Budget cuts

We need to cut social security and medicare. Anyone else agree or disagree?

Did you see how Obama cut social security without anyone raising too much of a fuss about it?

I guess what is pissing me off is no one is pissed off about budget cuts. There is no way we get anywhere without pissing off a lot of people. No one I know is mad.

We spend more on defense than any other nation in the world. 663 Billion Dollars in 2009. Second place is China that spent $98 Billion. Do we really need to spend almost seven times more than second Place? Maybe spend twice what they spent. Maybe 3x... but 7x more than anyone else? Really? Is this what we want to be in ridiculouss debt over?

US: $663,255,000,000
China: $98,800,000,000

I mentioned we should cut defense spending by 40%. We would still be spending almost 4x as much as China.

What all is included in "defense" spending? (What are the basics involved?) Along with the wars overseas, does it include protecting the borders? Protecting the president on vacations? etc.

Pez wrote:We spend more on defense than any other nation in the world. 663 Billion Dollars in 2009. Second place is China that spent $98 Billion. Do we really need to spend almost seven times more than second Place? Maybe spend twice what they spent. Maybe 3x... but 7x more than anyone else? Really? Is this what we want to be in ridiculouss debt over?

US: $663,255,000,000
China: $98,800,000,000

I mentioned we should cut defense spending by 40%. We would still be spending almost 4x as much as China.

All those other countries don't have a volunteer armed force. That causes higher pay and benefits to have that volunteer force. We also want the very best for our troops, we don't like seeing body bags. Therefore we spend more money on the latest technology to protect those troops. We could short change the troops but then you would have to give up the all volunteer armed forces and institute a draft and see more body bags.

Really only the US is a world power, no other country right now is as powerful and can project that power. Do we want to be like England build an aircraft carrier but then can't equip it with planes?

Aircraft Carrier

Announcement Both proposed aircraft carriers are given the go ahead.

Verdict The project has been a bone of contention with the Army and Navy due to the massive costs – estimated to be about £15bn with aircraft and support ships – entailed. Both will now be built, with delays because of modifications, but only one will have aircraft, but not until 2020. The second one will be put on a "state of extended readiness", or, in simple terms, put in mothballs while attempts are made to find a buyer. Meantime, Britain will not have any carrier cover.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/forces-left-unable-to-launch-lsquomajorrsquo-missions-overseas-2111341.html

Whether we like it or not we became the world's police man. Along with the world humanitarian. Our forces are used just as much for humanitarian missions as they are for combat. It is the US Navy that has the ships to move the cargo to disaster areas like after the last couple of tsunamis . It was the US Air Force that set up a temporary air traffic control system after the Haiti earthquake and guided relief flights into Haiti. Those missions require ships, planes, equipment and personnel. That no other country has the resources to provide.

http://www.defense.gov/home/features/tsunami/

http://www.southcom.mil/appssc/factFilesLarge.php?id=138

So while you just look at the defense budget as a war machine, a lot of people forget it is that 600 + billion dollars buying equipment and personnel for everything that happens to this nation and the nations of the world. Do you believe any other countries military could have done the humanitarian work that our Armed Forces did and save as many lives as our Armed Forces did as quickly as our Armed Forces. It has been proven they can't.

And as a final thought. The providing for the defense of this country is in the constitution. Not social security, not medicare, not obamacare, not unemployment insurance etc.

IrishGuy wrote:What all is included in "defense" spending? (What are the basics involved?) Along with the wars overseas, does it include protecting the borders? Protecting the president on vacations? etc.

Hell I dunno... I just came across the numbers... Seven times more than second place seems pretty excessive. Scooby's points are well taken, it just seems that it should cost less. It's true that only the United States can help in situations around the world such as Haiti, however I'm just not sure we can afford to do it... we need to get out of these wars badly.

Pez wrote:We need to cut social security and medicare. Anyone else agree or disagree?

Did you see how Obama cut social security without anyone raising too much of a fuss about it?

I guess what is pissing me off is no one is pissed off about budget cuts. There is no way we get anywhere without pissing off a lot of people. No one I know is mad.

You want to cut medicare, but yet are for Obamacare that will end up costing more than medicare. We need to move to privatize SS, but protect the people on it now and about to enter it and set it up for people just entering the work force to save for there own retirements.

We need to get the people making fraudulent claims getting SS disability checks off the dole and handing out SS checks to people that have never contributed.

And of course people like Harry Reid says nothing wrong with social security it is fine the way it is.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/harry-reid-takes-social-security-off-the-table.php

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nR7-NJVwN4

You'll love the youtube video.

k... I'm pissed they want to cut funds to the CPB...

