PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Bill Haher to Tea-baggers: WTF about 'Space and Defense Spending'???


Mr. Kotter
05-23-2010, 12:14 AM
VERY interesting....

If you are too lazy to watch the whole thing, just jump ahead to 4:45 and play through the end....that sums it up. Eminently well, for those who will bother. Good luck...

:hmmm:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JF_X-sTCrnU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JF_X-sTCrnU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Direckshun
05-23-2010, 12:26 AM
Hard to argue with the portion where he's wearing the hat.

Direckshun
05-23-2010, 12:26 AM
Also, glad to see Richard Clarke in the mix.

Mr. Kotter
05-23-2010, 12:35 AM
Also, glad to see Richard Clarke in the mix.

Yeah, no kidding.

I was wonderin' why tea-bagger types hadn't brought Maher into their conversation, of late.

This explains that....

Heh. LMAO

Chocolate Hog
05-23-2010, 01:38 AM
Didn't Mr Kotter like Fed Thompson? Now hes a liberal?

Mr. Kotter
05-23-2010, 01:41 AM
Didn't Mr Kotter like Fed Thompson? Now hes a liberal?

No liberal, really...just wondering where we draw the line between "necessary defense and security expenditures" and 'excessive space and defense spending...'

IMO, it ain't black and white....but Maher raises some legitimate points. Makin' tea-baggers skirm works for me...heh.

KC native
05-23-2010, 01:45 AM
Now, I enjoy space as much as the next guy and by that I mean getting high and enjoying the laser show at the planetarium. ROFL

Pitt Gorilla
05-23-2010, 01:51 AM
Didn't Mr Kotter like Fed Thompson? Now hes a liberal?I don't think Maher's point, in this case, is liberal at all. He wants to cut unnecessary spending.

Chocolate Hog
05-23-2010, 02:01 AM
My comment wasn't aout the link but I just remember a few years ago Kotter was big on Fred Thompson I wonder what happend. My views are pretty much in the line with the tea party and i've been big in cutting the defense budget. So is Rand Paul.

Mr. Kotter
05-23-2010, 02:10 AM
My comment wasn't aout the link but I just remember a few years ago Kotter was big on Fred Thompson I wonder what happend. My views are pretty much in the line with the tea party and i've been big in cutting the defense budget. So is Rand Paul.

So...you admit to being a "one-trick" pony? Okay...

Many of us are deeper/more substantive than that, but okay....

;)

Chocolate Hog
05-23-2010, 02:33 AM
So...you admit to being a "one-trick" pony? Okay...

Many of us are deeper/more substantive than that, but okay....

;)

A one trick pony how so?

I have argued aginst the military industrial complex and markets ever since i've posted on here before there was a tea party.

The Mad Crapper
05-23-2010, 08:22 AM
http://www.thegovmonitor.com/world_news/united_states/massachusetts-to-receive-1-5-million-nasa-summer-of-innovation-grant-30646.html

patteeu
05-23-2010, 10:42 AM
Didn't Mr Kotter like Fed Thompson? Now hes a liberal?

He liked Fred Thompson because he was a fan of his Law & Order character. Now he likes Barack Obama because he thinks it's kind of neat to have a POTUS who can sink a 3-point jumpshot. Bill Maher caught his attention because of the quip about using submarines to protect our ships from car bombs. It's really not much more complicated than that with Mr. Kotter.

And back on topic: Spending cuts should be focused first on rolling back the Obama spending spree and getting a grip on the entitlement problem. Defense spending as a fraction of GDP has dropped dramatically over the past few decades while entitlement spending has skyrocketed. Only a moron would be fascinated first and foremost with defense spending cuts while we're in the midst of a global war and while we see signs every day of the world becoming more and more dangerous, not safer. Defense priorities should constantly be reviewed for relevance to our ever changing defense mission, but the defense budget shouldn't be seen as a piggy bank from which funding for damaging social programs and other wasteful spending can be drawn.

Mr. Kotter
05-23-2010, 11:59 AM
He liked Fred Thompson because he was a fan of his Law & Order character. Now he likes Barack Obama because he thinks it's kind of neat to have a POTUS who can sink a 3-point jumpshot. Bill Maher caught his attention because of the quip about using submarines to protect our ships from car bombs. It's really not much more complicated than that with Mr. Kotter.

And back on topic: Spending cuts should be focused first on rolling back the Obama spending spree and getting a grip on the entitlement problem. Defense spending as a fraction of GDP has dropped dramatically over the past few decades while entitlement spending has skyrocketed. Only a moron would be fascinated first and foremost with defense spending cuts while we're in the midst of a global war and while we see signs every day of the world becoming more and more dangerous, not safer. Defense priorities should constantly be reviewed for relevance to our ever changing defense mission, but the defense budget shouldn't be seen as a piggy bank from which funding for damaging social programs and other wasteful spending can be drawn.

God, it must really suck being you. Such wasted potential; turned into a bitter, curmudgeony, and angry bully who spends so much time and energy berating and insulting folks on-line with whom he disagrees. Nice. Kinda like the bright smart-alecky and delinquent students I see every year, some of whom grow out of it and some of whom don't. It's cool to see those kids later in life--when they have grown out of it. Guess you didn't--or are choosing not to grow out of it. It's sad, really.

Seek help, patty. Best wishes to you and yours.

Taco John
05-23-2010, 12:15 PM
So...you admit to being a "one-trick" pony? Okay...

