Poll shows Americans oppose entitlement cuts to deal with debt problem

[rightwinger]

Do we REALLY need yet another submarine at a cost of $4.7 BILLION?

Probably not.

Sub and anti-sub tech of foreign countries has lagged behind greatly. And with the fall of Russia, few have the training and resources to keep up.

however

Subs are put through some heavy duty work loads, and have fairly short life spans compared to surface ships. [you get a hole in the hull of a skimmer, it's nothing to panic over, get one in a sub...] So they need to be replaced. So we can either re-do the interior or do a full upgrade.

I'm a Sub Sailor. Feel free to ask anything you want about subs and our affect on the world.

There is no doubt that we have the most powerful Navy in the history of mankind. The question is....do we need it?

Do we need 11 Carrier task forces?, do we need all the SSBNs that have never fired a shot? Do we need the cruisers?

It has been 65 years since our last serious Naval engagement, is the threat there to justify maintaining such a massive Navy?

 

[VaYank5150]

The problem with items such as this is if you dont have it and you suddenly need it, whatever country that had decided to play interdict the sea lanes will not give you a pass for the 4 years it takes to build it.

Are you saying that the 73 submarines we already have in service cannot handle such an interdiction?

It depends. Also american military philosophy is based not on technological superiority, but on technological dominance. We value the lives of a soldiers more than most countries, and have long decided that firepower is more expendable then our troops. Newer technology provides us with a firepower gap that makes our military far more lethal than its competitiors.

The government is mandated to provide for defense. We don't want private compaines handling it, so the government has to.

Lets turn your argument around a bit. for 2010 HUD is budgeted 16 Billion for Tenant housing vouchers. Basically the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is subsidizing people's rents. Where in the constitution is this defined as a federal task? Why shouldn't the states, if they so choose do it. Or why, if you think this money should be spent, shouldn't this be some charity? Let people who want to spend money on this do it the hard way, find contributors, and subsidize a person's rent. Why does the federal government have to do this?

For the greater good, I suppose. What would we do with all of these people out on the streets, I imagine is one argument that could be made. Please do not get me wrong, I pay my own way and wish more people would do the same. I am attacking our bloated DoD budget simply because the GOP refused to offer ANY cuts in this arena. I am for cuts across the board. Why must the GOP concentrate on areas that will harm our own citizenry, while ignoring areas where our money is spent to assist other countrys' citizenry?

 

[Two Thumbs]

The problem with items such as this is if you dont have it and you suddenly need it, whatever country that had decided to play interdict the sea lanes will not give you a pass for the 4 years it takes to build it.

Are you saying that the 73 submarines we already have in service cannot handle such an interdiction?

It depends. Also american military philosophy is based not on technological superiority, but on technological dominance. We value the lives of a soldiers more than most countries, and have long decided that firepower is more expendable then our troops. Newer technology provides us with a firepower gap that makes our military far more lethal than its competitiors.

The government is mandated to provide for defense. We don't want private compaines handling it, so the government has to.

Lets turn your argument around a bit. for 2010 HUD is budgeted 16 Billion for Tenant housing vouchers. Basically the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is subsidizing people's rents. Where in the constitution is this defined as a federal task? Why shouldn't the states, if they so choose do it. Or why, if you think this money should be spent, shouldn't this be some charity? Let people who want to spend money on this do it the hard way, find contributors, and subsidize a person's rent. Why does the federal government have to do this?

Actually our training is what seperates us from the rest.

Sub Sailors have higher requirements to even try to become one. Just cuz you can join the Navy, doesn't mean you can be a Sub Sailor.
We have about a year of training before you get to the sub and then a vast array of qualifications that must be done before you get to be a Sub Sailor and wear The Dophines. Don't keep pace or fail and it's off to the surface fleet.

 

[bodecea]

Ok, boys and girls. Everyone keeps talking about it around here, but all I'm reading are platitudes. I want specifics. You have an idea...even a small one...for a budget cut...post it in this thread.

WHEN I SAY SPECIFIC...I MEAN SPECIFIC​

Don't just say "uhm...in defense" or "we don't need an Education department"

The proper answer would be more like: "Obama also has offered $4.1 billion in funding to modernize and upgrade the U.S. nuclear arsenal...that's something that ...if it already works...needs to be cut."

Here is a place to start your research:
Budget Breakdown

Find something in there specific that you'd like to change and make an argument as to why. (Hint: you need a because in there, just sayin')

This year...ACROSS the board cuts of 5%....no exception. Then see about next year.

 

[theHawk]

Ok, boys and girls. Everyone keeps talking about it around here, but all I'm reading are platitudes. I want specifics. You have an idea...even a small one...for a budget cut...post it in this thread.

