1 The RINOs love them some defense spending, as much as the libs like supplying the FSA.

2 Remind me again about why targeting the leadership in primaries would be bad

3 Do you realize what big meanies those tea partiers are?

*SOB*

4 Having worked for a major defense contractor for a relatively short tenure, the corruption and waste I personally witnessed in that short period of time was not only very enlightening but absolutely appalling.

That they are the establishment's biggest allies speaks volumes.

5 Mitch McConnell needs to be given a Missouri (Kentucky) boat ride.

6 Okay - last 2 posts died just as I posted! From last post: Along with the Land O' Lakes butter we'd modify the Mannie, Moe & Jack (Pep Boys) matchbooks. We'd poke a pencil hole through each of their crotches and they all suddenly grew matchstick wieners!

7 Fuck it.  I'm willing to support cuts to all spending, including defense, because in the long run getting our fiscal policy under control is a national security issue. 

8 Mitch McConnell To Defense Contractors: Help Us Defeat Tea Party Challengers If You Want That Sweet, Sweet Republican Defense Spending Back Bribe, meet Threat. Threat, meet bribe.....

9 The government is their employer, they are the employees, you are the product. People get that relationship wrong all the time.

10 B. McConnell said it all last week.  He doesn't want conservatives in his camp, be they Tea Party or anything else.   He has declared war on the base.  He needs to be gotten rid of but as I understand it, that is basically impossible.

11 I am all in favor of nuking defense spending if the American people and political class will index their expectations of action to the new spending level Ace...

too many are addicted to throwing our forces around like darts on a dartboard and then wanting to war on the cheap.

12 Many in the Republican Party give lip-service to cutting spending. Now it seems they won't even be doing that, as they begin to affirmatively run on increased spending.

So when can we have a second party?

13 Apparently we really NEED some more $900 toilet seats.

14 And  this  is  why  the  DOOM  will  not  be  stopped.

15 Sad but true -- Mitch seemed like a real conservative in his first term.

16 "It's for national security!" Is the GOP version of "it's for the children!"

17 And yes, defense spending can be cut if it is done in a rational manner. Close some bases and that will save billions.   But it will never happen.

18

"The main message he was pushing was: Get involved, mainly to teach those who are primarying incumbents that it is not helpful to run against incumbents who are champions for the industry."

 

I don't care if the primary opponent is as stupid as Barky, as foul-tempered as Mooch and has the sex appeal of Nancy Pelosi - I want this tax-fatted POS thrown out of office and introduced to a nice short length of piano wire.

19 Bet he doesn't have a problem with cutting retired military benefits.

20 You can also add anything to do with the latest "Farm" Bill to the list of how, behind the scenes, Rs are no better than Ds.

21 Defense, pharma and finance own the Republican Party, just like they own the Democrats. 

Without some systemic limits against preferential tax treatment (Hello 16th Amendment!), or spending, or the central banking system generally, there's no way to stop it. 

No amount of grass roots opposition, Tea Party organizing, well-mobilized PR campaigns or cadre of influential bloggers is going to stop it.

22 Even our own side is against us. If the likes of The Weeping Boner and Bitch McConnell can even be said to be on "our" side anymore. (I think not.)

23 Along with the Land O' Lakes butter we'd modify the Mannie, Moe & Jack (Pep Boys) matchbooks.

We'd poke a pencil hole through each of their crotches and they all suddenly grew matchstick wieners!

Posted by: Ed Anger at December 16, 2013 12:27 PM (tOkJB)

 

Nowadays this would get a kid expelled, or at least heavily medicated. 

24 A lot of the spending I saw while in the Army struck me as not-really-necessary. I also encountered some large staffs of whom I wanted to ask, Bob Slydell-style, "What - would you say - ya DO here?" But when budgets got tight, it was amazing how quickly and how much infantry training got cut.

25 I am for defense spending even if it is wasteful, though ideally we should clean that up.  But Mitch McConnell shouldn't oppose tea party conservatives and does so at his peril, politically.

26 We need to make liberals who run as Republicans unelectable as Republicans. This would force liberal Republicans to run in Democrat primaries. If they agree with Democrats, let them fight it out in their own primary together.

27 Mr. McConnell, I'd like you to meet some folks that call themselves "The Whigs."

28

But Drew  says challenging these people in primaries is "punishing" them.

 

I don't know how anyone reconciles their belief in smaller government with  support for the current version of the Republican Party. 

 

The two are incompatible, and I'm done with being sold on the idea that the Dems are worse. 