Many of us are deeper/more substantive than that, but okay....

;)



What do you mean "us?" You're about the shallowest poster on this forum. To know where Kotter stands on any issue, simply check who is president.

Taco John
05-23-2010, 12:17 PM
God, it must really suck being you. Such wasted potential; turned into a bitter, curmudgeony, and angry bully who spends so much time and energy berating and insulting folks on-line with whom he disagrees. Nice. Kinda like the bright smart-alecky and delinquent students I see every year, some of whom grow out of it and some of whom don't. It's cool to see those kids later in life--when they have grown out of it. Guess you didn't--or are choosing not to grow out of it. It's sad, really.

Seek help, patty. Best wishes to you and yours.



Just because patteeu owns you all the time, doesn't make him a bully. You only perceive him as a bully because you're not equipped to debate with him.

Mr. Kotter
05-23-2010, 12:18 PM
What do you mean "us?" You're about the shallowest poster on this forum. To know where Kotter stands on any issue, simply check who is president.

Wrong again. But what's new, eh? :rolleyes:

Hey, TJ....Rockwell just published something shiny and irrelevant again! Better get out the tissue box and hand lotion...

:)

Mr. Kotter
05-23-2010, 12:23 PM
Just because patteeu owns you all the time, doesn't make him a bully. You only perceive him as a bully because you're not equipped to debate with him.

You still can't tell the difference between substance and demagoguery. Well, the good news is you aren't alone; the bad news is it's mostly just other teabagger types and talk radio groupies that you are in the company of....but, hey, everyone needs someplace to belong, Isaac. Heh.

Oh, hey...there was an article on Ayn Rand in the LA Times last week. Keep that lotion and kleenex handy there, fella--as you and patty masturbate each other.

Taco John
05-23-2010, 12:26 PM
Being insulted by the forum lightweight is always a treat.

Mr. Kotter
05-23-2010, 12:30 PM
Being insulted by the forum lightweight is always amusing.

You are clearly speaking from a postion of experience....I might even be mildly insulted, if it came from anyone else other than the handful of lamebrains with whom you tend to hang with here.

Baby Lee
05-23-2010, 01:06 PM
So...you admit to being a "one-trick" pony? Okay...

Many of us are deeper/more substantive than that, but okay....

;)

Regarding who is and isn't deep and substantive around here, I'd reckon it's NOT the guy who spends months contributing NOTHING but endless variations on

'ignore him he's a bitter moonbat extremist'

in EVERY thread and on EVERY subject.

Oh, and if you want to be all clever and put " " around your appellation, put it around ALL the relevant terms in the appellation. The way you did it here suggests you intend to differentiate the type of pony billay is, from all other types of ponies

Mr. Kotter
05-23-2010, 01:27 PM
Regarding who is and isn't deep and substantive around here, I'd reckon it's NOT the guy who spends months contributing NOTHING but endless variations on

'ignore him he's a bitter moonbat extremist'

in EVERY thread and on EVERY subject.

Oh, and if you want to be all clever and put " " around your appellation, put it around ALL the relevant terms in the appellation. The way you did it here suggests you intend to differentiate the type of pony billay is, from all other types of ponies

I've told you a million times by now...stop exaggerating.

It's not EVERY thread and EVERY subject--just the ones in which I know those who are participating have no intentions of "real" debate. As you well know by now, "real" debate is pretty rare here anymore....which is why I don't really waste my time much with it anymore. I prefer the entertainment-amusement-time-killing angle of this place most of the time these days, though on rare occasions I am pleasantly surprised.

FWIW, I also intended the appellation precisely as you took it. The ponies I was thinking of are usually led around a ring by a trainer--giving rides for amusement. :)

mlyonsd
05-23-2010, 02:03 PM
Why is Maher talking to the Tea Party? Don't the dems control the WH and both houses of congress?

I wonder why the idiotic far left doesn't ask that question?

The Mad Crapper
05-23-2010, 02:09 PM
Regarding who is and isn't deep and substantive around here, I'd reckon it's NOT the guy who spends months contributing NOTHING but endless variations on

'ignore him he's a bitter moonbat extremist'

in EVERY thread and on EVERY subject.

Oh, and if you want to be all clever and put " " around your appellation, put it around ALL the relevant terms in the appellation. The way you did it here suggests you intend to differentiate the type of pony billay is, from all other types of ponies

Kotter thinks Bill Maher is a deep thinker.

Nuff said?

The Mad Crapper
05-23-2010, 02:12 PM
He liked Fred Thompson because he was a fan of his Law & Order character. Now he likes Barack Obama because he thinks it's kind of neat to have a POTUS who can sink a 3-point jumpshot. Bill Maher caught his attention because of the quip about using submarines to protect our ships from car bombs. It's really not much more complicated than that with Mr. Kotter.

We all can't be teacher of the year.

ROFL

Mr. Kotter
05-23-2010, 02:30 PM
We all can't be teacher of the year.

ROFL

Yeah, some of us would rather be unemployed dipshit of the year, right? :)

The Mad Crapper
05-23-2010, 02:36 PM
Yeah, some of us would rather be unemployed dipshit of the year, right? :)

Like all of your former students?