WHEN I SAY SPECIFIC...I MEAN SPECIFIC​

Don't just say "uhm...in defense" or "we don't need an Education department"

The proper answer would be more like: "Obama also has offered $4.1 billion in funding to modernize and upgrade the U.S. nuclear arsenal...that's something that ...if it already works...needs to be cut."

Here is a place to start your research:
Budget Breakdown

Find something in there specific that you'd like to change and make an argument as to why. (Hint: you need a because in there, just sayin')

Pensions - $780B really can't touch. Although changes should be made to future pensions to reduce the cost to taxpayers.

health care - $898B: I'm sure $297B "grants to states" can be reduced or cut.

Education - $140B: All of it. Local and states can handle education.


Defense - $928B: $44B in foreign economic aid, and $10 foreign military aid. Plus at least $10B in cuts from military if not a lot more.

Welfare - $471: Cut nearly all of it. The welfare system does not work, period.

Protection(Police/Courts/Prisons)- $57B: This I don't have a problem with.

Transportation- $104: Easily cut in half $50B, states can tax for their own infrastructure.

General Government- $29B: cut at least 5B.

Other Spending - $173B: almost all of this can be cut

Thats $1.16+ Trillion to start with in cuts, and thats at first glance.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The problem with items such as this is if you dont have it and you suddenly need it, whatever country that had decided to play interdict the sea lanes will not give you a pass for the 4 years it takes to build it.

Are you saying that the 73 submarines we already have in service cannot handle such an interdiction?

It depends. Also american military philosophy is based not on technological superiority, but on technological dominance. We value the lives of a soldiers more than most countries, and have long decided that firepower is more expendable then our troops. Newer technology provides us with a firepower gap that makes our military far more lethal than its competitiors.

The government is mandated to provide for defense. We don't want private compaines handling it, so the government has to.

Lets turn your argument around a bit. for 2010 HUD is budgeted 16 Billion for Tenant housing vouchers. Basically the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is subsidizing people's rents. Where in the constitution is this defined as a federal task? Why shouldn't the states, if they so choose do it. Or why, if you think this money should be spent, shouldn't this be some charity? Let people who want to spend money on this do it the hard way, find contributors, and subsidize a person's rent. Why does the federal government have to do this?

If we could stop the bleeding in other areas that would improve the economy and the need for welfare would reduce itself.

 

[Two Thumbs]

All 73 of them?

We take turns patrolling.

some go into dry dock for cleaning, re-painting, re-fitting, upgrades, etc.

we practice war

etc, etc...

And you only patrol OUR shores for OUR defense, right?

It's been a while since I've been on patrol. But I think I heard tell that there is a sub off the coast of Lybia now.

I patroled in classified waters, spying on our enemies, ensureing the countries safety, incase the shit did hit the fan.

but I get what you are trying to say.

You don't know jack or squat about tactics, so hows about we leave that to our military leaders?

 

[brokenarrow]

Do we REALLY need yet another submarine at a cost of $4.7 BILLION?

Probably not.

Sub and anti-sub tech of foreign countries has lagged behind greatly. And with the fall of Russia, few have the training and resources to keep up.

however

Subs are put through some heavy duty work loads, and have fairly short life spans compared to surface ships. [you get a hole in the hull of a skimmer, it's nothing to panic over, get one in a sub...] So they need to be replaced. So we can either re-do the interior or do a full upgrade.

I'm a Sub Sailor. Feel free to ask anything you want about subs and our affect on the world.

There is no doubt that we have the most powerful Navy in the history of mankind. The question is....do we need it?

Do we need 11 Carrier task forces?, do we need all the SSBNs that have never fired a shot? Do we need the cruisers?

It has been 65 years since our last serious Naval engagement, is the threat there to justify maintaining such a massive Navy?

Why not charge the countries we protect a fee for that protection?

 

[theHawk]

Do we REALLY need yet another submarine at a cost of $4.7 BILLION?

Probably not.

Sub and anti-sub tech of foreign countries has lagged behind greatly. And with the fall of Russia, few have the training and resources to keep up.

however

Subs are put through some heavy duty work loads, and have fairly short life spans compared to surface ships. [you get a hole in the hull of a skimmer, it's nothing to panic over, get one in a sub...] So they need to be replaced. So we can either re-do the interior or do a full upgrade.

I'm a Sub Sailor. Feel free to ask anything you want about subs and our affect on the world.

There is no doubt that we have the most powerful Navy in the history of mankind. The question is....do we need it?

Do we need 11 Carrier task forces?, do we need all the SSBNs that have never fired a shot? Do we need the cruisers?

It has been 65 years since our last serious Naval engagement, is the threat there to justify maintaining such a massive Navy?

If we didn't have a Navy then the Chinese, North Koreans, and Russians will always be just a few miles off our coast.