29 B. McConnell said it all last week. He doesn't want conservatives in his camp, be they Tea Party or anything else. He has declared war on the base. He needs to be gotten rid of but as I understand it, that is basically impossible.

Vote for the TP candidate in primary and general election.
If no TP candidate gets through, vote for the D.
Repeat until Boehner and Mcconnell have been tossed to the curb.

And if anyone poo-poos the idea ask them to itemize what we got to show for 2002-2006, or even 2010-present under their 'leadership'

30 I wonder how many overseas military bases could be shut down, especially in ungrateful countries. Probably quite a few,

31 I don't like to brag but I quit the Republican party in 2008 and I have never regretted it.

32 I am for defense spending even if it is wasteful


Thousands of ex-military officers hiring and fucking gorgeous incompetents while giving actual workers the shit jobs - well, they thank you.

33 I don't think Tea Party = Automatic Defense cuts. We'd poke a pencil hole through each of their crotches and they all suddenly grew matchstick wieners! OMG, I remember doing that.

34 Tell me again why Mitch Bitch shouldn't get primaried?

35 Tar, Rail and Feathers.

36 so McConnell is almost practicing extortion to keep the tea party away, the admin , (per Doug Ross) is trying to arm twist insurance companies into giving free health care coverage, and (also per Doug Ross) Kim Strassel at the WSJ reports that the IRA has rewritten 504(c) regs to make it easier to clearly target tea party groups. Can't see much reason to quite smoking or drinking at this point.

37 And Obama has made sure any actual cuts hit defense first and hardest. Obama has killed off most weapons modernization programs.

38 Pentagon continues their budget for Green Energy... While cutting my Retired Cost of living increase... Tells me all I need to know about the GOP, and the Political Generals and Admirals...

39 The Donks will go along with any screwy thing that their base supports.  The Thugs insult and destroy their base whenever possible.

40 Fuck them. Elect democrats, the shooting will starter faster. (I do not want the burning and shooting, I just think it is inevitable so let's get on with it, I'm not getting any younger.)

41 JPS: training is always the first to be cut, yet one of the most important things that should be retained.

42 Doomed, the parities are now just fighting over the pie and screw the citizens.

43

Anyone else notice BAE is a British company with headquarters in the UK?

44 Defense, pharma and finance own the Republican Party, just like they own the Democrats. Posted by: Phinn at December 16, 2013 12:29 PM (KOGmz) Hide posts from (KOGmz) I would say the relationship is at least as close to (government) mafiosos extracting (corporate) protection money, but yes, it's grotesquely unhealthy. After all, one of those two groups has prosecutors and regulatory agencies and police and military, and the other doesn't. One of the games used to keep it going is to keep the anti-corporate left (and less so right) distracted fighting the anti-government right (and less so left).

45 I'm not convinced that us Tea Party types are going to cut off our noses to spite our face. Ditch the EPA and I'm all for building a fleet of coal-fired aircraft carriers.

46 Anyone elsenotice BAE is a British company with headquarters in the UK?


BAE is also completely fucked from an ethical standpoint.

47 32 I am for defense spending even if it is wasteful


Thousands of ex-military officers hiring and fucking gorgeous incompetents while giving actual workers the shit jobs - well, they thank you.

Posted by: grognard at December 16, 2013 12:32 PM (/29Nl)

Well, gosh, then. Let's cut defense spending drastically, just like the progressives want, and show those assholes.

48 McConnell and the rest of the Republican leadership do not want to roll back the Obama's Leviathan...they just want to control it.

49 Posted by: Ed Anger at December 16, 2013 12:27 PM (tOkJB) Under the theory you can find anything on the Internet, I looked. Sure enough... http://tinyurl.com/PepBoysMatchbook

50 Brian: Excuse me. Are you the Judean People's Front?

Reg: Fuck off! 'Judean People's Front'. We're the People's Front of Judea! 'Judean People's Front'.

Francis: Wankers.

51 But Daddy McConnell promised me that I could have a goose that laid golden eggs!!!!!!!!

52

I've been saying for a few years now that we (conservatives) have miniscule if any representation in DC anymore.  America has no opposition party to the marxist overlords.  The big bucks are in marxism.

 

My flashpoint will be the 2014 elections.  If it looks like the electorate wants to embrace marxism/fascism, don't care one way or the other, or  red state governors refuse to look at  10th Amendment rights and/or secession, I'm out of here.  We'll  have no more freedom than any other country.   And if this tyranny continues to progress, we'll have far less freedoms than other countries.