Dave Lane
05-23-2010, 02:50 PM
Well he hit the nail on the head. Enough with this defense crap. I wish the idea I submitted to the Clinton Administration years ago would come true. Put every agency head on commission. He gets .00001% of anything he cuts out of the budget. Save 10 billion dollars in your agency get a bonus check for $100,000. save a $100 billion get a million dollar check. You'd see a balanced budget in a few years for sure. :)

The Mad Crapper
05-23-2010, 03:06 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/22/MNMI1DJ37E.DTL

ROFL

go bowe
05-23-2010, 03:34 PM
Why is Maher talking to the Tea Party? Don't the dems control the WH and both houses of congress?

I wonder why the idiotic far left doesn't ask that question?because they're idiots?

BucEyedPea
05-23-2010, 04:45 PM
This Tea Bagger agrees with Maher on the defense spending and on us being an empire.
I think that's a big generality he's relying on.

BigChiefFan
05-23-2010, 05:28 PM
Smaller government would mean less expense. WTF is Maher talking about? Of course, the grass roots movement wants less defense.

VAChief
05-23-2010, 05:36 PM
This Tea Bagger agrees with Maher on the defense spending and on us being an empire.
I think that's a big generality he's relying on.

That is always an issue when one paints with a broad stroke. I saw that episode and I thought it really wasn't fair to those who are truly interested in less government.

Baby Lee
05-23-2010, 06:12 PM
Smaller government would mean less expense. WTF is Maher talking about? Of course, the grass roots movement wants less defense.

Your Bushbot ways don't rule the roost anymore, go back to pounding your pud to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh!!! Profound-town is back around!!

;)

mlyonsd
05-23-2010, 08:09 PM
because they're idiots?
The correct answer is the left is searching for some way to marginalize the tea party. They realize the movement isnt a fad and is a threat to their grand plan of socializing as much as they can while in power.

Saul Good
05-23-2010, 08:13 PM
I'm a tea-party sympathizer, and I agree that we should stop wasteful military spending. I don't think Bill has a very good grasp of what these people are all about.

Speaking to his analogy of "tax cuts:deficit reduction as handjobs:cleaning my garage", I'd just like to say that, in both cases, I'd be worth giving it a try. You worry about cutting my taxes and giving me a handjob, and I'll take my chances with the deficit and the cleanliness of my garage.

mlyonsd
05-23-2010, 08:29 PM
Maybe Maher's thinking is if we let Obama continue to drive us to third world status we can afford to cut military spending since nobody will want anything we have.

I'm pretty sure the president of mexico is banking on it.

BigChiefFan
05-23-2010, 08:58 PM
Maybe Maher's thinking is if we let Obama continue to drive us to third world status we can afford to cut military spending since nobody will want anything we have.

I'm pretty sure the president of mexico is banking on it.

The problem is the neo-cons have painted us into a corner by being at war. It's not going to be real popular slashing funds on the troops. That will be the perception.

Chiefshrink
05-23-2010, 09:08 PM
Now, I enjoy space as much as the next guy and by that I mean getting high and enjoying the laser show at the planetarium. ROFL

You had one bad trip and never recovered. Now I know why:rolleyes:

Chiefshrink
05-23-2010, 09:32 PM
Well the first 10min of the first Iron Man I really loved because I really believe in the strength=peace formula but I get the Libertarian/Dem argument against it but I respectfully disagree.

We used to speak softly and carry a big stick(yes I know Teddy the Progressive) but now it appears it is just the opposite with "O". All talk and no do and the rest of the world is taking notice and taking advantage.

petegz28
05-23-2010, 09:35 PM
Well the first 10min of the first Iron Man I really loved because I really believe in the strength=peace formula but I get the Libertarian/Dem argument against it but I respectfully disagree.

We used to speak softly and carry a big stick(yes I know Teddy the Progressive) but now it appears it is just the opposite with "O". All talk and no do and the rest of the world is taking notice and taking advantage.

That's because liberal dems think everyone else in the world thinks like they do. How could someone attack us if we had a weak military? Why on earth would anyone ever want to do such a thing????

My brother falls into this category. And I always remind him why the bigger and more muscular kids in school never got ****ed with. He has a hard time arguing that one.

and FTR, my .02 on it is, it's not the size of your military, it's how you use it.

Direckshun
05-23-2010, 09:40 PM
I always remind him why the bigger and more muscular kids in school never got ****ed with. He has a hard time arguing that one.

I don't want to speak for your brother, but I typically don't like to craft defense policy around what goes on at playgrounds.

petegz28
05-23-2010, 09:45 PM
I don't want to speak for your brother, but I typically don't like to craft defense policy around what goes on at playgrounds.

Why not? It's a sound theory. If you fuck with someone bigger and stronger than you then you are most likely going to get your ass kicked.

Direckshun
05-23-2010, 09:52 PM
Why not? It's a sound theory. If you **** with someone bigger and stronger than you then you are most likely going to get your ass kicked.

Because, believe it or not, playground behavior doesn't translate to international relations.

We're plenty big and bad militarily, but we've pretty much been enduring attacks, domestic and foreign, constantly for decades. On American soil. On foreign soil. People attack our allies. People attack our embassies. People attack the land that we're occupying. They attack our ships at sea. They attack our troops. They attack our unarmed, harmless civilians who are simply visiting other lands on earth.

Ever since we've become a superpower, this has been business as usual for modern American history. And all this despite a massive, expensive military that costs more than every other military on earth combined. And yet we get attacked more than a vast majority of countries on earth.

petegz28
05-23-2010, 09:59 PM
Because, believe it or not, playground behavior doesn't translate to international relations.

