can and should Cut. I have to say Yes we do need to continue to out spend the world. I know you libs feel uncomfortable living in the worlds most powerful Nation ever seen, but I rather like it. Everything we have here in this great nation today, we owe in Part to the fact that we have been the worlds Super Power. The world in turn Owes the last 60 Plus Years of unprecedentedly Peaceful Times on earth to that fact as well. Maybe you should brush up on Pre World War II History My Friend. Oh we have little wars sure, but before the USA became the worlds Super Power. World history is a long line of Brutal Conflict.

Fair enough....

Who is going to attack us? I'm curious...lay out the WWII model where an imperial government is going to rub us out.



A naval variant is planned.


Plenty are still around.


Developed...believed....Russia....okay Russia. LOL. How well did that "developed" Russian Space shuttle work? I forget.



Oh...I'll be the first to admit I'm not expert on the F22. I do know it has a short range and that in our "global war on terror", the only response that matters is numbers and a presence that can show up anywhere any time or be based worldwide. A bunch of F22's in Tampa are not a deterrent to anybody who is not in flight range of Tampa. Those F15's in Turkey...a bit more menacing than the 22's in Tampa...would you not agree?

I do know that we're $14 Trillion in debt....Developing something to fight enemies not yet born when what we had in the 90's would take care of the job is a waste and anything you say in defense of such largess would undoubtedly be....moronic.


Wow really? What nation is anywhere close to matching us sub-surface?


BULL SHIT.

So we spend a less; we spend $0.48 of every dollar spent on defense worldwide. If we cut that back to $0.33; you mean we're going to end up being defenseless?

BULL SHIT.



Hence the Super Hornet and the Seawolf Class.

Well there you have it folks, If I would have read this one closer the first time, I would not even have responded to the rest of his Drivel. He just admitted, He Knows jack shit about what exactly is being cut yet is on board with it 100%. He about Fighter Aircraft and yet assures us the F22 isn't needed.

Like I said I believe there is savings to be found cutting in Defense. Cuts that can be made that will not assure the end of the Air, Naval, and General Military Superiority of the USA. Which is how these cuts, Which I have read up on, Will assure IMO.

The Funniest thing about this to me. Is as a Constitutionalists/Libertarian. It is my belief that The Defense of this nation is one of the Few Legitimate Functions of the Federal Government. Yet the Fucks Tards want to cut Defense so they can Prop up their Unsustainable, Failing Massive inefficient Federal Social Welfare Programs. That as all Constitutionalists/Libertarians Know should not even really be a function of our Federal Government.

Social Welfare is best kept at more local Levels. the States and below. For many reasons, Key among them being Massive Federal Bureaucracies are inefficient, and wrought with waste, and more importantly Oversight, and accountability are better achieve on a smaller scale.

You liberals and your Love for the Fed. So out of touch with History.

Defend us, Negotiate Treaties, You know the things the Founders wanted the Fed to do. Do that, the each state handle the rest in their own way, and one their own terms. For Christ sake.

When will you learn. DC is nothing but a Pit of Money sucking Assholes that only care about the Next Election. They will spend 150% of Every penny we give them, and waste 60 cents of every dollar on inefficiency, and out right theft. As they reward their Backers at the expense, and on the backs, of all of us.

Holy shit Fools Open your god damn Eyes.

Yes...there you have it.

"pit of money sucking assholes"

Generalize much?

LOL. Too damn funny.

Fuck all manned fighter aircraft. Time to develop fighter drones that are not limited by the physical limitations of pilots in terms of G forces and stamina. A fighter drone would be lighter, faster and more maneuverable. If you lose a drone, nobody cares. drones cannot be POWs, drones do not have families

Much cheaper than manned aircraft as well. I tend to agree with you. Not for all missions; but for a great many.

 

[candycorn]

Fair enough....

Who is going to attack us? I'm curious...lay out the WWII model where an imperial government is going to rub us out.



A naval variant is planned.


Plenty are still around.


