GOP Pushing "Endless War on Terror"...

phobicsquirrel

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/160419-democrats-protest-gops-plans-for-permanent-war-against-taliban-al-qaeda

The specific language in the bill is found in section 1034 of H.R. 1540, which affirms that the U.S. is "engaged in an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces." It also affirms that the president has the authority to detain "certain belligerents" until the armed conflict is over.
"Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces still pose a grave threat to U.S. national security," the bill says. "The Authorization for Use of Military Force necessarily includes the authority to address the continuing and evolving threat posed by these groups."

http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/flooraction/Jan2011/hr1540.pdf - pdf of the bill

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.968: - info on Detainee Security Act of 2011

Amos_Umwhat

We're still in Germany more than 60 years after that war, why not Afghanistan? Heck, we can afford it, just print more money!

Vulchor

Money is the key Amos.....how else do you justify the exorbitant amount we spend on "defense" unless you have enemies and wars------or at least create them?

fla-gypsy

Let me see, should we keep military pressure at all times on those who hate us and are hell bent on our destruction? Hmmm, tough one huh? Nah, not hard at all, I am good with pursuing them to the ends of the damn earth to kill them first. Just saying

xmacro

Vulchor:

Money is the key Amos.....how else do you justify the exorbitant amount we spend on "defense" unless you have enemies and wars------or at least create them?

No nation that gave up it's military has ever prospered, or even survived (before someone tries to mention it, Japan is under the US umbrella - we're the only reason they can afford to reject war in their constitution). Whether you like it or not, people and nations aren't about to "get along".

We live in a violent world, full of nations that are ready to pounce and take advantage of any perceived weakness to increase their own power - if a Gov't isn't prepared to maintain a robust defense, they'll become another Lebanon, ruled over by masters who aren't afraid to use power to assert dominance.

Japan had the nerve to strike us at Pearl Harbor because they thought we were paper tigers; Al Qaeda hit us on 9/11 because they thought we wouldn't respond - weakness, real or perceived, invites aggression from people who don't care about civilian casualities or decency. Pacifism gets praise from peaceful Gov't's who avoid war as much as possible, but it invites aggression from the very lowest, very worst regimes who view force not as a last resort, but as the quickest method of obtaining power and prestige.

We don't maintain a strong military because we want war - we maintain a strong military precisely because we DON'T want war and want to dissuade anyone who thinks of starting something with the US. As the old saying goes, "If you want peace, prepare for war."

beatnic

The specific language in the bill is found in section 1034 of H.R. 1540, which affirms that the U.S. is "engaged in an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces." That would be a fact. Yes?
It also affirms that the president has the authority to detain "certain belligerents" until the armed conflict is over. Another fact? You have a problem with this?
"Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces still pose a grave threat to U.S. national security," True. A fact. Do you opine differently?
the bill says. "The Authorization for Use of Military Force necessarily includes the authority to address the continuing and evolving threat posed by these groups."Yes. True. A fact.
Exactly what is the problem here?

phobicsquirrel

xmacro:

Vulchor:

Money is the key Amos.....how else do you justify the exorbitant amount we spend on "defense" unless you have enemies and wars------or at least create them?

No nation that gave up it's military has ever prospered, or even survived (before someone tries to mention it, Japan is under the US umbrella - we're the only reason they can afford to reject war in their constitution). Whether you like it or not, people and nations aren't about to "get along".

We live in a violent world, full of nations that are ready to pounce and take advantage of any perceived weakness to increase their own power - if a Gov't isn't prepared to maintain a robust defense, they'll become another Lebanon, ruled over by masters who aren't afraid to use power to assert dominance.

Japan had the nerve to strike us at Pearl Harbor because they thought we were paper tigers; Al Qaeda hit us on 9/11 because they thought we wouldn't respond - weakness, real or perceived, invites aggression from people who don't care about civilian casualities or decency. Pacifism gets praise from peaceful Gov't's who avoid war as much as possible, but it invites aggression from the very lowest, very worst regimes who view force not as a last resort, but as the quickest method of obtaining power and prestige.

We don't maintain a strong military because we want war - we maintain a strong military precisely because we DON'T want war and want to dissuade anyone who thinks of starting something with the US. As the old saying goes, "If you want peace, prepare for war."

9-11 could have been adverted if the Bush Admin had followed through on Intel, however 3000 lives were not and are not worth the millions that have died since (whether it be us or civilians). And most if not all nations, countries that have put their military first have failed because they couldn't afford it. War is not always the answer.

A Qaeda the Taliban are both sects, groups and thus we have organizations for them, we do not need the full push of our Military. Our military is good for blowing the crap out of things, not surgical strikes. That is why we have special teams. Which is what should have been done all along. And putting a moratorium on congressional oversight to unilaterally go after who'ever may be a terrorist is just inviting our demise and bringing us even closer to less of a republic/democracy (if we are that anymore).

"if a Gov't isn't prepared to maintain a robust defense, they'll become another Lebanon, ruled over by masters who aren't afraid to use power to assert dominance."