We're plenty big and bad militarily, but we've pretty much been enduring attacks, domestic and foreign, constantly for decades. On American soil. On foreign soil. People attack our allies. People attack our embassies. People attack the land that we're occupying. They attack our ships at sea. They attack our troops. They attack our unarmed, harmless civilians who are simply visiting other lands on earth.

Ever since we've become a superpower, this has been business as usual for modern American history. And all this despite a massive, expensive military that costs more than every other military on earth combined. And yet we get attacked more than a vast majority of countries on earth.

Thus my stating that it's not the size of your military but how you use it. Just because we don't fight back or fight with one hand tied behind our back when we do fight is not the fault of the military or the size of it. It's the people who control it.

The prevailing message from our leaders to our troops is "here is a rifle, we have trained you to use it. Now, you can't use it until someone shoots at you first. Then, if you're still alive and able, you can fight back".

Direckshun
05-23-2010, 10:03 PM
Thus my stating that it's not the size of your military but how you use it. Just because we don't fight back or fight with one hand tied behind our back when we do fight is not the fault of the military or the size of it. It's the people who control it.

That's fair. But it's also a diplomatic issue, not just a military issue. I'd actually say it's more of a diplomatic issue than anything else.

The prevailing message from our leaders to our troops is "here is a rifle, we have trained you to use it. Now, you can't use it until someone shoots at you first. Then, if you're still alive and able, you can fight back".

I don't actually think that this is what we do...

petegz28
05-23-2010, 10:18 PM
That's fair. But it's also a diplomatic issue, not just a military issue. I'd actually say it's more of a diplomatic issue than anything else.



I don't actually think that this is what we do...

I will answer those in reverse. Yes, that is what we do. Going back to Vietnam. Our troops pretty much have to call in authorization before they start to fire. Or wait until they are fired upon.

Secondly, diplomacy only goes as far as the muscle to back it up. Or the spinlessness of the diplomat. Look at Iran and North Korea. Two examples of spineless diplomacy. It takes two to tango when it comes to being diplomatic. We tried diplomacy Clinton style with North Korea and they fucked him over and smiled while they did it. Obama is trying diplomacy now with Iran and they are doing the same nose-thumbing to him.

This is exactly why I supported invadind Iraq. Not because of the WMD crap, but because we went to the UN what, 17 times? There comes a time when you have to make good on our word or diplomacy is just lip service that achieves nothing.

Like right now, severe sanctions need to be put on North Korea after what they did. If they choose to go to war then that is what it will take I guess, unfortunately. Otherwise it will happen again and again and again.

In other words, you can do all the talking you want, but at some point you better be ready to lay down your cards.

dirk digler
05-23-2010, 10:23 PM
I like Bill Maher but this isn't surprising. Tea Party members are almost all pro-military and they also support keeping SS and Medicare.

petegz28
05-23-2010, 10:29 PM
I like Bill Maher but this isn't surprising. Tea Party members are almost all pro-military and they also support keeping SS and Medicare.

I support SS and Medicare. I don't support though where it has gone, and how it has been managed. They are really nothing more than slush funds that minimaly perform the function they were supposed too due to political greed.

Direckshun
05-23-2010, 10:33 PM
I will answer those in reverse. Yes, that is what we do. Going back to Vietnam. Our troops pretty much have to call in authorization before they start to fire. Or wait until they are fired upon.

Secondly, diplomacy only goes as far as the muscle to back it up. Or the spinlessness of the diplomat. Look at Iran and North Korea. Two examples of spineless diplomacy. It takes two to tango when it comes to being diplomatic. We tried diplomacy Clinton style with North Korea and they ****ed him over and smiled while they did it. Obama is trying diplomacy now with Iran and they are doing the same nose-thumbing to him.

This is exactly why I supported invadind Iraq. Not because of the WMD crap, but because we went to the UN what, 17 times? There comes a time when you have to make good on our word or diplomacy is just lip service that achieves nothing.

Like right now, severe sanctions need to be put on North Korea after what they did. If they choose to go to war then that is what it will take I guess, unfortunately. Otherwise it will happen again and again and again.

In other words, you can do all the talking you want, but at some point you better be ready to lay down your cards.

What exactly do you suggest we do in your Vietnam example? Allow soldiers to shoot without authorization? Because that actually creates a backlash once there's an inevitable increase in civilian casualties. And guess what -- we get attacked by even more people when that happens.

Trust the military a little bit. Those rules that we have in place exist for good reasons, and it's so we don't light up civilian populations any more than we already do, turning even more of the populations we're occupying against us. So let's be sensible.

Anyway, diplomacy is not inherently tied to muscle. It's tied to trade.

Sometimes, and this is a very rare sometimes, it's tied to muscle. But only when (1.) all of our economic sticks & carrots are no longer working, and (2.) a "muscle" solution would be worth the effort.

That's why, in certain circumstances like Iran and North Korea, you're simply at the mercy of Crazy. Because while we've exhausted all our economic sticks & carrots, Iraq and Afghanistan (and nearly all of modern military history) have proven that occupying and rebuilding entire nations to erase a threat is incredibly messy, incredibly expensive, and offers only the slightest chance that what you're going to set up is an improvement over what you've replaced, and will be worth the collateral damage.

That's why there's really not much we can do about North Korea and Iran, among others. We do the best we can to bear some influence, but short of really stupid occupations with no guaranteed improvement, there's not much we can do.