Developed...believed....Russia....okay Russia. LOL. How well did that "developed" Russian Space shuttle work? I forget.



Oh...I'll be the first to admit I'm not expert on the F22. I do know it has a short range and that in our "global war on terror", the only response that matters is numbers and a presence that can show up anywhere any time or be based worldwide. A bunch of F22's in Tampa are not a deterrent to anybody who is not in flight range of Tampa. Those F15's in Turkey...a bit more menacing than the 22's in Tampa...would you not agree?

I do know that we're $14 Trillion in debt....Developing something to fight enemies not yet born when what we had in the 90's would take care of the job is a waste and anything you say in defense of such largess would undoubtedly be....moronic.


Wow really? What nation is anywhere close to matching us sub-surface?


BULL SHIT.

So we spend a less; we spend $0.48 of every dollar spent on defense worldwide. If we cut that back to $0.33; you mean we're going to end up being defenseless?

BULL SHIT.



Hence the Super Hornet and the Seawolf Class.



Yes...there you have it.

"pit of money sucking assholes"

Generalize much?

LOL. Too damn funny.

Fuck all manned fighter aircraft. Time to develop fighter drones that are not limited by the physical limitations of pilots in terms of G forces and stamina. A fighter drone would be lighter, faster and more maneuverable. If you lose a drone, nobody cares. drones cannot be POWs, drones do not have families

Drones can have thier control signals jammed. You can't jam a pilot. Also if you go with robotics, thier flight patterns at the current level of technology tend to be predictable.

A jammed drone either falls out of the sky, or just sits there ready to be shot down.

I'm more worried about a hacked drone...imagine THAT...one day over Basra, the next day over Baltimore.

However the rest of your worries are not especially great concerns. You can base program things where if there is anything that goes wrong, it goes to a pre-programmed place. Usually the ocean or some large body of water--international waters. Crashing it at sea is preferable to enemy capture.

 

[Trajan]

Do we need to spend nearly 1/2 of all defense dollars spent by all nations on earth? We do now...outspending nearly all other countries combined.

While I am sure there is some waste, and redundancies that we can and should Cut. I have to say Yes we do need to continue to out spend the world. I know you libs feel uncomfortable living in the worlds most powerful Nation ever seen, but I rather like it. Everything we have here in this great nation today, we owe in Part to the fact that we have been the worlds Super Power. The world in turn Owes the last 60 Plus Years of unprecedentedly Peaceful Times on earth to that fact as well. Maybe you should brush up on Pre World War II History My Friend. Oh we have little wars sure, but before the USA became the worlds Super Power. World history is a long line of Brutal Conflict.

Fair enough....

Who is going to attack us? I'm curious...lay out the WWII model where an imperial government is going to rub us out.



A naval variant is planned.


Plenty are still around.


Developed...believed....Russia....okay Russia. LOL. How well did that "developed" Russian Space shuttle work? I forget.



Oh...I'll be the first to admit I'm not expert on the F22. I do know it has a short range and that in our "global war on terror", the only response that matters is numbers and a presence that can show up anywhere any time or be based worldwide. A bunch of F22's in Tampa are not a deterrent to anybody who is not in flight range of Tampa. Those F15's in Turkey...a bit more menacing than the 22's in Tampa...would you not agree?

I do know that we're $14 Trillion in debt....Developing something to fight enemies not yet born when what we had in the 90's would take care of the job is a waste and anything you say in defense of such largess would undoubtedly be....moronic.


Wow really? What nation is anywhere close to matching us sub-surface?


BULL SHIT.

So we spend a less; we spend $0.48 of every dollar spent on defense worldwide. If we cut that back to $0.33; you mean we're going to end up being defenseless?

BULL SHIT.



Hence the Super Hornet and the Seawolf Class.

The time for cuts is long past due. I can' speak to the taxes (I haven't read up on it)--but the cuts are much more than necessary; they are the right thing to do.