Although I am sure the prospect of your fellow Marxists being so close doesn't give you pause, the rest of us feel differently.

 

[VaYank5150]

We take turns patrolling.

some go into dry dock for cleaning, re-painting, re-fitting, upgrades, etc.

we practice war

etc, etc...

And you only patrol OUR shores for OUR defense, right?

It's been a while since I've been on patrol. But I think I heard tell that there is a sub off the coast of Lybia now.

I patroled in classified waters, spying on our enemies, ensureing the countries safety, incase the shit did hit the fan.

but I get what you are trying to say.

You don't know jack or squat about tactics, so hows about we leave that to our military leaders?

Be careful when talking out of your ass. We can debate tactics anytime you are ready, submariner. Let's start with how espionage in foreign waters is defending our country?

 

[Avorysuds]

Iraq and Afghanistan

Before we start cutting programs that help Americans, we need to get out of those two hell holes

Add Pakistan and Libya to that war(s) exit plan…

 

[Two Thumbs]

Do we REALLY need yet another submarine at a cost of $4.7 BILLION?

Probably not.

Sub and anti-sub tech of foreign countries has lagged behind greatly. And with the fall of Russia, few have the training and resources to keep up.

however

Subs are put through some heavy duty work loads, and have fairly short life spans compared to surface ships. [you get a hole in the hull of a skimmer, it's nothing to panic over, get one in a sub...] So they need to be replaced. So we can either re-do the interior or do a full upgrade.

I'm a Sub Sailor. Feel free to ask anything you want about subs and our affect on the world.

There is no doubt that we have the most powerful Navy in the history of mankind. The question is....do we need it?

Do we need 11 Carrier task forces?, do we need all the SSBNs that have never fired a shot? Do we need the cruisers?

It has been 65 years since our last serious Naval engagement, is the threat there to justify maintaining such a massive Navy?

Great points.

I would say yes, keep a large and very frightening Navy.

Why?

People are awed by large warships. Remember Lybia and "The line of Death"? We moved ships in, the line moved back, we crossed it again and it was over.

We freed those hostages from the pirates.

In the 80's all deployed Fast Attacks, went active on the Russian subs they were following. They shit themselves.

Also by keeping it and ridding other countries of our bases, we can have mobile base of operations.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ok, boys and girls. Everyone keeps talking about it around here, but all I'm reading are platitudes. I want specifics. You have an idea...even a small one...for a budget cut...post it in this thread.

Immediately cut all entitlements by 50%
Reduce the remaining speniding by 5% (of the original) over the next 8 years.

 

[rightwinger]

Probably not.

Sub and anti-sub tech of foreign countries has lagged behind greatly. And with the fall of Russia, few have the training and resources to keep up.

however

Subs are put through some heavy duty work loads, and have fairly short life spans compared to surface ships. [you get a hole in the hull of a skimmer, it's nothing to panic over, get one in a sub...] So they need to be replaced. So we can either re-do the interior or do a full upgrade.

I'm a Sub Sailor. Feel free to ask anything you want about subs and our affect on the world.

There is no doubt that we have the most powerful Navy in the history of mankind. The question is....do we need it?

Do we need 11 Carrier task forces?, do we need all the SSBNs that have never fired a shot? Do we need the cruisers?

It has been 65 years since our last serious Naval engagement, is the threat there to justify maintaining such a massive Navy?

If we didn't have a Navy then the Chinese, North Koreans, and Russians will always be just a few miles off our coast.

Although I am sure the prospect of your fellow Marxists being so close doesn't give you pause, the rest of us feel differently.

Where did I state we should cut the whole Navy?

Do you want to list all the ships from China, N Korea and Russia that are compatible with ours? That is the threat

Then we could determine the size of a Navy we need

 

[Sheldon]

Boehner has shown support for raising the ceiling. This is from January, so I'm assuming it's still relevant unless his flipped since then.

Boehner: Failure to raise debt limit would mean ‘financial disaster’ | The Raw Story

"That would be a financial disaster," the Speaker agreed. "Not only for our country, but for the worldwide economy. Remember, the American people on election day said we want to cut spending and we want to create jobs. You can't create jobs if you default on the federal debt."

There will be enough yea votes in line for it to get raised while allowing the TP caucus to vote nay and keep their constituents happy. Calling it.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Ok, boys and girls. Everyone keeps talking about it around here, but all I'm reading are platitudes. I want specifics. You have an idea...even a small one...for a budget cut...post it in this thread.

WHEN I SAY SPECIFIC...I MEAN SPECIFIC​

Don't just say "uhm...in defense" or "we don't need an Education department"

The proper answer would be more like: "Obama also has offered $4.1 billion in funding to modernize and upgrade the U.S. nuclear arsenal...that's something that ...if it already works...needs to be cut."