That line makes no sense in our current system. Thanks to the overhaul of the Bush Admin our intelligence agencies are so over staffed, over saturated that it's even harder for intel to be moved and deciphered. Now Obama hasn't really done any better, most of the agencies are still around and if anything he's beefed up their roles. The military has an even greater role in our lives than before 9-11. Now thanks to the patriot act we are basically subservient to the whims of our govt.
This country spends more on its military than all of the other countries combined and then some. I'm sure we could spend less and still be on top. We are bleeding our people while keeping the MIC fat and full. And we wouldn't have as many enemies if the United States stopped pushing its nose in everyone's business. I'm surprised worse things haven't happened here, and I really do believe that it's not because we have such a good defense. If someone wanted to pull off a major attack on this country there are plenty of ways to do it, hell there's been many documentaries on it that I alone I have seen and it's really scary. The fact is, is that the defense contractors have so much of "OUR" money to blanket congress that they get all they want while we, and other people around the world suffer. It's fine for people who do not sacrifice their own lives to sound all "pro military" however those of us who have been in the "sh*t" might have a different view.

phobicsquirrel

beatnic:

The specific language in the bill is found in section 1034 of H.R. 1540, which affirms that the U.S. is "engaged in an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces." That would be a fact. Yes?
It also affirms that the president has the authority to detain "certain belligerents" until the armed conflict is over. Another fact? You have a problem with this?
"Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces still pose a grave threat to U.S. national security," True. A fact. Do you opine differently?
the bill says. "The Authorization for Use of Military Force necessarily includes the authority to address the continuing and evolving threat posed by these groups."Yes. True. A fact.
Exactly what is the problem here?

The problem is that this legislation is very generic and holds no oversight. Though one could argue that congress could stop the war right now however they won't so in reality this bill doesn't change much however it's now in a bill other than in the wind if you get my drift.

xmacro

phobicsquirrel:

9-11 could have been adverted if the Bush Admin had followed through on Intel, however 3000 lives were not and are not worth the millions that have died since (whether it be us or civilians). And most if not all nations, countries that have put their military first have failed because they couldn't afford it. War is not always the answer.

Hindsight is always 20/20. The US doesn't depend on our military to uphold our strength or to force countries into alliances through military force or domination - we're not Rome, so don't even try that argument with me. That said, we do use economic force, such as sanctions and subsidies to push our agenda around, which is perfectly ok with me since the alternative is to withdraw from world affairs, or use military force

phobicsquirrel:

A Qaeda the Taliban are both sects, groups and thus we have organizations for them, we do not need the full push of our Military. Our military is good for blowing the crap out of things, not surgical strikes. That is why we have special teams. Which is what should have been done all along. And putting a moratorium on congressional oversight to unilaterally go after who'ever may be a terrorist is just inviting our demise and bringing us even closer to less of a republic/democracy (if we are that anymore).

They may be groups, but they're international in scope. I agree with you that surgical strikes may be the better option, but that's not something we were aware of 10 years ago. Hindsight is always 20/20

Since it's founding, the US has ALWAYS given the Executive branch free reign with foreign relations. Congress has the power to declare war and the power of the purse - the Executive has always had the power to make war and decide strategy. The last thing any President needs is 565 armchair generals second-guessing him and slowing down strategy with requests for every last minute detail. Despite what the wikileaks crowd believes, secrecy is still very much needed, and when you spread something around 565 times, there's a good chance someones going to leak it.

phobicsquirrel:

--everything else--

I just don't feel like respond to the rest of your argument right now except to say it's standard liberal dogma and has been hashed over a thousand times. Maybe another time

Amos_Umwhat

xmacro:

Vulchor:

Money is the key Amos.....how else do you justify the exorbitant amount we spend on "defense" unless you have enemies and wars------or at least create them?

No nation that gave up it's military has ever prospered, or even survived (before someone tries to mention it, Japan is under the US umbrella - we're the only reason they can afford to reject war in their constitution). Whether you like it or not, people and nations aren't about to "get along".

We live in a violent world, full of nations that are ready to pounce and take advantage of any perceived weakness to increase their own power - if a Gov't isn't prepared to maintain a robust defense, they'll become another Lebanon, ruled over by masters who aren't afraid to use power to assert dominance.

Japan had the nerve to strike us at Pearl Harbor because they thought we were paper tigers; Al Qaeda hit us on 9/11 because they thought we wouldn't respond - weakness, real or perceived, invites aggression from people who don't care about civilian casualities or decency. Pacifism gets praise from peaceful Gov't's who avoid war as much as possible, but it invites aggression from the very lowest, very worst regimes who view force not as a last resort, but as the quickest method of obtaining power and prestige.

We don't maintain a strong military because we want war - we maintain a strong military precisely because we DON'T want war and want to dissuade anyone who thinks of starting something with the US. As the old saying goes, "If you want peace, prepare for war."

