shortsighted, irresponsible, and reckless

[g5000]

Where are all the conservatives screaming about Keynesian economics which has the government spending money at the price of stealing money from the private sector, destroying the economy in the process?

Hypocrites.

 

[emptystep]

In somewhat of an attempt to tie my latest thread together. Look at what the French have been doing in Mali. If the rebels had come down and taken the capital then what? You have a al-Qaida-linked Islamic fundamentalists in control of a country rich in natural resources. That is a very strong foothold that even if they were rooted out later you now have country of 15 million with a power vacuum. What do we do then?

There are many other countries in Africa which are on the verge of just such a fate. A little assistance would go a long way. I heard a figure I think it was 90% of the world's minerals come from Africa.

Another thread I started told how the Central Africa Republican had reached a peace agreement. Neighboring countries helped broker the peace agreement, not European or American envoys. There will be democratic elections 2016. The outcome could have come out very different.

If the African countries could start using their mineral wealth to build their nations the economic implications are tremendous. We are talking millions and millions of democratic nations with a growing wealth that would engage an enormous amount of trade for foreign goods.

We don't have to get involved in the development of Africa. China, al-Quida, and others have already started and would be quite happy if we completely ignored the region all together. That, however, is not in our national interest. If we hollow out our military we can either read about events in the news or we can ignore it altogether but we are not going to be able to do anything about it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Cuts don't "Hollow out Defense", they Hollow out Empire. Which is how the US conducts itself around the world. The US hasn't fought a war for our own "Freedom" since WWII.

Cut the Defense budget and close down 75% of the overseas bases and we'll be just fine.

Americans need to stop letting the Military Industrial Complex run our Gov't, our Economy and our Country.

SOrry, Ron Paul is a memory in Congress now. The isolationist wing of any part has taken it in the shorts. We have interests overseas. If we cut and run our enemies will just move in. I'd rather have us dictating policy than the Chinese.

 

[The Rabbi]

Where are all the conservatives screaming about Keynesian economics which has the government spending money at the price of stealing money from the private sector, destroying the economy in the process?

Hypocrites.

You haven't been paying much attention ,have you?

 

[emptystep]

I'm sorry, but I just can't buy into the weeping of someone who wants to keep spending more than we have in order to protect their pie.

Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, Cuban Missile Crisis, the nuclear arms race. Never in all that time did we have a jump in Defense spending like we saw post 9/11.

There simply is no excuse to keep raising the debt ceiling so we can borrow from China to continue that level of Defense spending.

Cutting only $49 billion a year ($487 billion over the next decade) is a joke!

Anyone who defends this bullshit is a profligate, hypocritical fiscal liberal who is a threat to our national security. They are shortsighted, irresponsible, and reckless.

I don't know how all this fits together, I think in some ways no one does, but Todd Harrison, senior fellow for Defense Budget Studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), stated that if the sequester goes into affect and stays in affect for 2014 the DoD budget will be $475.2B. That is somewhere near a half the number that graph shows. Where did that graph come from? What are they including in 'defense'?
A Look at Defense and the American Taxpayer Relief Act | C-SPAN

 

[emptystep]

I'm sorry, but I just can't buy into the weeping of someone who wants to keep spending more than we have in order to protect their pie.

Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, Cuban Missile Crisis, the nuclear arms race. Never in all that time did we have a jump in Defense spending like we saw post 9/11.

There simply is no excuse to keep raising the debt ceiling so we can borrow from China to continue that level of Defense spending.

Cutting only $49 billion a year ($487 billion over the next decade) is a joke!

Anyone who defends this bullshit is a profligate, hypocritical fiscal liberal who is a threat to our national security. They are shortsighted, irresponsible, and reckless.

I don't know how all this fits together, I think in some ways no one does, but Todd Harrison, senior fellow for Defense Budget Studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), stated that if the sequester goes into affect and stays in affect for 2014 the DoD budget will be $475.2B. That is somewhere near a half the number that graph shows. Where did that graph come from? What are they including in 'defense'?
A Look at Defense and the American Taxpayer Relief Act | C-SPAN

 

[emptystep]

Sorry about the double post. Can't multi-task this late. Hit 'back' and then posted again.

 

[WillowTree]

Cuts don't "Hollow out Defense", they Hollow out Empire. Which is how the US conducts itself around the world. The US hasn't fought a war for our own "Freedom" since WWII.

Cut the Defense budget and close down 75% of the overseas bases and we'll be just fine.