53 by I'm a mess today... meant IRS not IRA in my post at 36

54  Suicide Squad Leader: We are the Judean People's Front crack suicide squad! Suicide squad, attack!

[they all stab themselves]

Suicide Squad Leader: That showed 'em, huh?

55 http://tinyurl.com/PepBoysMatchbook Those smiles are frightening.

56 I am for defense spending even if it is wasteful>>
Thousands
of ex-military officers hiring and fucking gorgeous incompetents while
giving actual workers the shit jobs - well, they thank you.


Posted by: grognard at December 16, 2013 12:32 PM (/29Nl)


Well, gosh, then. Let's cut defense spending drastically, just like the progressives want, and show those assholes.>>

Are those our only 2 choices? Really?

57 Mitch is the new Scoop Jackson.

58 One of the games used to keep it going is to keep the anti-corporate left (and less so right) distracted fighting the anti-government right (and less so left).
***
I've been wondering if we could reach some of the left by pointing out that the government is much like a corporate behemoth...but with the right to throw people in jail for crossing it.

Of course if one spends any time whatsoever in reading the history of the last 100 years or so the notion that we should fear corporations instead of government is comical.

59 Credit where it's due...just watched the entire SNL fake-sign-language-guy skit (the newsies are leaving out the best parts) and that shit made me laugh like I haven't laughed at SNL in ages. I totally lost it when Obama says "thrilled to be here" and sign-language guy starts dancing like Michael Jackson in "Thriller." Funny, funny stuff.

60

Wow.  The issue is framed in a grossly distorted manner, but even here nobody seems to challenge or correct that.  So we have yet another pointless debate based on false premises.

 

Defense spending did not rise dramatically in 2009 and beyond.  Other spending did.  The "sequester" was an idiotic and irresponsible monument to GOP and national cowardice and unseriousness.  Those who recall the origins of BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) see an echo in the sequester - but fare more irresponsible and pathetic.

 

Defense is the most important of the explicitly constitutionally mandated responsibilities of the federal govt.  Defense spending (having not risen dramatically) was no part of the basis for the genuine grass-roots push-back against government spending and power expansion represented by the Tea Party. 

 

So non-defense spending explodes, the reach of govt. expands disastrously to he point that the country is an unrecognizable parody of its recently former self, and the issue is ...... cutting defense spending?

 

Proposal:  return the federal budget to its last legally and constitutionally legitimate level (i.e. before CRs replaced appropriations in regular order under the Budget Act) - FY 2009 (?).   Even better, since our "recovery" has been so grand, excise all the parts that responded to the 2008 financial crash.  Even in our orwellian, unserious, upside-down disinformation civic culture of today, it's hard for the idiots to pretend that 2008 featured an unacceptably small federal budget.

 

 

61 Let it Burn proceeds apace.

62 This is why the sequester was genius. Both sisdes were forced to give up their sacred cows. Ryan just nuked it.

63 WTH?

64 http://tinyurl.com/PepBoysMatchbook

Those smiles are frightening.

Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at December 16, 2013 12:39 PM (QF8uk)

 

Considering the ratio of wiener to overall body size, I'd be smiling too.

65 49 ... Under the theory you can find anything on the Internet, I looked. Sure enough... http://tinyurl.com/PepBoysMatchbook Posted by: Name Withheld Upon Request at December 16, 2013 12:37 PM (w6rGt) Thanks, I needed a laugh!

66

Are we all starting to realize that it really is the establishment versus the people.  The dems will just fuck us harder and faster and hasten the end.

 

So can we start backing some real fucking conservatives and send them money.  Or can we back the soft statist RINOs and let them control shit.

 

Now or never folks, now or never.  And you can shove your fucking birth control pills and anal sex right up your ass, literally.

 

Anyone who bites on that shit is a fucking idiot.  It's like complaining about the channel selection as your house burns the fuck down around you.

67


The whole of DC exists for itself.

Are they actually protecting us? Not economically...they are fucking us over.

But don't care not bow down to them and don't dare question their conservatism.

Friggin idiots, I swear.

68 I would love to see something like 10%?  15%? cut across the board, just right off the top, no sacred cows, all federal spending cut by one of those numbers - how can you argue that there is not room for that?

69 First of all everybody is kicking the Defense Budget around and they should all be ashamed of themselves. And the Military is feeling it and it is hurting readiness and our National Defense.