I must have missed something. Did someone say something about "giving up" our military? I didn't get that. I would, however, suggest that our 4% of the earths population carrying 48% of the worlds military budget might be a little lopsided, no? If we spent half of that, we'd still be spending more than twice our nearest competitor, China, also our current BFF in todays financial climate. just saying...

xmacro

We may be spending 48% of the worlds' total expenditure on military equipment and personnel, but our GDP/economy is more than 700% larger than our nearest competitor, China, and even larger compared to the rest of the world. If you cut, the cuts need to come from somewhere, and it means something needs to dropped. I'm not saying things can't be cut, but there's a limit on how deep you can cut.

beatnic

phobicsquirrel:

beatnic:

The specific language in the bill is found in section 1034 of H.R. 1540, which affirms that the U.S. is "engaged in an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces." That would be a fact. Yes?
It also affirms that the president has the authority to detain "certain belligerents" until the armed conflict is over. Another fact? You have a problem with this?
"Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces still pose a grave threat to U.S. national security," True. A fact. Do you opine differently?
the bill says. "The Authorization for Use of Military Force necessarily includes the authority to address the continuing and evolving threat posed by these groups."Yes. True. A fact.
Exactly what is the problem here?

The problem is that this legislation is very generic and holds no oversight. Though one could argue that congress could stop the war right now however they won't so in reality this bill doesn't change much however it's now in a bill other than in the wind if you get my drift.

Congressional oversight? In war? That's exactly why we give the president the permission. Could you imagine Congress convening to plan the operation that they just had? It would have taken committee meetings, press conferences, judicial hearings, ethics, you name it. and we would have needed Bin Laden's Fking permission. I'm not an Obama fan, but I wouldn't want him to lose the power to perform his commander in chief responsibilities. Hey Phobic? How would you deal with extremist Islamist terrorists? That are bent on destroying your way of life? I'm real curious.

The Sniper

phobicsquirrel:

9-11 could have been adverted if the Bush Admin had followed through on Intel, however 3000 lives were not and are not worth the millions that have died since (whether it be us or civilians).

Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, blah blah blah blah blah BLAH! We are better than TWO YEARS into the next administration. TWO YEARS. And still with the "BUSH IS THE DEVIL! ITS ALL HIS FAULT!" schtick. Its old. Its tired. We know. We heard you. The FIRST MILLION TIMES.

I personally was receiving daily intel briefings during the last year and a half of Bubba Clinton driving the bus, and I can assure you that Bush didnt invent the act of sticking his head in the sand and ignoring intel briefings where our enemies were concerned.

Im sure there are other forum members who can confirm this.

I find it odd that NOBODY is jumping up and down and screaming "USS Cole!" or "Khobar Towers!" or "US embassy rocket attacks!" anymore.

Ever wonder why that is?

I think its because things like that arent happening to US interests anymore outside of combat zones.

Ever wonder why THAT is?

Thank you to any and all military members who are serving, have served & sacrificed for our nation.

jlmarta

fla-gypsy:

Let me see, should we keep military pressure at all times on those who hate us and are hell bent on our destruction? Hmmm, tough one huh? Nah, not hard at all, I am good with pursuing them to the ends of the damn earth to kill them first. Just saying

Once again I'm with you, Gypsy! Nail the bastards to the wall! With our capabilities, there's no reason why we have to put up with this ****!

Marty

Amos_Umwhat

xmacro:

We may be spending 48% of the worlds' total expenditure on military equipment and personnel, but our GDP/economy is more than 700% larger than our nearest competitor, China, and even larger compared to the rest of the world. If you cut, the cuts need to come from somewhere, and it means something needs to dropped. I'm not saying things can't be cut, but there's a limit on how deep you can cut.

true.

jlmarta

And, Sniper, you've got it right, too. It's time the wusses, crybabies, and yes, let's say it, the liberals face up to the fact that G.W.B. had it a lot 'righter' than they'd lIke us to believe.

I'm neither Republicar nor Democrat but I gotta tell ya, the Idiot in the white house needs to find a new line of work. Community organizing comes to mind.

Marty

Heavy

The Sniper:

phobicsquirrel:

9-11 could have been adverted if the Bush Admin had followed through on Intel, however 3000 lives were not and are not worth the millions that have died since (whether it be us or civilians).

Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, blah blah blah blah blah BLAH! We are better than TWO YEARS into the next administration. TWO YEARS. And still with the "BUSH IS THE DEVIL! ITS ALL HIS FAULT!" schtick. Its old. Its tired. We know. We heard you. The FIRST MILLION TIMES.

I personally was receiving daily intel briefings during the last year and a half of Bubba Clinton driving the bus, and I can assure you that Bush didnt invent the act of sticking his head in the sand and ignoring intel briefings where our enemies were concerned.

Im sure there are other forum members who can confirm this.

I find it odd that NOBODY is jumping up and down and screaming "USS Cole!" or "Khobar Towers!" or "US embassy rocket attacks!" anymore.

Ever wonder why that is?

I think its because things like that arent happening to US interests anymore outside of combat zones.

Ever wonder why THAT is?