Americans need to stop letting the Military Industrial Complex run our Gov't, our Economy and our Country.

Isolationist is the way to go.

 

[emptystep]

That's defense spending in 2005 dollars.

I defy anyone to justify post 9/11 spending should have been at World War II levels. The current budget attempts to ensure spending remains higher than during the Reagan buildup, or during Korea, or during Viet Nam, and in fact remains far higher than it has ever been since WWII.

There is NO justification for keeping it at that level. This is an attempt to make emergency level spending permanent.

Anyone trying to do this is nothing less than a fiscal liberal who wants to continue to add to our national debt.

Your chart does not quite match the chart from the Senate Budget Committee.

I also included a chart with draws one line through the $475.2B level that would be the budget for 2014 that sequestration would demand. There is another line which I believe would be about the $487B the Defense Department has budgeted taking out under its own strategy.

The fact that congress and the president can't get it together just enough not to screw up our Defense Department is beyond comprehension.

 

[deltex1]

Defense Secretary Holds News Conference | C-SPAN
(there is a brief piece of the previous program at the beginning)

Another Briefing I saw on C-SPAN. This one really hit a cord however. Hearing the strain in Panette's voice is something I have not heard since stationed in Germany in 1991. That was another time military was being gutted. The pain in a commander's voice when his unit is being by forces almost as bad as any combat mission. This was another time when the president and congress decided to play politics with the men and women of the armed forces.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta

The most immediate threat to our ability to achieve our mission is fiscal uncertainty.

This department is doing its part to help confront this nations deficient problem. We have implemented in our budget plan the $487 billion in spending reductions that we were asked to do by the congress over the next decade.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey

Within months we will be less prepared. Within a year we will be unprepared. The crisis can, and must, be avoided.

Analyst: Under sequestration, furloughs for ‘virtually all’ DoD civilians | Federal Times | federaltimes.com

The Pentagon would need to furlough “virtually all” of its nearly 800,000 civilian employees for one month between March and September if mandatory federal spending cuts go into effect in March, according to a prominent defense budget analyst.
...
“You only have seven months remaining in the fiscal year to administer that cut,” he said. “By March 1, DoD will already have spent five months’ worth of the money in those accounts.”

That means DoD would have to reduce payroll expenses for the rest of the year by 15 percent, Harrison said.

“If you’re going to reduce your payroll expenses by 15 percent for the remainder of the year and you’re going to do it through furloughs, that means you have to furlough virtually every single DoD civilian for the maximum amount of time you can under the law, which is one month,” he said.

We would be completely unable to response to any threat short of continental invasion. That fact is a green light for any country opposed the the United States and can not be overemphasized. As I am putting together in another thread there are missions which we must engage in for national security and are in our national interest.

I blame both houses of congress and all parties of congress. I also blame the president for I feel his policies have become shortsighted, irresponsible, and reckless. I just hope that Hagel is not going to be the person assigned to hollow out the military.

(I tried to find a video of the simple act that the military performs every day before work. They assemble, account for every member of the unit and raise the flag. I found videos for Iwo Jima, WTC, Sandy Hook, other organizations, and other countries. This the most appropriate I could find. Perhaps one morning the members of congress should assemble outside, be accounted for, salute the raising of the flag, then they can go inside and do their job.)
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DUtO_pyx2c]Flag Raising in Afghanistan - YouTube[/ame]

Obabble doth shuck and jive.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Cuts don't "Hollow out Defense", they Hollow out Empire. Which is how the US conducts itself around the world. The US hasn't fought a war for our own "Freedom" since WWII.

Cut the Defense budget and close down 75% of the overseas bases and we'll be just fine.

Americans need to stop letting the Military Industrial Complex run our Gov't, our Economy and our Country.

Isolationist is the way to go.

False Dichotomy

 

[emptystep]

March madness.

 

[emptystep]

This talk relates to the above graphic which was taken from his last slide. I greatly encourage everyone to watch the full video. I have grab what I think says the most with the least amount of words.

Todd Harrison, senior fellow for Defense Budget Studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), held a press briefing to discuss how the American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA) alters sequestration and what it means for defense.

A Look at Defense and the American Taxpayer Relief Act | C-SPAN

It's going to create a real mess for DoD. Now to be clear I don't think this is the apocalypse. I don't really agree with a lot of the over the top rhetoric that has been coming out about this. I think it is a mess. I think it forces a lot of stupid decisions. I think it is very short sighted but it is not the end of the world. We'll survive it if it happens.