70 We can't primary any of these Repubs because you TeaTards give us Akin and O' Donnell. All.Of. The.Time.

 And you kick a good man and solid Republican like Mike Castle to the curb. Do you know what he could have done for us had the Teabaggers not thrown their little tantrum back in '10? Lots, I tell you. Lots!

Now the TP wants military cuts. Why do you guys Hate America?

71 McCornered is The GOP Senate Leader. Look at him for 5 seconds and you get the sense the he's a different kind of "leader". Â…..Then look at The Crybaby of the House. That Stupid Party needs gutting and quickly. Currently the marxocrats and the Repukes are party 1 and 1a.

72 See, Tea baggers are weak on defense!!

//

73 And if anyone poo-poos the idea ask them to itemize what we got to show for 2002-2006
***
Medicare Part D...woohoo!

Basically the Republican platform right now is "vote for us, we will keep stealing ever more from you...but less then those guys with Ds by their names."

74 Posted by: Military retiree at December 16, 2013 12:34 PM (y+cNY)

Absolutely.  I remember needing to paint spaces as a part of routine maintenance, only there was no money for paint...or brushes and rollers.  We wound up scrounging the paint and buying brushes, rollers, and pans out of our own pockets.  That was the Navy under Bubba Clinton.

I have current co-workers that remember not having fuel to run vehicles during training in the Army in the same time period; for tank gunnery training, they'd load one or two onto lowboy trailers, truck them to the range and leave them there until the iteration was complete.

75 Was this before or after his taxpayer subsidized hair cut and manicure? From Spendopedia: Taxpayer Subsidized Haircuts The barbershop ran deficits of around $350,000 per year for the last 15 years, which means it cost taxpayers $5.25 million over that time period. In 2012, Senate Hair Care Services received a $300,000 bailout in order to keep its doors open. Employees of the barbershop are unionized federal employees, taking home higher-than-average salaries and benefits, including "more than $40,000 for the shoeshine attendant last fiscal year." Six barbers earned more than $40,000 each. The head barber earned $80,000.

76 Response to RNC fundraising calls? Fuck off!

77 I've been wondering if we could reach some of the left by pointing out that the government is much like a corporate behemoth...but with the right to throw people in jail for crossing it. Posted by: 18-1 at December 16, 2013 12:39 PM (P3U0f) Hide posts from (P3U0f) Basically only if they're not "culturally left." If they really arrived at that odd, destructive position by intellectual pursuit, you can show the error. If it's "my tribe believes this," you pretty much have to get them to defect. That sometimes happens, but usually for an apolitical reason (they marry into another community, start a business and have to deal with government, etc). I mean, the Libertarians basically got shoved left by an influx of disaffected leftists (at the same time as a natural anti-incumbent switch), the same thing could happen in reverse. Mind you I don't think it changed much in the way of elections, including fraud in the equation.

78

We face the same problem here that everyone not intimately involved faces: it's hard to not think $ => results. It is clear that the military spends money on things which aren't needed.

79 What's that old line about confusing Warfare and Welfare? Yeah, it's applicable here.

80 Well, gosh, then. Let's cut defense spending drastically, just like the progressives want, and show those assholes.

Posted by: Sphynx at December 16, 2013 12:36 PM (OZmbA)

Here's another one for you, since you didn't like that one.

Division A quotes a certain labor rate per hour - let's say $20 - for a certain type of work.  Division A are often considered internal subcontractors within the corporation - they help where needed to provide technical expertise.

Division B, filled with nepotism, cronyism, and waste, quotes $30 for the same type of labor.  Division B is filled with airheads fucking their way to the top and people who think the words Navy, Air Force, Army, or Marines are the only qualifications people need for a job.

So, Division B responds to a RFP and quotes the lesser $20 rate, gains the contract, then immediately awards the work to the Division B cronies.  When they promptly fuck it up, Division A has to come in to fix the problem at the lower rate. But now, they've had months or years of overcharging the contract, so the whole thing is already way over budget.

Division B doesn't like being made to look like the shitheads they are, which comes from the intellectual inbreeding brought on by cronyism.  So, in response, they marginalize Division A, and if the project is completed correctly with all deliverables, the rewards go to Division B.  Including raises.

None for Division A.  Need to keep that billable rate low for bids.

And when a program is cancelled, guess which group gets it first?

Defense contractors are just one swamp that requires draining in the entire Federal family.

81 And the Military is feeling it and it is hurting readiness and our National Defense.
***
Military spending isn't high on my list of things to cut, but we are broke.