Thank you to any and all military members who are serving, have served & sacrificed for our nation.

+1 And you do know that Clinton had a chance to get Bin Laden but passed because there were a bunch of Yemeni nationals (or Saudi? maybe both, can't remember) with him in Afghanistan in the late 1990s. Just sayin, if you're going to play the hindsight game, you've got to play it both ways.

Vulchor

xmacro:

Vulchor:

Money is the key Amos.....how else do you justify the exorbitant amount we spend on "defense" unless you have enemies and wars------or at least create them?

No nation that gave up it's military has ever prospered, or even survived (before someone tries to mention it, Japan is under the US umbrella - we're the only reason they can afford to reject war in their constitution). Whether you like it or not, people and nations aren't about to "get along".

We live in a violent world, full of nations that are ready to pounce and take advantage of any perceived weakness to increase their own power - if a Gov't isn't prepared to maintain a robust defense, they'll become another Lebanon, ruled over by masters who aren't afraid to use power to assert dominance.

Japan had the nerve to strike us at Pearl Harbor because they thought we were paper tigers; Al Qaeda hit us on 9/11 because they thought we wouldn't respond - weakness, real or perceived, invites aggression from people who don't care about civilian casualities or decency. Pacifism gets praise from peaceful Gov't's who avoid war as much as possible, but it invites aggression from the very lowest, very worst regimes who view force not as a last resort, but as the quickest method of obtaining power and prestige.

We don't maintain a strong military because we want war - we maintain a strong military precisely because we DON'T want war and want to dissuade anyone who thinks of starting something with the US. As the old saying goes, "If you want peace, prepare for war."

I NEVER said ANYTHING about giving up our military. I cannot even debate here because you are so far into your belief of (at least what sounds like to me) the big green monster constantly at the doorstep or the idea of using fear to gain support---that it doesnt seem any debate can take place. While you may have some correct points here---I TOTALLY stick by my assertion....NOT that we defind the military, simply that we overfund it now, because we have to as our economy needs it. Seems appropriate time to add "Masters of War" by Bob Dylan to the songs thread.

xmacro

Vulchor:

I NEVER said ANYTHING about giving up our military. I cannot even debate here because you are so far into your belief of (at least what sounds like to me) the big green monster constantly at the doorstep or the idea of using fear to gain support---that it doesnt seem any debate can take place. While you may have some correct points here---I TOTALLY stick by my assertion....NOT that we defind the military, simply that we overfund it now, because we have to as our economy needs it. Seems appropriate time to add "Masters of War" by Bob Dylan to the songs thread.

With 3 wars going on, is now really the time to be cutting? Can it wait until we've withdrawn from at least 1 or 2 theatres before cutting? We have medicare, medicaid, and SS that can be cut, not to mention $2 trillion Obamacare - why always the focus on the military? Can it be cut? Yes. But every time I hear on the news some politician proposing "let's cut the military", it's always followed in the next breath "but not SS, Medicare/aid, because those are too vital to do anything about; granny could have her meds cut off and die if we attempt to reform it at all or make any changes".

I'm sick of it - everyone and their mother knows we need to cut, but the first thing that ALWAYS comes up is the military, and then SS, Medicare/aid are either not mentioned at all, or talked about as if they're secondary to the "evil military-industrial-complex". The military is funded and cut as wars come and go. When the US gets in a war, funding goes up; when the US withdraws, funding goes down.

But SS, medicare/aid are always growing, in a recession or in a boom, and they're the ones that are the most threatening since they never get cut - yet whenever the talk of budget cuts come up, the military is the first thing mentioned, as if it's not cut down when there aren't any wars going on.

Vulchor, I didn't mean to say you were giving up the military and I'm sorry if I misunderstood your point, but I'm just tired of the way these conversations go when I hear them in the news day after day. It's sickening to see politicians demagogue about a measly $4 bill in oil subsidies or talk about cutting the military, and then turn around and demagogue about how we can't touch any of the entitlements or poor people will starve and granny will die in the cold. Again - sorry if I took your post the wrong way, but it's just something that bothers the hell out of me when it's suggested the military is the problem and the big entitlements aren't mentioned.

DSWarmack

Vulchor:

...NOT that we defind the military, simply that we overfund it now, because we have to as our economy needs it. Seems appropriate time to add "Masters of War" by Bob Dylan to the songs thread.

Bold word appears to be a typo, from having read your posts in the past, and my elementary knowledge of key placement; I would say that it is defund, not defend that you meant to type. Go ahead and defund the military if you want. Whats going to happen is you are going to have to outsource your military to some other 'all volunteer' group, because I will pack my bags and go elsewhere. Which I have every right to do; along with burning the symbol of my own freedoms, and the slandering of good men that have had the MOST DIFFICULT JOB on the planet (POTUS), and having the ability to degrade and belittle the men and women who have lost life, liberty and limbs to stand up for all those rights! Because, if I go any further below the poverty line to be in a position to defend your rights, to [Insert Liberal right of the moment here], I wont be able to support my family anymore. And because I'm in the military it means I was too dumb to go to college (thanks John Kerry), so i wont be able to do anything outside of the military in the first place!