Here is a place to start your research:
Budget Breakdown

Find something in there specific that you'd like to change and make an argument as to why. (Hint: you need a because in there, just sayin')

Pensions - $780B really can't touch. Although changes should be made to future pensions to reduce the cost to taxpayers.

health care - $898B: I'm sure $297B "grants to states" can be reduced or cut.

Education - $140B: All of it. Local and states can handle education.


Defense - $928B: $44B in foreign economic aid, and $10 foreign military aid. Plus at least $10B in cuts from military if not a lot more.

Welfare - $471: Cut nearly all of it. The welfare system does not work, period.

Protection(Police/Courts/Prisons)- $57B: This I don't have a problem with.

Transportation- $104: Easily cut in half $50B, states can tax for their own infrastructure.

General Government- $29B: cut at least 5B.

Other Spending - $173B: almost all of this can be cut

Thats $1.16+ Trillion to start with in cuts, and thats at first glance.

You still need to cut another 500 billion or so just to get out of the defecit in the budget and start having a suprlus .

But still, great list!

 

[Two Thumbs]

Ok, boys and girls. Everyone keeps talking about it around here, but all I'm reading are platitudes. I want specifics. You have an idea...even a small one...for a budget cut...post it in this thread.

WHEN I SAY SPECIFIC...I MEAN SPECIFIC​

Don't just say "uhm...in defense" or "we don't need an Education department"

The proper answer would be more like: "Obama also has offered $4.1 billion in funding to modernize and upgrade the U.S. nuclear arsenal...that's something that ...if it already works...needs to be cut."

Here is a place to start your research:
Budget Breakdown

Find something in there specific that you'd like to change and make an argument as to why. (Hint: you need a because in there, just sayin')

This year...ACROSS the board cuts of 5%....no exception. Then see about next year.

5% is more than the House GOP wanted.

Why do you want grandma and children to stave?

 

[theHawk]

Under the Department of Defense, I found this gem:



WTF? Improve their quality of life how? That seems like an easy $4.7BILLION savings to me!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/defense.pdf

The budget for the Department of Housing and Urban Development includes $4.5 billion for the Community Development Block Grant program, meant to promote investments to expand economic opportunities for low-income families.

I found $4.5 Billion.

Also, in the Defense budget:

Modernizes Weapon Systems. A major goal of the Administration is to provide servicemembers
with the most effective and modern equipment
possible in a cost-efficient manner. To accomplish this, the Budget requests $113 billion to continue to procure advanced weapons systems and other equipment to support both today’s wars and future conflicts. These include: upgraded armored
vehicles to better protect the troops ($593 million), the Virginia class submarine to improve the Navy’s ability to operate in coastal waters and support special operations forces ($4.7 billion),
the Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite to provide secure communications to all branches of the Armed Forces ($975 million), and the stealthy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter ($9.7 billion).The Budget also bolsters the capabilities of the key components in the ongoing effort to rebalance
the military to focus on current and emerging
threats, namely, cyber and electronic warfare, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, and helicopters.

Since we are all now about following the Constitution, and the Constitution calls for "DEFENSE", why do we need a STEALTH STRIKE FIGHTER? For defense?

Hell, that's another $9.7 BILLION, right there.

It always cracks me up how you libs scream like banshees when it comes to defense spending. You support all these other programs like welfare or government mandated "economic recovery plans" that will "create jobs" with so-called shovel ready projects, even though in reality it doesn't employ anyone for any decent amount of time except some immigrants(legal or illegal) willing to pour cement for a few months. But defense spending is a cardinal sin for you libs. Has it ever occurred to you that defense spending actually does create jobs?

Why is it you libs want to give tax money to people who can't find a job, but you don't want to pay people actually producing things for the good of the US military?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Since we are all now about following the Constitution, and the Constitution calls for "DEFENSE", why do we need a STEALTH STRIKE FIGHTER? For defense?

Because such a thing is effective in affecting the common defense.
:shrug:

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Ok, boys and girls. Everyone keeps talking about it around here, but all I'm reading are platitudes. I want specifics. You have an idea...even a small one...for a budget cut...post it in this thread.

WHEN I SAY SPECIFIC...I MEAN SPECIFIC​

Don't just say "uhm...in defense" or "we don't need an Education department"

The proper answer would be more like: "Obama also has offered $4.1 billion in funding to modernize and upgrade the U.S. nuclear arsenal...that's something that ...if it already works...needs to be cut."

Here is a place to start your research:
Budget Breakdown

Find something in there specific that you'd like to change and make an argument as to why. (Hint: you need a because in there, just sayin')

This year...ACROSS the board cuts of 5%....no exception. Then see about next year.

5% is more than the House GOP wanted.

Why do you want grandma and children to stave?

No he hates puppies