We *should* be having discussions right now about how we will halve the size of the federal budget, at least within the next decade.

I would expect the the military's budget will be the largest line item in that, but it will still have to be significantly scaled back.

OTOH, since it looks like we are going to just keep spending until we go bankrupt, laser satellite bases and iron man suits are a lot more appealing of a legacy for future historians to find then...more EBT cards.

82 So...what's the R's gonna run on in '16?

83 Yeah, I worked for a company run by a bunch of ex-military that had a lot of military retirees. And, yes, they all worshiped the process and correct SOA and daily reports and they way of doing things over getting shit done and getting production out. Apparently that's the military way. Beautiful daily reports, but never mind the actual product.

But if throwing a lot of money at defense gives us a working defense structure I'm all for it. Even if it's not the most efficient thing. I mean, hell, it's government run. What? We outsource it?  (not a bad idea)

The point is McConnell sucks Donkey dicks or wants to. Or at least he wants to continue to spend like the Donkeys.  Get rid of his ass. It IS possible.

84 Posted by: JPS at December 16, 2013 12:30 PM (+Yj3j) One good thing about Gates, he wanted to cut every 5-star's staff down to...well nearly nothing. His best line was "I cut my own grass, so can the general across the street from me." I've heard tell of running jokes that once you get high enough in the DOD (or it's sub agencies) you get your own personal companion assistant. Who travels with you...everywhere.

85 16 "It's for national security!" Is the GOP version of "it's for the children!" Posted by: wooga at December 16, 2013 12:28 PM (opN5B) ^^THIS^^

86 Defense spending is the soft underbelly of the Republican message against federal spending. Almost all of us favor defense spending over most other kinds of spending; but some of us increasingly favor deficit reduction over any spending, including defense spending. Because we are the actual reality based community and realize that if some cuts aren't done now, even to defense, then Math will make those cuts far far more painful. To confirm a discussion earlier this morning, this does cement that the GOP is Ghidorah.

87 Posted by: Country Singer at December 16, 2013 12:42 PM (L8r/r) And that was back when all the Services were larger than they are now... Ships are not getting needed maintenance... things are falling apart... and you can only do that on a ship for a very short period of time before the ship becomes un sea worthy.... Which... because they will not cut down on the number of commitments we have, puts more strain on the rest.... leading to further breakdowns... And soon... you have a paper military... Do you really think the Chi Coms would be getting Froggy in the South China Sea, if they were really worried about the US Navy?

88

#62 The point of the sequester was to make the cuts so bad for both parties that they would get together quickly and pass an actual budget.  And that is exactly what just happened, just 18 months later.  It's a pure bonus for us taxpayers that the sequester cuts actually happened at all and lasted a year.  The only person who has really fought to keep the sequester was Mitch McConnell, and that was only because it was his idea and gave him some ammunition to use in his Senate primary. 

 

Maybe if "the base" insisted on some specific budget cuts it might get somewhere with Congress.  For example, how about getting the original Stimulus spending out of the budget baseline and get back to FY 2009 domestic spending levels?  But I don't see anyone actually proposing anything that specific, it's just a lot of screaming and yelling about RINOs who don't want to cut anything. A vague screech about too much spending is never going to overcome the targeted lobbying by defense contractors and other beneficiaries of specific government spending.

89 >>>Here's another one for you, since you didn't like that one.Division A quotes a certain labor rate per hour - let's say $20 - for a certain type of work. Division A are often considered internal subcontractors within the corporation - they help where needed to provide technical . . . .



I think my caveat was don't cut defense spending but "clean it up." 

90 I'm not sure exactly how defense contracts are paid, but I think they are essentially pay as the contract become fulfilled. This could mean that a sufficiently large R&D project could balloon the budget without contributing to our ability to make war (F-35, anyone?). So when faced with budget restrictions, the R&D programs keep their funding, meaning that one has to cut funding from things actually in use. (things in use of course could include the golf courses and such)

91 Anyone watch the final episode for this season of Homeland last night?....I'm glad Brody final met his end...just sayin'

92 Related: My daughter learned something useful in high school.  In personal finance they had to prepare 1040EZs on on a number of hypothetical people.  My daughter was absolutely appalled. I told her just wait until you see a real 1040 and it's your money we're talking about.

93 I have current co-workers that remember not having fuel to run vehicles during training in the Army in the same time period; for tank gunnery training, they'd load one or two onto lowboy trailers, truck them to the range and leave them there until the iteration was complete.