Pez, you must really be disappointed in the Obama budget. What is it 1.1 trillion dollar deficit. At least a trillion a year even if he gets relected for his whole term in office. Makes those pesky 300 to 400 billion dollar deficits by GWB look pretty darn good.

However, his budget shows that the gross national debt would continue to rise every year under his proposal, almost doubling from $13.5 trillion last year to $26.3 trillion in fiscal 2021.

Read more: http://www.heraldonline.com/2011/02/15/2838766/obama-says-hed-stop-adding-to.html#ixzz1E9r8jMNe


And why won't he send his representatives to the hearings on how well his stimulus programs work. Is it because he/they can't prove it?


http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/02/15/white-house-economists-wont-testify-on-stimulus/

Under the White House’s budget proposal, "we will not be adding more to the national debt" by the middle of the decade.
Barack Obama on Tuesday, February 15th, 2011 in a press conference

Once again................YOU LIE!

F-A-L-S-E

UPDATE: Shortly after we posted this article, the White House responded to an earlier request for comment, arguing that Obama was not referring to actual dollars but to the fact that the budget will not increase the debt as a share of the economy. While it’s true that the debt as a proportion of GDP – at least when adjusted for financial assets held by the government – would fall slightly between 2013 and 2017 (from 67.7 percent to 66.8 percent), that's not the explanation Obama gave in the news conference. Our rating is unchanged.

LTRT wrote:

Under the White House’s budget proposal, "we will not be adding more to the national debt" by the middle of the decade.
Barack Obama on Tuesday, February 15th, 2011 in a press conference

Once again................YOU LIE!

F-A-L-S-E

UPDATE: Shortly after we posted this article, the White House responded to an earlier request for comment, arguing that Obama was not referring to actual dollars but to the fact that the budget will not increase the debt as a share of the economy. While it’s true that the debt as a proportion of GDP – at least when adjusted for financial assets held by the government – would fall slightly between 2013 and 2017 (from 67.7 percent to 66.8 percent), that's not the explanation Obama gave in the news conference. Our rating is unchanged.

This must be that fuzzy math I always hear about.

Scooby01_98 wrote:Pez, you must really be disappointed in the Obama budget. What is it 1.1 trillion dollar deficit. At least a trillion a year even if he gets relected for his whole term in office. Makes those pesky 300 to 400 billion dollar deficits by GWB look pretty darn good.

However, his budget shows that the gross national debt would continue to rise every year under his proposal, almost doubling from $13.5 trillion last year to $26.3 trillion in fiscal 2021.

Read more: http://www.heraldonline.com/2011/02/15/2838766/obama-says-hed-stop-adding-to.html#ixzz1E9r8jMNe


And why won't he send his representatives to the hearings on how well his stimulus programs work. Is it because he/they can't prove it?


http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/02/15/white-house-economists-wont-testify-on-stimulus/

I am pretty disappointed actually. And I think I will be disappointed with what comes out of congress as well. The deficit is no longer a liberal/conservative thing, it's basic household math. If I spend 20% more than I take in every month because I keep buying guns and giving money to my neighbors isn't going to work for More than a couple years before I lose my house and car.

I suggest everyone read Atlas Shrugged again. Despite Rand's heavy handedness with her point (bordering on hyperbole), it's a timely book (again).

So the new congress comes up with the 100 billion in cuts. Votes in the house gets the budget for 2011 passed with at least 61 billion in cuts (yes it is the middle of Feb and we are on a continuing resolution). All you heard on the Sunday news shows from the Senate Dems and liberal columnist is the cuts are too severe and the Repubs want to shut down the Gov't.

So Pez what do you think? Did the republicans in congress keep there pledge even though only 61 made it into budget bill? Why are the dems whining so much over the cuts? This doesn't even get us back to 2008 budget dollars.

Scooby01_98 wrote:So the new congress comes up with the 100 billion in cuts. Votes in the house gets the budget for 2011 passed with at least 61 billion in cuts (yes it is the middle of Feb and we are on a continuing resolution). All you heard on the Sunday news shows from the Senate Dems and liberal columnist is the cuts are too severe and the Repubs want to shut down the Gov't.

So Pez what do you think? Did the republicans in congress keep there pledge even though only 61 made it into budget bill? Why are the dems whining so much over the cuts? This doesn't even get us back to 2008 budget dollars.

I don't think the cuts are severe enough. I don't really care about who kept what pledge or not. Both sides are avoiding the hard part by cutting only discretionary spending... we wont get out of this crisis until someone is brave enough to take on the military and entitlement spending.