Amos_Umwhat

DSWarmack:

Vulchor:

...NOT that we defind the military, simply that we overfund it now, because we have to as our economy needs it. Seems appropriate time to add "Masters of War" by Bob Dylan to the songs thread.

Bold word appears to be a typo, from having read your posts in the past, and my elementary knowledge of key placement; I would say that it is defund, not defend that you meant to type. Go ahead and defund the military if you want. Whats going to happen is you are going to have to outsource your military to some other 'all volunteer' group, because I will pack my bags and go elsewhere. Which I have every right to do; along with burning the symbol of my own freedoms, and the slandering of good men that have had the MOST DIFFICULT JOB on the planet (POTUS), and having the ability to degrade and belittle the men and women who have lost life, liberty and limbs to stand up for all those rights! Because, if I go any further below the poverty line to be in a position to defend your rights, to [Insert Liberal right of the moment here], I wont be able to support my family anymore. And because I'm in the military it means I was too dumb to go to college (thanks John Kerry), so i wont be able to do anything outside of the military in the first place!

It all gets complex, that's for sure. I don't think anyone, at least not anyone in this conversation, means to lower the pay or benefits of the members of the service. Certainly not me, My Mom & Son are both retired military status.

A further thought on that note, I recently heard remarks from a Congressman, a Republican, I believe, that we need to "rethink military retirement, 20 years is ridiculous, it should be more in line with private sector". My first thought was "I've had some hard jobs in the private sector, but none of them required me to run for miles with 80 pounds on my back, none of them required that I be awake and in constant motion for 96 hours like I did in the Army..., followed by thinking about my Dad, and my first wife's Dad, neither of whom lived more than 5 years after retirement, primarily because of the extreme stresses of militarty life."

On the other hand, I cannot be propagandized into believing that our fiscal woes are due to overpaying our teachers, or the one hundred-thousandth of one percent of the budget that went to fund public broadcasting, which was the only reliable news source that wasn't subject to perversion by Big Money.

So, the cuts need to be of a different type. More emphasis on espionage, small tactical interventions, rather than WWII style warfare, less presence abroad, and for God's sake set a goal, kick their ass, shoot the lawyers that punish troops for doing their jobs, and COME HOME!

As for medicare/etc., believe me, a LOT of waste can be cut out and still get Granny's meds and essential health care taken care of. This will require allowing doctors and nurses to be free from fear of retaliation by authority. What I mean is, I can't tell you how many times I've sat in Triage, looking at parents who each have a pack of cigarettes in their pockets, cell phones (high dollar ones) in hand and look me in the eye and tell me that they can't afford to buy Motrin for their kid. Oh, and my other pet-peeve, if people who are healthy and able are collecting SS or Welfare, let's give them a job to do! If they won't work, NO MONEY!

Final thought, for you Warmack, I get rambunctious sometimes on here, please, NEVER think I'm not appreciative of what you're doing, or that the cuts should come out of the soldiers pockets. Although, if you're watching the War on Education that's taking place in our country today, I can see how you would fear exactly that.
God bless you, and all the soldiers.

cabinetmaker

Amos Umwhat:

DSWarmack:

Vulchor:

...NOT that we defind the military, simply that we overfund it now, because we have to as our economy needs it. Seems appropriate time to add "Masters of War" by Bob Dylan to the songs thread.

Bold word appears to be a typo, from having read your posts in the past, and my elementary knowledge of key placement; I would say that it is defund, not defend that you meant to type. Go ahead and defund the military if you want. Whats going to happen is you are going to have to outsource your military to some other 'all volunteer' group, because I will pack my bags and go elsewhere. Which I have every right to do; along with burning the symbol of my own freedoms, and the slandering of good men that have had the MOST DIFFICULT JOB on the planet (POTUS), and having the ability to degrade and belittle the men and women who have lost life, liberty and limbs to stand up for all those rights! Because, if I go any further below the poverty line to be in a position to defend your rights, to [Insert Liberal right of the moment here], I wont be able to support my family anymore. And because I'm in the military it means I was too dumb to go to college (thanks John Kerry), so i wont be able to do anything outside of the military in the first place!

It all gets complex, that's for sure. I don't think anyone, at least not anyone in this conversation, means to lower the pay or benefits of the members of the service. Certainly not me, My Mom & Son are both retired military status.

A further thought on that note, I recently heard remarks from a Congressman, a Republican, I believe, that we need to "rethink military retirement, 20 years is ridiculous, it should be more in line with private sector". My first thought was "I've had some hard jobs in the private sector, but none of them required me to run for miles with 80 pounds on my back, none of them required that I be awake and in constant motion for 96 hours like I did in the Army..., followed by thinking about my Dad, and my first wife's Dad, neither of whom lived more than 5 years after retirement, primarily because of the extreme stresses of militarty life."