Posted by: Country Singer at December 16, 2013 12:42 PM (L8r/r)

 

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

 

It was worse under Carter.  We couldn't even start our vehicles periodically during  the cold season to keep the seals tight because of the lack of  fuel.  Our  small-arms range time consisted of only re-zeroing our weapons, nothing else  (a  1-2 magazine exercise).

94 There is the Government Party and the Taxpayer Party. We really need to readjust the definitions by which we evaluate our governance.

There is no Left and Right when it comes right down to it. The Federal structure milks its herd and uses whatever rhetoric and kabuki it needs to corral anything that would a) usurp status quo at best or b) clip the Leviathan at worst.

The Party system is a failure. Well, for citizens it is. It's now a device by which two rhetorically competing interests galvanize centralized power and insulate themselves from their own actions. It's an illusion of democracy.

Maybe Potemkin Democracy is an appropriate term.

95 Geez, Bitch McConnell & you wonder why we are so cynical & feel like letting it burn. You are suppose to be the opposition to delinquent spending. You & your sweet bridge/dam deal can go fuck yourself

96 Patrick Henry Bo[eh]ner: I regret that I have but one soul to sell the Republican Establishment.

97 Posted by: dudenolongerinsantacruz at December 16, 2013 12:49 PM (iLYus)

It depends on how "sexy" the program is to DC.  For instance, the Bradley IFV has been in use since the 80's.  There was a program underway to replace it in about 10 more years called Ground Combat Vehicle.  That program has been shelved.

98 would expect the the military's budget will be the largest line item in that, but it will still have to be significantly scaled back. OTOH, since it looks like we are going to just keep spending until we go bankrupt, laser satellite bases and iron man suits are a lot more appealing of a legacy for future historians to find then...more EBT cards. Posted by: 18-1 at December 16, 2013 12:45 PM (P3U0f) The Military is 13-17% of the Federal budget depending on how you count, yet it si getting shafted with 50% of the cuts??????

99 Let the Republocrats burn it down.

100 Anyone watch the final episode for this season of Homeland last night?... ----------------- It left me hanging. But seriously..., well, as serious as one can be about a TV show, it will forever taint Band of Brothers for me.

101 Cutting F-22 production and keeping the F-35 program. Wise move or not?

102

Return all spending to FY 2008 levels.  As a starting point.

 

Surely, this would please a "Tea Party fiscal conservative"? 

 

And being forced to look at how the different budget components have grown since then appears to be something even AOSHQ readers need.

 

 

 

 

 

103

Geez.....as a Tea Party Conservative and as one who works in the Defense Industry as a contractor, I'm somewhat torn on this. 

Nah....there is a boat load of extra money floating around in contractingÂ…cut some dollars.   You know why contractors have so much work?   Government workers (some, not all) are lazy and incompetent and the DoD acquisition process is too convoluted. 

Starting salaries for new hires – coming out of college – 60-70K per yr.   These are bright kids who need to be working in middle America, not supporting the Government, defense or otherwise. 

 

104 OTOH, since it looks like we are going to just keep spending until we go bankrupt,

The federal government is already insolvent. Bankruptcy is a formal declaration of same, along with a process to determine how badly the creditors are impaired.

People mistakenly compare federal debt to GDP (if we committed everything we have to paying down the debt we could do it in a year). The actual measure of bonedness is debt to federal revenue (wrong, try six years of no government at all with taxes at current levels).

They're just going to keep spending until the entire monetary sytem collapses.

105

#91 Re: Homeland - Yeah, I watched it with my husband.  We argued until the very end whether Brody was actually going to be killed off.  He didn't think so, I did.  Maybe it was just wishful thinking for me because I can't stand Damian Lewis.  Husband likes him because of Band of Brothers.

 

I thought it was probably the most realistic episode of the entire season.  And that's not saying much.  Still think Carrie would have been arrested pretty fast in Tehran, because even with a headscarf on and dyed hair she was obviously a Westerner running around talking on a cell phone constantly. 

106 Cutting F-22 production and keeping the F-35 program.

Wise move or not?

Posted by: Ed Anger at December 16, 2013 12:53 PM (tOkJB)

One of them works. 

The other......does not.

107 Cutting F-22 production and keeping the F-35 program. Wise move or not? Posted by: Ed Anger at December 16, 2013 12:53 PM (tOkJB) Well they are not the same thing. The F-22 was only an Air Force fighter. And the F-35 was suppose to be a one plane for all services and missions. The F-35 was a bad idea from the get go.