Well there you have it folks, If I would have read this one closer the first time, I would not even have responded to the rest of his Drivel. He just admitted, He Knows jack shit about what exactly is being cut yet is on board with it 100%. He about Fighter Aircraft and yet assures us the F22 isn't needed.

Like I said I believe there is savings to be found cutting in Defense. Cuts that can be made that will not assure the end of the Air, Naval, and General Military Superiority of the USA. Which is how these cuts, Which I have read up on, Will assure IMO.

The Funniest thing about this to me. Is as a Constitutionalists/Libertarian. It is my belief that The Defense of this nation is one of the Few Legitimate Functions of the Federal Government. Yet the Fucks Tards want to cut Defense so they can Prop up their Unsustainable, Failing Massive inefficient Federal Social Welfare Programs. That as all Constitutionalists/Libertarians Know should not even really be a function of our Federal Government.

Social Welfare is best kept at more local Levels. the States and below. For many reasons, Key among them being Massive Federal Bureaucracies are inefficient, and wrought with waste, and more importantly Oversight, and accountability are better achieve on a smaller scale.

You liberals and your Love for the Fed. So out of touch with History.

Defend us, Negotiate Treaties, You know the things the Founders wanted the Fed to do. Do that, the each state handle the rest in their own way, and one their own terms. For Christ sake.

When will you learn. DC is nothing but a Pit of Money sucking Assholes that only care about the Next Election. They will spend 150% of Every penny we give them, and waste 60 cents of every dollar on inefficiency, and out right theft. As they reward their Backers at the expense, and on the backs, of all of us.

Holy shit Fools Open your god damn Eyes.

Yes...there you have it.

"pit of money sucking assholes"

Generalize much?

LOL. Too damn funny.

Oh...I'll be the first to admit I'm not expert on the F22. I do know it has a short range and that in our "global war on terror", the only response that matters is numbers and a presence that can show up anywhere any time or be based worldwide. A bunch of F22's in Tampa are not a deterrent to anybody who is not in flight range of Tampa. Those F15's in Turkey...a bit more menacing than the 22's in Tampa...would you not agree?

thats not really how it works. the F-22 is an all weather air superiority fighter. it dominates and we will always be out numbered, the qualitative superiority is what counts yes, BUT, that can only overcome so much, numbers do count when you hit levels of 4- 5 to 1. We cannot afford to allow that to occur. we need, approx. 600 f-22's, we got 187.

I'd say thats pretty short sighted. this is a platform that will last for 25 years. As the f-15 and f-25's have. You cannot operate tactically with effect minus the ability to allow helicopters and tactical air sppt aircraft like the A-10 the ability to over fly and loiter over the battlefield. Air superiority is what gives them hence our ground forces that edge and ability.

all air superiority fighters have several tasks we have wings in Korea and of course Europe and the ME, with yes many so our pilots can practice and mechanics learn to maintain here, air nat. guard etc etc..thats what gave us and gives us the edge aside from the aircraft.

 

[rightwinger]

Fair enough....

Who is going to attack us? I'm curious...lay out the WWII model where an imperial government is going to rub us out.



A naval variant is planned.


Plenty are still around.


Developed...believed....Russia....okay Russia. LOL. How well did that "developed" Russian Space shuttle work? I forget.



Oh...I'll be the first to admit I'm not expert on the F22. I do know it has a short range and that in our "global war on terror", the only response that matters is numbers and a presence that can show up anywhere any time or be based worldwide. A bunch of F22's in Tampa are not a deterrent to anybody who is not in flight range of Tampa. Those F15's in Turkey...a bit more menacing than the 22's in Tampa...would you not agree?

I do know that we're $14 Trillion in debt....Developing something to fight enemies not yet born when what we had in the 90's would take care of the job is a waste and anything you say in defense of such largess would undoubtedly be....moronic.


Wow really? What nation is anywhere close to matching us sub-surface?


BULL SHIT.

So we spend a less; we spend $0.48 of every dollar spent on defense worldwide. If we cut that back to $0.33; you mean we're going to end up being defenseless?