I'm upset that they brought planned parenthood dollars to zero, I'm upset they want to kill Elmo and Grover. But austerity has a price, and I guess that's part of it...

Pez wrote:

Scooby01_98 wrote:So the new congress comes up with the 100 billion in cuts. Votes in the house gets the budget for 2011 passed with at least 61 billion in cuts (yes it is the middle of Feb and we are on a continuing resolution). All you heard on the Sunday news shows from the Senate Dems and liberal columnist is the cuts are too severe and the Repubs want to shut down the Gov't.

So Pez what do you think? Did the republicans in congress keep there pledge even though only 61 made it into budget bill? Why are the dems whining so much over the cuts? This doesn't even get us back to 2008 budget dollars.

I don't think the cuts are severe enough. I don't really care about who kept what pledge or not. Both sides are avoiding the hard part by cutting only discretionary spending... we wont get out of this crisis until someone is brave enough to take on the military and entitlement spending.

I'm upset that they brought planned parenthood dollars to zero, I'm upset they want to kill Elmo and Grover. But austerity has a price, and I guess that's part of it...

One of the cuts is the duplicate engine for the new fighter plane, so that is a start. Who needs planned parenthood now since adults are covered up to 26 yoa on their parents insurance.

Come on you have to be disappointed in the dems not even wanting to cut 61 billion. If they can't cut the easy stuff they have no interest in the hard stuff. Harry Reid already stated that.

Scooby01_98 wrote:

Pez wrote:

Scooby01_98 wrote:So the new congress comes up with the 100 billion in cuts. Votes in the house gets the budget for 2011 passed with at least 61 billion in cuts (yes it is the middle of Feb and we are on a continuing resolution). All you heard on the Sunday news shows from the Senate Dems and liberal columnist is the cuts are too severe and the Repubs want to shut down the Gov't.

So Pez what do you think? Did the republicans in congress keep there pledge even though only 61 made it into budget bill? Why are the dems whining so much over the cuts? This doesn't even get us back to 2008 budget dollars.

I don't think the cuts are severe enough. I don't really care about who kept what pledge or not. Both sides are avoiding the hard part by cutting only discretionary spending... we wont get out of this crisis until someone is brave enough to take on the military and entitlement spending.

I'm upset that they brought planned parenthood dollars to zero, I'm upset they want to kill Elmo and Grover. But austerity has a price, and I guess that's part of it...

One of the cuts is the duplicate engine for the new fighter plane, so that is a start. Who needs planned parenthood now since adults are covered up to 26 yoa on their parents insurance.

Come on you have to be disappointed in the dems not even wanting to cut 61 billion. If they can't cut the easy stuff they have no interest in the hard stuff. Harry Reid already stated that.

I'm glad they cut the engine, I wish they would have cut the F35... or maybe keep the F35 and cut the F24 raptor, that costs 2x as much.... planned parenthood does more sexual education than any other organization. I'm not sure how they quantify it, but their latest figure is that they prevented 900,000 unwanted pregnancies, 40% of which statistically end in abortion (JG today). I just think cutting funding to planned parenthood is ann unveiled attempt to say they are "stopping abortion," when the reality is that PP has probabaly prevented more abortions than a combination of all the churches have... I know, we need to tighten the belts, but cutting funding for an organization that does more to advance the "stated" goals of the pro-lilfe movement than the pro-life movemtn does smacks of stupid and short sighted politics.

I'm disappointed that the government does not seem to want to take our financial situation seriously. We're F'ing broke, everyone knows it. But... lets not "micromanage" (our own Marlin Stutzman) it and let the Army spend $10 million on NASCAR sponsoprship...

You do need the two types of fighters. Plus you want to make sure their is future competition in building fighters.

As for NASCAR advertising. It is a all volunteer force, so you need ads to promote your business. Won't do much good advertising in the Wall Street Journal vs NASCAR or other sports.

Scooby01_98 wrote:You do need the two types of fighters. Plus you want to make sure their is future competition in building fighters.

As for NASCAR advertising. It is a all volunteer force, so you need ads to promote your business. Won't do much good advertising in the Wall Street Journal vs NASCAR or other sports.

Sure, I understand the two types etc... This isn't my territory, but is there really any sort of global challenge to the F/A 18, the A-10, the F14, the F117, and B-2?

Sooner or later there needs to be a common sense check.

Pez wrote:

Scooby01_98 wrote:You do need the two types of fighters. Plus you want to make sure their is future competition in building fighters.