108 Henry Ford Democracy: You can have your policy in any color you want, as long as its "more spending."

109 New civil war hotness: We the People vs. They the Government, and We the People have They the Government surrounded. Time we started acting like it.

110 OMG! There a billion websites on how to make the Land O' Lakes girl flash you: http://goo.gl/7DZgwL

111

Chris Matthews accused the conservative and tea-party factions that have been outspoken in their opposition of the Ryan-Murray budget deal of “acting if not as brutally, certainly as crazily” as North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, who recently executed his uncle.

“It’s not North Korea, but, boy, is it getting tough over there on the American right,” Matthews said.

-

I hope McConnell and Bo[eh]ner like there new bedfellows.

112 From everything I've read, the F-35 needs scrapped. The whole concept of a plan for everyone was flawed from the beginning. Considering the leftward swing of the military, especially the brass, hacking and slashing might not be a bad idea.

113 They're just going to keep spending until the entire monetary sytem collapses.

Posted by: Methos at December 16, 2013 12:54 PM (hO9ad)

 

 

---------------------------------------------

 

 

And if the dollar collapses, we just think we've  had  bad wars in out past.

114 But I don't see anyone actually proposing anything that specific, it's just a lot of screaming and yelling about RINOs who don't want to cut anything.

Well said.

If the TP types are going to blindly engage in reactionary, shallow hysterics, it's no surprise that those who have to deal with specifics and reality (a dirty word in with the TP set, I know) are going to ignore them.  And rightfully so.

115 Here's the thing: We have no actual national security strategy. Oh, we have one on paper--but it is a shopping list that sets no priorities. Therefore, when the cuts come it's always a general recision with no thought given to impact. DOD is no different from any other agency--they'll maximize if not given some guidance. I have long favored naval and air/space power over ground power, but even within those bounds we have no coherent set of priorities. McConnell and his ilk are favoring Washington over the country. The two are not synonymous and the message in 2014 needs to be sent loud and clear that this is the case.

116 Well they are not the same thing. The F-22 was only an Air Force fighter. And the F-35 was suppose to be a one plane for all services and missions. The F-35 was a bad idea from the get go. Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 16, 2013 12:56 PM (t3UFN) Don't forget, the axes are out for the A-10 yet again. The only one of the 3 that has actually been in combat and did its job.

117 Having worked for a major defense contractor for a relatively short tenure, the corruption and waste I personally witnessed in that short period of time was not only very enlightening but absolutely appalling. I haven't worked for defense contractors. But what was really eye-opening for me was how much waste and laziness there was in the Red Cross. It was incredible! Anywhere accountability and hustle has gone soft is going to be a farm for bad practice and ineptitude.

118 Kill them all, let God sort them out! Have guns, will travel!

119 It's the Unity Party from Pournelle's Future History universe: Two wings of one party held in place by corruption, graft, and drugs for the proles.

120 And being forced to look at how the different budget components have grown since then appears to be something even AOSHQ readers need.

Posted by: non-purist at December 16, 2013 12:54 PM (afQnV)

 

The usual answer seems to be "Medicare Part D." But I have yet to hear anyone, even at Heritage Action, proposing to repeal that.  Too much fun to just blame all the current Republicans for passing it, even though most of them weren't even in Congress when it passed and those who were got severely arm-twisted by a Republican President to vote for it.  People seem to think Mitch McConnell is somehow responsible for that legislation and the rest of the Bush spending increases, even though he wasn't the Senate GOP leader then.

121 How do you cut ANYTHING at ANY TIME with RINOs in charge who capitulate with every spending measure the Donks want?

You can dream, I guess.

122

Defense spending is discretionary spending.  All of the federal government's discretionary spending, if completely cut, would not take out the deficit we have.  That deficit is run by entitlements and that has to be stopped.

 

123 Just realized, it's Boston Tea Party Day.

124 Methos: "They're just going to keep spending until the entire monetary sytem collapses."

Yep. Pretty much etched in stone.

We know it's coming. They know it's coming. They just have better access to the methods and personnel to build and insulate their protective bubble and they're actively padding as fast as possible. When it all falls down, they'll still be at the top of the massive, smoldering mess. We'll be economically and socially crushed.

125 Well they are not the same thing. The F-22 was only an Air Force fighter. And the F-35 was suppose to be a one plane for all services and missions. The F-35 was a bad idea from the get go.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 16, 2013 12:56 PM (t3UFN)

 

 

----------------------------------------------

 

 

It's  part of  the McNamera philosophy.  McNamera killed a lot of people with his philosophy.