On the other hand, I cannot be propagandized into believing that our fiscal woes are due to overpaying our teachers, or the one hundred-thousandth of one percent of the budget that went to fund public broadcasting, which was the only reliable news source that wasn't subject to perversion by Big Money.

So, the cuts need to be of a different type. More emphasis on espionage, small tactical interventions, rather than WWII style warfare, less presence abroad, and for God's sake set a goal, kick their ass, shoot the lawyers that punish troops for doing their jobs, and COME HOME!

As for medicare/etc., believe me, a LOT of waste can be cut out and still get Granny's meds and essential health care taken care of. This will require allowing doctors and nurses to be free from fear of retaliation by authority. What I mean is, I can't tell you how many times I've sat in Triage, looking at parents who each have a pack of cigarettes in their pockets, cell phones (high dollar ones) in hand and look me in the eye and tell me that they can't afford to buy Motrin for their kid. Oh, and my other pet-peeve, if people who are healthy and able are collecting SS or Welfare, let's give them a job to do! If they won't work, NO MONEY!

Final thought, for you Warmack, I get rambunctious sometimes on here, please, NEVER think I'm not appreciative of what you're doing, or that the cuts should come out of the soldiers pockets. Although, if you're watching the War on Education that's taking place in our country today, I can see how you would fear exactly that.
God bless you, and all the soldiers.

Public broadcasting is a tool of the left, and far from reliable. I don't have time to get to the rest, but that was what really stood out to me. Fund them if they become impartial someday, but not as a left-wing opinion show.

xmacro

Amos Umwhat:

It all gets complex, that's for sure. I don't think anyone, at least not anyone in this conversation, means to lower the pay or benefits of the members of the service. Certainly not me, My Mom & Son are both retired military status.

A further thought on that note, I recently heard remarks from a Congressman, a Republican, I believe, that we need to "rethink military retirement, 20 years is ridiculous, it should be more in line with private sector". My first thought was "I've had some hard jobs in the private sector, but none of them required me to run for miles with 80 pounds on my back, none of them required that I be awake and in constant motion for 96 hours like I did in the Army..., followed by thinking about my Dad, and my first wife's Dad, neither of whom lived more than 5 years after retirement, primarily because of the extreme stresses of militarty life."

On the other hand, I cannot be propagandized into believing that our fiscal woes are due to overpaying our teachers, or the one hundred-thousandth of one percent of the budget that went to fund public broadcasting, which was the only reliable news source that wasn't subject to perversion by Big Money.

So, the cuts need to be of a different type. More emphasis on espionage, small tactical interventions, rather than WWII style warfare, less presence abroad, and for God's sake set a goal, kick their ass, shoot the lawyers that punish troops for doing their jobs, and COME HOME!

As for medicare/etc., believe me, a LOT of waste can be cut out and still get Granny's meds and essential health care taken care of. This will require allowing doctors and nurses to be free from fear of retaliation by authority. What I mean is, I can't tell you how many times I've sat in Triage, looking at parents who each have a pack of cigarettes in their pockets, cell phones (high dollar ones) in hand and look me in the eye and tell me that they can't afford to buy Motrin for their kid. Oh, and my other pet-peeve, if people who are healthy and able are collecting SS or Welfare, let's give them a job to do! If they won't work, NO MONEY!

Final thought, for you Warmack, I get rambunctious sometimes on here, please, NEVER think I'm not appreciative of what you're doing, or that the cuts should come out of the soldiers pockets. Although, if you're watching the War on Education that's taking place in our country today, I can see how you would fear exactly that.
God bless you, and all the soldiers.

Teachers, once they're tenured, have guaranteed employment for life and are almost impossible to fire if they stink; in NY it takes $400,000 of legal expenses to fire one teacher for molesting kids - no joke. Education reform isn't about paying teachers less - it's about switching from tenure to merit-pay, where the teachers who are good get paid more than they do today, and the bad teachers can be fired easier - that's it, really. It's not about hurting teachers, but about getting rid of the fossils and getting some type of pay-for-performance system in place to replace the current pay-for-seniority system. The current system of teacher hiring is FIFO - first in, first out, meaning that when cuts need to be made, the newest teachers are the first to be let go - this has resulted in a few Teachers of the Year being fired, because the school district can't fire the teacher that's been in the system for 40 years. Education reform is about bringing some business common-sense like merit-retention, to the public school system.

As for NPR, while it's only a few million, why should the Gov't be funding this or ANY news outlet? If NPR is so valuable, why can't they do like that fired funding director said in that sting video, and support themselves with private donations? The Gov't shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing favored news outlets - let them support themselves in the free market.

If a news outlet is sucking the Gov't teet, that doesn't make them independent - it makes them beholden to Gov't subsidies, and willing to slant coverage for any politician who promises them more money, which is always a Lefty. How can a libertarian support Gov't subsidies for politically favored news outlets, but look down on news outlets that support themselves in a free market, calling them "Big Money"? Sometimes I just don't get you.

As for your comments about medicare/aid, I'll get into them some other time; way too large of an argument to go into now.