As for NASCAR advertising. It is a all volunteer force, so you need ads to promote your business. Won't do much good advertising in the Wall Street Journal vs NASCAR or other sports.

Sure, I understand the two types etc... This isn't my territory, but is there really any sort of global challenge to the F/A 18, the A-10, the F14, the F117, and B-2?

Sooner or later there needs to be a common sense check.

Do you know how old those platforms are?

f/a18 started in 1995. Those are carrier based planes which have the rigors catapults to get them off the carrier being hooked for a sudden stop.

A-10 Thunderbolt has been around since the 70's

F14 Tomcat since the 1970's

F-117 Started in 1988 and is now retired.

B-2 is a bomber not scheduled to be replaced. However they were suppose to have close to 125 of them but only have 20. Which is why we still fly B52's from the 50's and B1B bombers in the 1990's
(just so you know incase you didn't B=bomber, F=fighter)

Obviously there are different versions of each aircraft that have been modified and updated so not all theses planes are from the 70's.

Meanwhile you want to sit on old technology and airframes, while china just unveiled it's stealth fighter.

I was aware that the F14 was very old... IMHO one of the most successful fighters ever... I didnt realize that only Iran flew them now... sigh...

The A10 is awesome, We see many of them fly over the house now that the Guard switched from the F16s... The F117 was pretty short lived... The B1 was cool too, despite being a dinosaur these days. I cant believe how much it could carry and that it took off at mach 1.5... 1200 mph?

I do know a little about this sort of thing, but more WWII era than this modern jet fighter stuff... kids these days!

To your point, the F22 was supposedly better than anything in the world now or on the immediate horizon. The bigger point I'm trying to make is that we can no longer afford a military that costs as much as ours does.

Pez wrote:
To your point, the F22 was supposedly better than anything in the world now or on the immediate horizon. The bigger point I'm trying to make is that we can no longer afford a military that costs as much as ours does.

Yeah but it is not carrier based aircraft. The F35 is everything. Carrier based, multi service (i.e. Navy, Marines, Air Force) replaces the F-18, A-10.

Like I said before unless you want a draft paying soldiers peanuts. And do you really want someone who doesn't want to be there working on or flying a multi million dollar aircraft?

I am not saying we can't cut the defense budget. Do we need bases in Europe and Asia? Maybe Just 1 air base in England & Germany, something in S Korea and send the rest back to the U.S. Let our allies pick up there own defenses. Cut out building things that the armed services doesn't want (they have had C-17 & C-130's rammed down there throat for the past 10 years just to save jobs). Then from there lets look at what else we can cut. But we do need to keep modernizing our military.

Scooby01_98 wrote:

Pez wrote:
To your point, the F22 was supposedly better than anything in the world now or on the immediate horizon. The bigger point I'm trying to make is that we can no longer afford a military that costs as much as ours does.

Yeah but it is not carrier based aircraft. The F35 is everything. Carrier based, multi service (i.e. Navy, Marines, Air Force) replaces the F-18, A-10.

Like I said before unless you want a draft paying soldiers peanuts. And do you really want someone who doesn't want to be there working on or flying a multi million dollar aircraft?

I am not saying we can't cut the defense budget. Do we need bases in Europe and Asia? Maybe Just 1 air base in England & Germany, something in S Korea and send the rest back to the U.S. Let our allies pick up there own defenses. Cut out building things that the armed services doesn't want (they have had C-17 & C-130's rammed down there throat for the past 10 years just to save jobs). Then from there lets look at what else we can cut. But we do need to keep modernizing our military.

WTF are we doing building aircraft that cant land on a carrier? Creating jobs?

Pez wrote:
WTF are we doing building aircraft that cant land on a carrier? Creating jobs?

Different aircraft have different missions.

Look at it this way, you could build a house with just a hammer. The house would looked a whole lot better if you had a saw to go along with the hammer.

Pez, I know you think our defense budget is bloated. However, it looks like another country is stepping up there game in military budgets. Look at what Russia is spending.

http://www.military.com/news/article/russia-to-purchase-600-planes-100-ships.html?ESRC=eb.nl

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having the undisputed best military in the world. Russia is speeding $600 billion in an ambitious program to essentially retool their entire armed forces (from a 'durable good' perspective), and it will take them 9 years to get all that equipment in place, or said another way, get all that money spent.

The US projected budget expenditure for 2011 is $664 Billion. By the time Russia has all this in place, we will have spent over 5 trillion, assuming we can get someone to loan us the bread.

I can only hope that the day will come that common sense wins out over the uncommon sense of "special interest."

What you know CBO says Obama budget forumla only 2.3 trillion off.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110318/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_budget