Diplomacy isn't about coercing with force. It's almost always about trade.

BigChiefFan
05-23-2010, 10:34 PM
I'd like to see SS and Medicaid phased out, especially SS. Both are just more in a long line of taxes that people would be better off never having to pay into and keeping their money for their own retirement and health.

dirk digler
05-23-2010, 10:43 PM
I support SS and Medicare. I don't support though where it has gone, and how it has been managed. They are really nothing more than slush funds that minimaly perform the function they were supposed too due to political greed.

I would agree that both need meaningful reform but so does the defense budget. The defense Dept waste more money than probably all other agencies combined.

dirk digler
05-23-2010, 10:51 PM
Here is a good breakdown and something even I can understand. And for pat we have increased Defense Spending\GDP from 3.9 in 1999 to over 6% going into this year. By 2014 it is going to go back down to 4.6%

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_piecol.php?title=Federal%20Expenditure:%20$3,721%20bn&year=2010&sname=United_States&size=s&units=&label=Defense_Health_Pensions_Welfare_Remainder&fed=894.972_829.495_774.272_557.289_664.672

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7a/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png/800px-U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

petegz28
05-23-2010, 11:01 PM
What exactly do you suggest we do in your Vietnam example? Allow soldiers to shoot without authorization? Because that actually creates a backlash once there's an inevitable increase in civilian casualties. And guess what -- we get attacked by even more people when that happens.

Trust the military a little bit. Those rules that we have in place exist for good reasons, and it's so we don't light up civilian populations any more than we already do, turning even more of the populations we're occupying against us. So let's be sensible.

Anyway, diplomacy is not inherently tied to muscle. It's tied to trade.

Sometimes, and this is a very rare sometimes, it's tied to muscle. But only when (1.) all of our economic sticks & carrots are no longer working, and (2.) a "muscle" solution would be worth the effort.

That's why, in certain circumstances like Iran and North Korea, you're simply at the mercy of Crazy. Because while we've exhausted all our economic sticks & carrots, Iraq and Afghanistan (and nearly all of modern military history) have proven that occupying and rebuilding entire nations to erase a threat is incredibly messy, incredibly expensive, and offers only the slightest chance that what you're going to set up is an improvement over what you've replaced, and will be worth the collateral damage.

That's why there's really not much we can do about North Korea and Iran, among others. We do the best we can to bear some influence, but short of really stupid occupations with no guaranteed improvement, there's not much we can do.

Diplomacy isn't about coercing with force. It's almost always about trade.

Son, the military didn't enact that rule. Congress did. And when countries start a war because you won't trade with them or restrict their trade, then what? Hello? WWII ring a bell? Japan, Pearl Harbor? Any of that coming into focus?

And as much as I hate to say it, civilian casualties are part of war. And the problem is you seem to subscribe to the same method that a bunch of idiotic politicans that think they know how to fight a war do.

I'll give you a REAL example. A helicopter gunship in Iraq followed a truck with insurgents in it out into the desert in the middle of the night. The truck met up with another vehicle. 3 men got out and were talking. We took them out. The pilots were suspended because, although they were insurgents, they didn't pose a threat "at the time". That's how you loose a war. You think civilians didn't die when we bombed Japan or carpet bombed Germany??

You, my friend want to fight a politicaly correct war. And there is no way to win such.

petegz28
05-23-2010, 11:02 PM
I would agree that both need meaningful reform but so does the defense budget. The defense Dept waste more money than probably all other agencies combined.

Well, I hate to state the obvious but defending this country is pretty much the #1 responsibility of our Fed Gov. Not ensuring every John and Jane retire with a plush home and Caddy in the drive.

Mr. Kotter
05-23-2010, 11:37 PM
I like Bill Maher but this isn't surprising. Tea Party members are almost all pro-military and they also support keeping SS and Medicare.

THIS.

Mr. Kotter
05-23-2010, 11:39 PM
I'd like to see SS and Medicaid phased out, especially SS. Both are just more in a long line of taxes that people would be better off never having to pay into and keeping their money for their own retirement and health.

With one VERY important caveat: that once the money is put into their "own retirement and health" that it can never, EVER, be removed for "other" reasons. No exceptions. Period.

ClevelandBronco
05-23-2010, 11:40 PM
Here is a good breakdown and something even I can understand. And for pat we have increased Defense Spending\GDP from 3.9 in 1999 to over 6% going into this year. By 2014 it is going to go back down to 4.6%

Now if we could just cut social spending by the same 25% or so, we'd be back on course.

petegz28
05-23-2010, 11:57 PM
With one VERY important caveat: that once the money is put into their "own retirement and health" that it can never, EVER, be removed for "other" reasons. No exceptions. Period.

You mean privatised SS? What Bush wanted???? :eek:

Mr. Kotter
05-24-2010, 12:25 AM
You mean privatised SS? What Bush wanted???? :eek:

I was, and am, fine with trying that. Remember, I'm the pragmatist; others on here are the ideologues, and talk-radio groupies.

:)

Direckshun
05-24-2010, 12:43 AM
Son, the military didn't enact that rule. Congress did. And when countries start a war because you won't trade with them or restrict their trade, then what? Hello? WWII ring a bell? Japan, Pearl Harbor? Any of that coming into focus?

And as much as I hate to say it, civilian casualties are part of war. And the problem is you seem to subscribe to the same method that a bunch of idiotic politicans that think they know how to fight a war do.