Vulchor

Macro----Ok....Lets cut the military, lets cut medicare, and lets cut SS. I have now said it, I believe they all need to be cut and cut NOW. I did not say eliminated, I said cut. I have NO PROBLEM at all with saying this and woudl love to see it happen.

Vulchor

Warmack----Again, I have not said to defund the military---I have said cuts need to be made. Nor did I suggest soldiers pay should be changed, but there are other cuts than can be made without hurting solider---this I believe. Was not being personal-----and I know that I will get attacked for this, and PLEASE DO NOT think it is meant directly at you, but as a hypothetical question I have never understood..here it is

If people have a job and their duties to perform are outlined and they are paid based on supply and demand, how skilled the labor is, ect. Why do we get so bent out of shape about military? They are paid a wage to do a job, just as anyone else. Health benefits come with this, often well into their entire lives and there are many benefits to being the the military as well. Additionally, it is a job and you do not have to particiapte in it------just as anyone who chooses a profession.--------------Not saying I totally feel this way, but I do not understand how this logic can be good for the public sector and even govt jobs, but be a totally different situation for military due to the risk invovled (which is known to those sign up)

phobicsquirrel

Vulchor:

Warmack----Again, I have not said to defund the military---I have said cuts need to be made. Nor did I suggest soldiers pay should be changed, but there are other cuts than can be made without hurting solider---this I believe. Was not being personal-----and I know that I will get attacked for this, and PLEASE DO NOT think it is meant directly at you, but as a hypothetical question I have never understood..here it is

If people have a job and their duties to perform are outlined and they are paid based on supply and demand, how skilled the labor is, ect. Why do we get so bent out of shape about military? They are paid a wage to do a job, just as anyone else. Health benefits come with this, often well into their entire lives and there are many benefits to being the the military as well. Additionally, it is a job and you do not have to particiapte in it------just as anyone who chooses a profession.--------------Not saying I totally feel this way, but I do not understand how this logic can be good for the public sector and even govt jobs, but be a totally different situation for military due to the risk invovled (which is known to those sign up)

buddy you have to realize, no matter how much you argue or give truth to people who fail to look past the bs, your not going to get anywhere.

xmacro

phobicsquirrel:

Vulchor:

Warmack----Again, I have not said to defund the military---I have said cuts need to be made. Nor did I suggest soldiers pay should be changed, but there are other cuts than can be made without hurting solider---this I believe. Was not being personal-----and I know that I will get attacked for this, and PLEASE DO NOT think it is meant directly at you, but as a hypothetical question I have never understood..here it is

If people have a job and their duties to perform are outlined and they are paid based on supply and demand, how skilled the labor is, ect. Why do we get so bent out of shape about military? They are paid a wage to do a job, just as anyone else. Health benefits come with this, often well into their entire lives and there are many benefits to being the the military as well. Additionally, it is a job and you do not have to particiapte in it------just as anyone who chooses a profession.--------------Not saying I totally feel this way, but I do not understand how this logic can be good for the public sector and even govt jobs, but be a totally different situation for military due to the risk invovled (which is known to those sign up)

buddy you have to realize, no matter how much you argue or give truth to people who fail to look past the bs, your not going to get anywhere.

Somehow, I don't really see putting your life on the line and getting shot at as quite the same as sitting behind a desk stamping papers.

It never ceases to surprise me how liberals can get all bent out of shape when a conservative proposes to cut Gov't spending on some social program or something where a public union is involved, but doesn't have any problems with military budget cuts, simply saying "They should've known when they signed up".

Cuts to public union interests get all the protestors fired up, but the military gets the **** end of the stick when it comes to progressive sympathies. Go figure.

phobicsquirrel

xmacro:

phobicsquirrel:

Vulchor:

Warmack----Again, I have not said to defund the military---I have said cuts need to be made. Nor did I suggest soldiers pay should be changed, but there are other cuts than can be made without hurting solider---this I believe. Was not being personal-----and I know that I will get attacked for this, and PLEASE DO NOT think it is meant directly at you, but as a hypothetical question I have never understood..here it is

If people have a job and their duties to perform are outlined and they are paid based on supply and demand, how skilled the labor is, ect. Why do we get so bent out of shape about military? They are paid a wage to do a job, just as anyone else. Health benefits come with this, often well into their entire lives and there are many benefits to being the the military as well. Additionally, it is a job and you do not have to particiapte in it------just as anyone who chooses a profession.--------------Not saying I totally feel this way, but I do not understand how this logic can be good for the public sector and even govt jobs, but be a totally different situation for military due to the risk invovled (which is known to those sign up)

buddy you have to realize, no matter how much you argue or give truth to people who fail to look past the bs, your not going to get anywhere.

Somehow, I don't really see putting your life on the line and getting shot at as quite the same as sitting behind a desk stamping papers.

It never ceases to surprise me how liberals can get all bent out of shape when a conservative proposes to cut Gov't spending on some social program or something where a public union is involved, but doesn't have any problems with military budget cuts, simply saying "They should've known when they signed up".