Anyone who has read my posts on this and some of the other threads probably think that I believe it is the end of the world. While in some ways I don't. Then again listening to this briefing I think the magnitude of this is being incredibly underappreciated.

If they write it in there as a gradual ramp down over time that would be a lot better for DoD. It's the abrupt cuts. The way it is written right now these cuts fall abruptly in the first year and basically grow with inflation the rest of the time. If you have a more gradual ramp down at about one to two percent decline per year that would give you significant deficit reduction and that would enable DoD to start making smart strategically informed choices about what they put in their budget request each year.

If you gradually reduce the defense budget from its level at a real rate, an inflation adjusted rate, of about 2.2% per year over the rest of the decade you will achieve the same level of deficit reduction as under these budget caps. That's a much more rational approach.

It is statements like this which I hear from multiple sources which really upsets me. It is very apparent that there is a better way to do this that not only gets the same monetary benefits but also makes the overall situation so much better. If the congress can not do this do we really need a congress? Let's just let the budget office handle the budget.

What we have coming here in the next few months I think really is madness. We're look at in late February or early March the treasury has said they're going to be running out of options to avoid breaching the debt ceiling. we could be, if congress does nothing, to increase the debt ceiling by then we could be looking at a government default. Even if it is not a government default on our debt. Even if the treasury says we are going to prioritize interest and principle payments we are still looking at a default on our government obligations. That means that the treasury, the government and the department of defense included, would have the ability to go out and spend money, the treasury would not be able to write the checks to pay the obligations that those agencies have made so that could include DoD civilians, military, contractors, they would be expecting a check in the mail deposited in their account and it just wouldn't show up. That would be true for all the non-defense parts of the budget as well social security recipients, Medicare, doctors expecting a reimbursement the checks just won't show up for about 40% of the dollars the government was suppose to pay out. If we actually go into a default situation. Obviously that is a major threat to our economy and I argue in this process that it is also a threat to our national defense. Every major war the United States has ever fought has been financed, at least in part, by borrowing and by going into a default and not being able to pay our obligations for the first time in history we would put at risk the full faith and credit of the United States government.

This is not right wing propaganda or left wing propaganda. This is math. These are the facts. Congress can decide the best course of action given these facts but these are the facts.

Next he explains the difference between the three threats. Default the government continues operating as normal, we just can't pay all the bills. Under sequestration everything gets slowed down. In a government shutdown work just stops. He then explains just how significant the three at the same time would be.

Like I stated at the beginning I would strongly encourage everyone to watch the entire briefing. Then you can decide for yourself if the world will come to an end.

 

[emptystep]

Watching Rep. Rigell on C-SPAN. He makes a lot of sense. I might not agree with half of what he says but the fact that he is saying there is for all practical purposes there is no dialog across the isle is a fundamental flaw in the current process. We can't continue like this.

 

[emptystep]

Video on page is pretty good.

Navy to operate at 2012 budget level | WAVY.com | Norfolk, Va.

The Navy has been instructed to operate at the 2012 budget level, leaving it almost $5 billion short of the funds needed for 2013.

The continuing resolution will keep the Navy at 2012 levels through March 27, which will lead to reduced ship maintenance programs, canceling most aircraft maintenance and curtailing training.

"A continuing resolution is no way to run our country," Rep. Scott Rigell (R-VA) said. "Some things that really shouldn't be funded are funded. Some things that need to be funded higher aren't really allowed to be funded."

Rigell said Congress must agree on two things if a budget is passed. He said one of those is entitlement spending cuts as well as revenues.

"Revenues have to come up," Rigell said. "We all agree that they should come up through growing our economy but they also need to come up a bit through tax reform and I've been making that case."


Rigell's Democratic colleague Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) has made a similar case. Both men are hoping to help Congress down the path to a bipartisan solution to the budget crisis.

 

[Bigfoot]

Do you think Panetta/Obama announced women in combat roles as a counter to Obama's record for employing women at the White House? I do and I think that it may cost a few lives traded for politics because it is wartime.

 

[emptystep]

Do you think Panetta/Obama announced women in combat roles as a counter to Obama's record for employing women at the White House? I do and I think that it may cost a few lives traded for politics because it is wartime.

Women volunteer for combat. Than again maybe women volunteered to work at the White House and were turned away. I would make a joke about women trained in combat and the White House but that might cross the line as acceptable statements.