BULL SHIT.



Hence the Super Hornet and the Seawolf Class.



Yes...there you have it.

"pit of money sucking assholes"

Generalize much?

LOL. Too damn funny.

Fuck all manned fighter aircraft. Time to develop fighter drones that are not limited by the physical limitations of pilots in terms of G forces and stamina. A fighter drone would be lighter, faster and more maneuverable. If you lose a drone, nobody cares. drones cannot be POWs, drones do not have families

Drones can have thier control signals jammed. You can't jam a pilot. Also if you go with robotics, thier flight patterns at the current level of technology tend to be predictable.

A jammed drone either falls out of the sky, or just sits there ready to be shot down.

Unless the signal is kill that mother fucker. The drone locks onto a target and doesn't give up till it is killed. Predictability can be prevented by random number and pattern generation

 

[Toro]

SS and the Treasury are both arms of the federal government. So when SS buys bonds from the Treasury, the government is loaning money to itself. No real money has changed hands. All that has occurred is that a worthless I.O.U. is filed away in a cabinet somewhere.

SS doesn't actually buy any Treasury bonds. It debits the accounts of the SS trusts as if they bought the bonds. If it sounds confusing, that's because it is.

hey harper, i had a dream that you had your own talkshow, how fuckin cool is that.... anything like that in the works ? are you (look like) a middle aged slightly heavy white guy who likes hockey ?? this could be a stunning premonition...

Wow, cool Wash. Indeed, I'm a middle-aged white guy about 10 lbs overweight, though I cycle about 40 miles a week. And I like hockey! Am I going to be on Fox or MSNBC? That matters, because whichever one I'm on, I'm going to be the opposite of the dominant meme. It's more fun that way.

 

[washamericom]

SS doesn't actually buy any Treasury bonds. It debits the accounts of the SS trusts as if they bought the bonds. If it sounds confusing, that's because it is.

hey harper, i had a dream that you had your own talkshow, how fuckin cool is that.... anything like that in the works ? are you (look like) a middle aged slightly heavy white guy who likes hockey ?? this could be a stunning premonition...

Wow, cool Wash. Indeed, I'm a middle-aged white guy about 10 lbs overweight, though I cycle about 40 miles a week. And I like hockey! Am I going to be on Fox or MSNBC? That matters, because whichever one I'm on, I'm going to be the opposite of the dominant meme. It's more fun that way.

you will be great !! maybe i could be a guest on your show... i'm no lady gaga, but you're no charlie rose. you could be the canadian alan thicke. have you seen the "barry gibb talk show" ? talkin bout real important issues...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMbGQwGAQaE]YouTube - ‪SNL Justin Timberlake Jimmy Fallon _The Barry Gibb Talk Show.mp4‬‏[/ame]


those guys are canadian... which one would you be more like ?? cause i'll be the other one. it would still be your show though...

 

[Toro]

you will be great !! maybe i could be a guest on your show... i'm no lady gaga, but you're no charlie rose. you could be the canadian alan thicke. have you seen the "barry gibb talk show" ? talkin bout real important issues...

YouTube - ‪SNL Justin Timberlake Jimmy Fallon _The Barry Gibb Talk Show.mp4‬‏


those guys are canadian...

You'd be my first guest! And we'll talk about the birth certificate for a week solid.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Our debt is more of a function of too much spending; even repeal of the Bush cuts would do us very little good

We got here not because of too little tax but too much spending.
Unless of course one believes that ALL Govt spending at this level is required

Three Little Pigs: How Entitlements Will Destroy Us

Our national debt recently topped the $13 trillion mark. That amounts to nearly 90% of this country's GDP; $72,000 in debt for every household in America
Now add Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, and Obama's 2011 budget has a $1.27 trillion deficit. It's the entitlements, stupid.