Cuts to public union interests get all the protestors fired up, but the military gets the **** end of the stick when it comes to progressive sympathies. Go figure.

I know this will go right through you but I feel that workers, people are more important that a big military machine. I don't see any liberals trying to defund the pentagon, but they do not need the countless billions and even trillions of dollars, I mean a lot of it goes to defense contracts. And soldiers get paid *** to boot. While these damn corporations and mercs get paid ten fold. And also most liberals are very conservative about wars as we don't like seeing our troops die and our economy suffer. While the gop seems to feel the opposite. As they are always going for the industry side of things while leaving the human factor out of the loop. Demonize the left all you want but the votes, and the facts are not on your side. Give me one bill, or measure that the gop has pushed that has actually helped the middle class, middle income families, the poor, or the elderly? ..... yup, none.

xmacro

^ Without an understanding of macro economics, there's nothing I can say that you'd understand. Handouts and giveaways don't do anything other than make people dependent on wealth transfers; subsidies and wealth transfers to social programs do nothing more than create new special interests which will oppose any kind of cuts to their interests, which you seem perfectly content with.

No point in talking to you as you see anyone who disagrees with wealth redistribution as evil incarnate, and see all Repubs as money-grubbing fiends hell-bent on enslaving the middle class. You're a socialist - no point in discussing capitalist principles with you.

phobicsquirrel

xmacro:

^ Without an understanding of macro economics, there's nothing I can say that you'd understand. Handouts and giveaways don't do anything other than make people dependent on wealth transfers; subsidies and wealth transfers to social programs do nothing more than create new special interests which will oppose any kind of cuts to their interests, which you seem perfectly content with.

No point in talking to you as you see anyone who disagrees with wealth redistribution as evil incarnate, and see all Repubs as money-grubbing fiends hell-bent on enslaving the middle class. You're a socialist - no point in discussing capitalist principles with you.

I'm sorry but from what I have read from your posts you know nothing about micro and macro economics. Taking from the poorer of people only to give that to the super wealthy doesn't do an economy any good. Especially when we have a consumer driven economy.

Just because you watch lou dobbs on Fox Business doesn't make you an expert. I have had many courses on economics.

PuroFreak

phobicsquirrel:

xmacro:

phobicsquirrel:

Vulchor:

Warmack----Again, I have not said to defund the military---I have said cuts need to be made. Nor did I suggest soldiers pay should be changed, but there are other cuts than can be made without hurting solider---this I believe. Was not being personal-----and I know that I will get attacked for this, and PLEASE DO NOT think it is meant directly at you, but as a hypothetical question I have never understood..here it is

If people have a job and their duties to perform are outlined and they are paid based on supply and demand, how skilled the labor is, ect. Why do we get so bent out of shape about military? They are paid a wage to do a job, just as anyone else. Health benefits come with this, often well into their entire lives and there are many benefits to being the the military as well. Additionally, it is a job and you do not have to particiapte in it------just as anyone who chooses a profession.--------------Not saying I totally feel this way, but I do not understand how this logic can be good for the public sector and even govt jobs, but be a totally different situation for military due to the risk invovled (which is known to those sign up)

buddy you have to realize, no matter how much you argue or give truth to people who fail to look past the bs, your not going to get anywhere.

Somehow, I don't really see putting your life on the line and getting shot at as quite the same as sitting behind a desk stamping papers.

It never ceases to surprise me how liberals can get all bent out of shape when a conservative proposes to cut Gov't spending on some social program or something where a public union is involved, but doesn't have any problems with military budget cuts, simply saying "They should've known when they signed up".

Cuts to public union interests get all the protestors fired up, but the military gets the **** end of the stick when it comes to progressive sympathies. Go figure.

I know this will go right through you but I feel that workers, people are more important that a big military machine. I don't see any liberals trying to defund the pentagon, but they do not need the countless billions and even trillions of dollars, I mean a lot of it goes to defense contracts. And soldiers get paid *** to boot. While these damn corporations and mercs get paid ten fold. And also most liberals are very conservative about wars as we don't like seeing our troops die and our economy suffer. While the gop seems to feel the opposite. As they are always going for the industry side of things while leaving the human factor out of the loop. Demonize the left all you want but the votes, and the facts are not on your side. Give me one bill, or measure that the gop has pushed that has actually helped the middle class, middle income families, the poor, or the elderly? ..... yup, none.

Ok, just off the top of ky head, the Bush era tax cuts which, despite what liberals love to believe, cut taxes for EVERYONE! You can't say it was a tax cut for the rich because it was an across the board tax cut for every American from the bottom to the top.
I know that doesn't fit the bill as a government handout, but that is kind of the point. Allowing people to keep more of what they earn and not keeping them dependant on government handouts is the ONLY thing that can truly help people. Now name one thing the Dems have done to help poor and middle class that is NOT a handout and does not redistribute wealth in any way? The Bush tax cuts did that... What do the Dems have?