I'll give you a REAL example. A helicopter gunship in Iraq followed a truck with insurgents in it out into the desert in the middle of the night. The truck met up with another vehicle. 3 men got out and were talking. We took them out. The pilots were suspended because, although they were insurgents, they didn't pose a threat "at the time". That's how you loose a war. You think civilians didn't die when we bombed Japan or carpet bombed Germany??

You, my friend want to fight a politicaly correct war. And there is no way to win such.

I have absolutely no idea what a politically correct war is. I really don't.

A war where we try to minimize civilian casualties by granting the responsibility of strike authorization to elite professionals rather than any 18-year-old with a gun? Because the more civilians you take out, the more hostile you make the land you're occupying, thereby making them completely uncooperative, or outright hostile?

Because that's common sense. That's not anything out of the mainstream of how wars should be fought.

Direckshun
05-24-2010, 12:44 AM
Well, I hate to state the obvious but defending this country is pretty much the #1 responsibility of our Fed Gov. Not ensuring every John and Jane retire with a plush home and Caddy in the drive.

#1 responsibility of the federal government is to protect our Constitution.

GoHuge
05-24-2010, 01:23 AM
In times of a huge federal deficit whether it was brought on by Bush or setup by Clinton and Bush was the fall guy or whatever sometimes taxes being raised would help the greater good of the country. Everyone wants to bring down the deficit and balance the budget. Throughout this entire thread everyone has talked about what we should cut down on or phase out, but a very simple solution is to increase revenue which in government terms means raising taxes. I'm not talking about alot either. Maybe 1-2% per household or citizen.

I'll try to give an example of how most people in this country want to reduce the deficit and balance the budget, but put it in the context of a private business. Of course first and foremost start making better decisions, but with everyone looking out for themselves more so than the greater good (don't try and call me a socialist either......just making a point) the fighting ends up with a compromise being made that really accomplishes nothing. American's would advise the business owner to layoff as many employees as it takes, self off assets, run a skeleton crew with lesser equipment, take out payday loans to make payroll, and hope things take a turn for the better while staying on the same course. Why not make a real attempt at fixing the problem the easiest way possible? Find a way to bring in more revenue.

All americans want things to get better in our country just as long as it doesn't involve them contributing or sacrificing anything to making it happen. Taxes serve a purpose. We don't need all the shit we've got as Americans. There is alot of waste and excess we can do without and still firmly hold our place in the world, but we as citizens (which become the elected officials we put in office) never want to give more. We want to give less and less and hope things get better. What kind of backwards ass logic is that? It's a stupid theory, but one that almost every American is fully behind.

Who likes paying higher taxes? Well come on it's a silly question, and the answer is nobody, but as things continue to go south (regardless of which party is to blame) everyone is still wanting and looking for a way to do or pay less taxes and hope the situation works itself out in the end by scaling some programs back and hoping we keep our station as the only World Superpower in the process. At some point we might have to kick a little more into the Kitty to continue to enjoy what America is and what we want it to be in the future. It's far from crazy to ask this generation which has caused our current problems to pay more in instead of being a bunch of greedy ****s looking out for only #1 and letting the next generation inherit our mistakes.

Cut out the stupid programs like trying to get back to the Moon and then to Mars (which acomplishes nothing other than wasting money saying we got there first) and scale back the ones that accomplish their objective ten times more than is necesary. There isn't a country in the world that could hang with the United States in a non-nuclear convential war and it's not even remotely close. I love all of our kickass military equipment and I'm for responsible advancement in military technology, but an example of stupid military spending.......the F-15 which has never once been defeated in battle yet we decide to build 187 F-22's (was going to be more). In military testing one F-22 can take out 8 F-15's. See my point? Our main enemy is a group of religious zealots that live as though it is the 14th century, but have some modern weaponary. Focus our military spending and advancements on how to better the fight against the only people that are actually thinking about or trying to attack us. The $120,000,000 stealth fighter planes haven't helped equip our military to deal with our current threat. It just put us further in the hole. We've got to start changing this countries thought process. Sorry for the long rant.

BucEyedPea
05-24-2010, 03:57 AM
In times of a huge federal deficit whether it was brought on by Bush or setup by Clinton and Bush was the fall guy or whatever sometimes taxes being raised would help the greater good of the country.
Raising taxes is NEVER the greater good for the country, because every tax increase is followed by more spending by the politicians. Time to cut spending because govt is too big and is crushing the people. No more what's good for the state is good for the people. We know the oppression that leads to based on history: socialism, communism, fascism, totalitarianism.

BucEyedPea
05-24-2010, 03:59 AM
#1 responsibility of the federal government is to protect our Constitution.

ROFL You're a trip. The Constitution protects the PEOPLE from the Federal govt—the biggest usurper of rights.
That the federal govt protects a piece of paper is laughable.

BucEyedPea
05-24-2010, 04:01 AM
Here is a good breakdown and something even I can understand. And for pat we have increased Defense Spending\GDP from 3.9 in 1999 to over 6% going into this year. By 2014 it is going to go back down to 4.6%

Plus there was off the budget spending on the current wars too.

patteeu
05-24-2010, 06:46 AM
That's fair. But it's also a diplomatic issue, not just a military issue. I'd actually say it's more of a diplomatic issue than anything else.



I don't actually think that this is what we do...