Nor can you tax your way out of debt. Eliminate all of the Bush tax cuts, including the tax cuts for low- and middle-income Americans, and you would reduce the debt by perhaps 10% — assuming you didn't cripple the economy in the process. Tax the rich? That won't get you there either. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in order to pay for all currently scheduled federal spending would require raising both the corporate tax rate and top income tax rate from their current 35% to 88%, the current 25% tax rate for middle-income workers to 63%, and the 10% tax bracket for low-income workers to 25%

There is simply no way to control our debt without getting serious about reforming entitlements.
​

----------------
The US has more of a spending problem than tax problem
It needs an "intervention" almost like a drug addict

Charles Krauthammer

He himself, as we just heard, said you can’t reduce the deficit to the levels we need without raising revenues. Then he talks about the [tax break for] corporate jets, which he mentioned not once but six times.

I did the math on this. If you collect the corporate jet tax every year for the next 5,000 years, you will cover one year of the debt that Obama has run up. One year.

To put it another way, if you started collecting that tax at the time of John the Baptist and you collected it every year — first in shekels and now in dollars — you wouldn’t be halfway to covering one year of the amount of debt that Obama has run up.

As for the other one, he mentions again and again, the oil depreciation tax break — if you collect that one for 700 years, you won’t cover a year of Obama deficits.

And then here’s my favorite. I worked it out in the car on the way here. If you collect the corporate jets and the oil tax together — get all the bad guys and the fat cats at once — and you collect it for 100 years, it covers the amount of debt Obama added… in February!

And he pretends that he’s the serious adult at the table.​

----------------------------------

Gallup Americans Oppose Raising Debt Ceiling, 47% to 19%

CBS poll shows Americans oppose debt-ceiling hike 2-1

 

[Neotrotsky]

Wrong... taxes are high enough already, and have been for years. More taxes will only crush the delicate state of the economy further into the toilet.

What part about that are you liberals incapable of understanding?

Okay we preserved the Bush tax cuts for the foreseeable future...shouldn't the economy be booming about right now then?

This is where the Conservative argument falls flat. The tax cuts that happened while we're fighting 2 wars (unprecedented in history worldwide) should have, according to the Conservatives, set off runaway growth prosperity and cute puppies for all citizens.

Obama preserved them...don't lie and say he didn't.

What happened?

hmm, what could it be now,,,,

Papa Obama and the Left overspent
They wasted money on a Pork Bill that did no good
(why were they kicked out of office?)

When Bush tax cuts were first passed they worked pretty good for Bush
Actually, they worked faster. cost less and brought employment down
quicker. It is not the Bush tax cuts fault that they could not keep up
with the Lefts spending and bad economic decision making


Remember the "bad Bush days" of 5.3 percent unemployment?
I bet Papa Obama wishes he had those numbers


What if something does not work forever, it does not work?

 

[washamericom]

you will be great !! maybe i could be a guest on your show... i'm no lady gaga, but you're no charlie rose. you could be the canadian alan thicke. have you seen the "barry gibb talk show" ? talkin bout real important issues...

YouTube - ‪SNL Justin Timberlake Jimmy Fallon _The Barry Gibb Talk Show.mp4‬‏


those guys are canadian...

You'd be my first guest! And we'll talk about the birth certificate for a week solid.

or until obama gets pinched, whichever comes first, Bravo !

 

[Neotrotsky]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsrFa9jrpv8]YouTube - ‪Child's Pay 2‬‏[/ame]


--
"Unemployment Rate Won’t Matter in 2012" - Obama Adviser Plouffe

 

[NYcarbineer]

SS doesn't actually buy any Treasury bonds. It debits the accounts of the SS trusts as if they bought the bonds. If it sounds confusing, that's because it is.

I don't agree. If the money is loaned out of SS to the general fund, then SS has bought treasuries,

they loan the money, they collect interest, the full faith and credit of the US is behind paying the money back.

Whatever the differences between that and, say, you or me buying a treasury bond are, are not differences that make a difference,

and if a difference doesn't make any difference, it's not a difference. I think I heard that last night

I could be completely wrong, but that's not my understanding of how the trusts work. I thought that all assets in the trusts were nonmarketable liabilities, i.e. no Treasury bonds.

The reason why people say that the trust fund doesn't really exist, or that it is all IOUs, or an accounting gimmick, is because, in the true tangible sense, that is correct. The trusts don't buy and sell US Treasury bonds. Instead, the government debits and credits the accounts within the trusts as if they really were buying and selling bonds, with the cash flowing through the government in the same manner as it would have had the bonds really existed. If there is a surge in SS receipts, the government debits the SS trust accounts and credits the Treasury, which has the exact same affect as the Treasury issuing a bond to the trusts for that amount of funds. The economics are exactly the same as issuing a bond to the trust, but they don't and instead just skip the middleman and issue nonmarketable government bonds to the trust, which don't "really" exist in the tangible sense.

Special-issue securities, Social Security trust funds

Well, if you had 100,000 in your IRA and it was all in US treasuries, it would essentially all be in IOU's, i.e., the government would have your money but they would owe you interest over time as well as your principal.

I'm not sure what the meaningful difference between that SS is.

The relevant point is that the payroll tax is real money and it belongs to Social Security. The surplus is invested in US govt. obligations by mandate. If the US government NOW wants to make drastic cuts in Social Security, whose fault is that?

 

[Toro]

Well, if you had 100,000 in your IRA and it was all in US treasuries, it would essentially all be in IOU's, i.e., the government would have your money but they would owe you interest over time as well as your principal.

I'm not sure what the meaningful difference between that SS is.

I agree. There is no conceptual difference whatsoever. The economics are exactly the same. However, it is confusing. It confused me when I first looked at it. But when you walk it through, you see that it works like a pension fund that invests only in government bonds. Though I understand that people wouldn't see it at first.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Wrong... taxes are high enough already, and have been for years. More taxes will only crush the delicate state of the economy further into the toilet.

What part about that are you liberals incapable of understanding?

Fear not! The left has come up with a plan that will cost us very little
and the money will still come from the Chinese. A new approach to finance our Progressive Utopia

 

[martybegan]

I don't agree. If the money is loaned out of SS to the general fund, then SS has bought treasuries,

they loan the money, they collect interest, the full faith and credit of the US is behind paying the money back.

Whatever the differences between that and, say, you or me buying a treasury bond are, are not differences that make a difference,

and if a difference doesn't make any difference, it's not a difference. I think I heard that last night

I could be completely wrong, but that's not my understanding of how the trusts work. I thought that all assets in the trusts were nonmarketable liabilities, i.e. no Treasury bonds.

The reason why people say that the trust fund doesn't really exist, or that it is all IOUs, or an accounting gimmick, is because, in the true tangible sense, that is correct. The trusts don't buy and sell US Treasury bonds. Instead, the government debits and credits the accounts within the trusts as if they really were buying and selling bonds, with the cash flowing through the government in the same manner as it would have had the bonds really existed. If there is a surge in SS receipts, the government debits the SS trust accounts and credits the Treasury, which has the exact same affect as the Treasury issuing a bond to the trusts for that amount of funds. The economics are exactly the same as issuing a bond to the trust, but they don't and instead just skip the middleman and issue nonmarketable government bonds to the trust, which don't "really" exist in the tangible sense.

Special-issue securities, Social Security trust funds

Well, if you had 100,000 in your IRA and it was all in US treasuries, it would essentially all be in IOU's, i.e., the government would have your money but they would owe you interest over time as well as your principal.

I'm not sure what the meaningful difference between that SS is.

The relevant point is that the payroll tax is real money and it belongs to Social Security. The surplus is invested in US govt. obligations by mandate. If the US government NOW wants to make drastic cuts in Social Security, whose fault is that?

The difference is that for the past 50+ years the government was using the SS surplus as another source of income. That source is now gone. Each year the surplus went down, the government needed to borrow more from other sources to keep running.

Now the SS surplus is gone. A source of income has become an outlay as the treasuries mature and become due, intstead of being rebought with the years SS surplus.