Our diplomacy would be far less effective if we didn't have the world's most powerful military behind it. Of course, with Obama in the White House, it's been pretty ineffective anyway.

patteeu
05-24-2010, 06:54 AM
Here is a good breakdown and something even I can understand. And for pat we have increased Defense Spending\GDP from 3.9 in 1999 to over 6% going into this year. By 2014 it is going to go back down to 4.6%

Your year-to-year fluctuations have little to do with what I was talking about. I was talking about a decades long trend. Here's what it looks like over the long run:

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size-graph.php?meas=GDP

Not that long ago, military spending as a portion of our budget was close to 50%. Your data shows that it's now 24%. What's been eating up the pieces of the pie that used to go to the military? Entitlements (and to a lesser extent, interest on the debt). The spending problem is entitlements (and it's going to get worse), not military.

dirk digler
05-24-2010, 07:12 AM
Well, I hate to state the obvious but defending this country is pretty much the #1 responsibility of our Fed Gov. Not ensuring every John and Jane retire with a plush home and Caddy in the drive.

Totally agree about spending money to defend this country but the defense dept. does waste a ton of money.

Totally disagree that SS guarantees retirees with a plush home and a Caddy. You can barely survive only on SS.

dirk digler
05-24-2010, 07:23 AM
Your year-to-year fluctuations have little to do with what I was talking about. I was talking about a decades long trend. Here's what it looks like over the long run:

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size-graph.php?meas=GDP

Not that long ago, military spending as a portion of our budget was close to 50%. Your data shows that it's now 24%. What's been eating up the pieces of the pie that used to go to the military? Entitlements (and to a lesser extent, interest on the debt). The spending problem is entitlements (and it's going to get worse), not military.

Of course Pat, just looking at the graph easily tells you that during WWII that was when it exploded then went up again for Korea and then Vietnam. There is no question that for example Medicare Fraud which is estimated as high as $61 billion dollars is a huge problem and so is funding out dated military equipment to the tune of billions of dollars. Heck the Defense Department can't account for $2.3 trillion dollars

morphius
05-24-2010, 09:08 AM
ROFL You're a trip. The Constitution protects the PEOPLE from the Federal govt—the biggest usurper of rights.
That the federal govt protects a piece of paper is laughable.
Yup, it's the peoples job to protect the Constitution, it is the Gov't job to protect the people.

banyon
05-24-2010, 09:22 AM
Your year-to-year fluctuations have little to do with what I was talking about. I was talking about a decades long trend. Here's what it looks like over the long run:

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size-graph.php?meas=GDP

Not that long ago, military spending as a portion of our budget was close to 50%. Your data shows that it's now 24%. What's been eating up the pieces of the pie that used to go to the military? Entitlements (and to a lesser extent, interest on the debt). The spending problem is entitlements (and it's going to get worse), not military.

Your graph covers the entire period of the Cold War. Shouldn't we have gotten a little observable spending reduction after that?

Mr. Kotter
05-24-2010, 09:35 AM
Your graph covers the entire period of the Cold War. Shouldn't we have gotten a little observable spending reduction after that?

One would think... :shrug:

I mean, maintaining a world class military and fighting the war on terror are certainly very important....but that ain't the same as living under the MAD doctrine during the height of arms race OR choosing to "double-down" on the Soviets and outspend them--thus forcing them into bankruptcy.

If we won the Cold War...don't we, now, get to enjoy the spoils of that? Or perhaps it's just, as Bill says, it's all about keeping the military industrial complex churning and employed...heck, even Eisenhower understood the folly of that--50 years ago...

:hmmm:

The Mad Crapper
05-24-2010, 09:36 AM
Saffron for Burma!

LOL

morphius
05-24-2010, 09:37 AM
Your graph covers the entire period of the Cold War. Shouldn't we have gotten a little observable spending reduction after that?
Well, we have had a nice history of Congressman fighting to keep things going, that the military doesn't even want, to save jobs in their districts. I'm sure the requirements for smart weapons hasn't helped the price much either.

petegz28
05-24-2010, 09:37 AM
#1 responsibility of the federal government is to protect our Constitution.

Wrong again.

The Mad Crapper
05-24-2010, 09:40 AM
#1 responsibility of the federal government is to protect our Constitution.

Did you know the US Constitution states that:

ďAll political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it"?

ROFL

patteeu
05-24-2010, 09:44 AM
Of course Pat, just looking at the graph easily tells you that during WWII that was when it exploded then went up again for Korea and then Vietnam. There is no question that for example Medicare Fraud which is estimated as high as $61 billion dollars is a huge problem and so is funding out dated military equipment to the tune of billions of dollars. Heck the Defense Department can't account for $2.3 trillion dollars

No one here objects to cutting real waste from any part of the budget, including the defense budget, but the explosive expansion in spending has NOT been defense spending.

If I had been creating this graph on my own instead of cutting and pasting, I would have left the WWII spike out of it because that spike distracts us from the persistant DECLINING trend we've been experiencing over the past 50+years! Defense spending isn't the reason we've got budget problems, our rapidly growing social welfare state is.

patteeu
05-24-2010, 09:49 AM
Your graph covers the entire period of the Cold War. Shouldn't we have gotten a little observable spending reduction after that?

1) We did. It just doesn't appear to be very dramatic because the WWII spike sets the vertical axis scale.

2) We shouldn't see too much decline in spending due to the end of the cold war because, as we've learned, the world remains a dangerous place.

petegz28
05-24-2010, 09:51 AM
WTF, people? We are in Cold War 2.0. Wake the fuck up!

dirk digler
05-24-2010, 09:52 AM
Well, we have had a nice history of Congressman fighting to keep things going, that the military doesn't even want, to save jobs in their districts. I'm sure the requirements for smart weapons hasn't helped the price much either.

Yep that pretty much nails it.

patteeu
05-24-2010, 09:58 AM
One would think... :shrug:

I mean, maintaining a world class military and fighting the war on terror are certainly very important....but that ain't the same as living under the MAD doctrine during the height of arms race OR choosing to "double-down" on the Soviets and outspend them--thus forcing them into bankruptcy.

If we won the Cold War...don't we, now, get to enjoy the spoils of that? Or perhaps it's just, as Bill says, it's all about keeping the military industrial complex churning and employed...heck, even Eisenhower understood the folly of that--50 years ago...

:hmmm:

1) MAD was a cheap strategy (nukes are cheaper than massive conventional forces) and with countries like Russia and China maintaining large nuclear arsenals we can't really afford to beat our deterrent into plowshares anyway.

2) We enjoyed the "peace dividend" already. In fact, maybe we enjoyed it too much. As a result of the Bush I & Clinton relaxations in defense spending, Don Rumsfeld was left to go to war with the military he had rather than the one he'd have liked to have. Unarmored Humvees were one example of your enjoyment of a peace dividend.

Chiefshrink
05-24-2010, 11:13 AM
Son, the military didn't enact that rule. Congress did. And when countries start a war because you won't trade with them or restrict their trade, then what? Hello? WWII ring a bell? Japan, Pearl Harbor? Any of that coming into focus?

And as much as I hate to say it, civilian casualties are part of war. And the problem is you seem to subscribe to the same method that a bunch of idiotic politicans that think they know how to fight a war do.

I'll give you a REAL example. A helicopter gunship in Iraq followed a truck with insurgents in it out into the desert in the middle of the night. The truck met up with another vehicle. 3 men got out and were talking. We took them out. The pilots were suspended because, although they were insurgents, they didn't pose a threat "at the time". That's how you loose a war. You think civilians didn't die when we bombed Japan or carpet bombed Germany??

You, my friend want to fight a politicaly correct war. And there is no way to win such.

Well said. Political Correctness is the "new speak" that "handcuffs" individual liberty and freedom and the defense of it at every turn.

GoHuge
05-24-2010, 06:20 PM
Raising taxes is NEVER the greater good for the country, because every tax increase is followed by more spending by the politicians. Time to cut spending because govt is too big and is crushing the people. No more what's good for the state is good for the people. We know the oppression that leads to based on history: socialism, communism, fascism, totalitarianism.So a minimal increase in taxes becomes a slippery slope straight into socialism, communism, fascism, and totalitarianism? Yeah in a 21st century capitalist democracy a 1-2% tax increase while aggressively cutting wasteful spending leads us straight into 1930's Germany?

An ideologue never changes its stripes :rolleyes:

googlegoogle
05-24-2010, 08:20 PM
Can't believe that politically correct Cumbag is still tv.

BucEyedPea
05-24-2010, 08:34 PM
So a minimal increase in taxes becomes a slippery slope straight into socialism, communism, fascism, and totalitarianism? Yeah in a 21st century capitalist democracy a 1-2% tax increase while aggressively cutting wasteful spending leads us straight into 1930's Germany?
Capitalist democracy? ROFL

"Democracy is the road to socialism."—Karl Marx

It's not a minimal increase when you look at what's coming. It's too much govt and we don't need it all. Instead of your desire to keep jack boots on the American people, which does not make them flourish and prosper, spending needs to come down. Govt is the problem—NOT the solution.

An ideologue never changes its stripes :rolleyes:
You talkin' about yourself here?
There's nothing wrong with ideology. It's not the epithet you think it is.
It just depends on the ideology.

Mr. Kotter
05-25-2010, 04:18 PM
1) MAD was a cheap strategy (nukes are cheaper than massive conventional forces) and with countries like Russia and China maintaining large nuclear arsenals we can't really afford to beat our deterrent into plowshares anyway.

2) We enjoyed the "peace dividend" already. In fact, maybe we enjoyed it too much. As a result of the Bush I & Clinton relaxations in defense spending, Don Rumsfeld was left to go to war with the military he had rather than the one he'd have liked to have. Unarmored Humvees were one example of your enjoyment of a peace dividend.

I'll take Eisenhower's assessment over yours any day of the week...and, yes, it's every bit as applicable today just as it was then--if not even more so.

Mr. Kotter
05-26-2010, 12:15 AM
I'll take Eisenhower's assessment over yours any day of the week...and, yes, it's every bit as applicable today just as it was then--if not even more so.

Ike over patty...EASY call. :rolleyes:

LMAO

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8y06NSBBRtY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8y06NSBBRtY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

patteeu
05-26-2010, 06:51 AM
I'll take Eisenhower's assessment over yours any day of the week...and, yes, it's every bit as applicable today just as it was then--if not even more so.

There's nothing about Eisenhower's assessment and mine that are in conflict.

banyon
05-26-2010, 01:08 PM
Can't believe that politically correct Cumbag is still tv.

PC? I don't think you've ever actually watched his show. It's pretty irreverent.

Bowser
05-26-2010, 01:10 PM
Dammit, Kotter, change the H to M in the thread title!