126 Merry Christmas!

http://tinyurl.com/lzvvkp2

127 Until a national party (of any stripe) can get elected on a platform of "we are going to cut government spending and it is going to hurt those of you who are voting for us"-- until then-- it seems unlikely that any substantive reduction in budget deficits (much less total debt) will ensue.

128 You could easily make a funny compilation of the many times that Matthews was reminded of Nazi Germany when referring to the Right.

129 held in place by corruption, graft, and drugs for the proles. Posted by: joncelli at December 16, 2013 12:59 PM (RD7QR) We get drugs? Is that in Obamacare?

130 A lot of the spending I saw while in the Army struck me as not-really-necessary. I also encountered some large staffs of whom I wanted to ask, Bob Slydell-style, "What - would you say - ya DO here?" I was contract security on an Army base for about six months. I couldn't believe how lazy the MPs were. And they defended their laziness by claiming they were preventing waste by not doing their jobs. Eg: not patrolling in their patrol cars. They'd rather sit in our heated break shacks and wait for radio calls.

131 I think my caveat was don't cut defense spending but "clean it up."

Posted by: Sphynx at December 16, 2013 12:49 PM (OZmbA)

I don't think it gets cleaned up without cutting it.  I don't think the EPA, the IRS, the ATF, the DOE, SSDI fraud - I don't think they get cleaned up without cutting them, either.

132 Well said. If the TP types are going to blindly engage in reactionary, shallow hysterics, it's no surprise that those who have to deal with specifics and reality (a dirty word in with the TP set, I know) are going to ignore them. And rightfully so. Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2013 12:57 PM (SY2Kh) Please set out in detail each and every cut, actual cut, not decrease in the rate of spending, enacted from 2002-2006.

133 "The main message he was pushing was: Who cares about the iceberg when you've scored a sweet-ass lifeboat?

134 When the F-35 program was started around 2000-2001, Lockheed was given total discretion as to how configure and build the plane, which was supposed to be a "cost saving" move with reduced overhead and management. Right now, it's late, overbudget, etc., and the General in command of the program is trying to get it straightened out, because he can't "fire" the Prime Contractor, Lockheed. The F-22 was a mature program, with all the production kinks worked out and all the sunk costs paid for. And then our brilliant President and SecDef decide to shut it down. Yes, the per plane costs were high, but as the production run was extended, the cost per plane would go down. And all the remaining F-15's C-models (single seat fighters) are now just about worn out with metal fatigue on key parts. They keep writing out the specs to keep them flying, because we just don't have enough planes now.

135 Just realized, it's Boston Tea Party Day.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at December 16, 2013 01:00 PM (7ObY1)

----

It's also the five year anniversary of Algore's proclamation that Arctic Ice will be gone by the end of 2013.

Only 15 melting days left Al....

136 It was incredible! Anywhere accountability and hustle has gone soft is going to be a farm for bad practice and ineptitude. Posted by: bonhomme ----------------------- True of most bureaucracies, actually. Unless they are are devoted to their mission (and that mission might be charity or profit) they will be inefficient as hell. The rot always starts at the head.

137 Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2013 12:57 PM (SY2Kh) Ok... heres one... Congress itself did a study that showed there were over 100 Billion dollars in Duplicate Government services... That was 3 or 4 years ago... NOT ONE BIT OF ACTION ON IT.... None... That's a quick start....

138 They're just going to keep spending until the entire monetary sytem collapses.

Posted by: Methos at December 16, 2013 12:54 PM (hO9ad)

 

I really believe that the mania for "immigration reform" (a/k/a amnesty) is driven by the desperation to get all those millions of immigrants on the legal tax rolls and paying into Social Security and Medicare (and eventually for Obamacare.)  It's not just about the votes, or even primarily about the votes.  It's about a last-ditch attempt to save the current system before it collapses and the benefit cuts have to start.   They're dreaming of course, but that's the logic.

139 I haven't worked for defense contractors. But what was really eye-opening for me was how much waste and laziness there was in the Red Cross. It was incredible! Anywhere accountability and hustle has gone soft is going to be a farm for bad practice and ineptitude.

Posted by: bonhomme at December 16, 2013 12:59 PM (A0glY)

Isn't that interesting?  I have a close family member in the Red Cross.  Astonishing parallels.

One common thread, of course, is that the Red Cross is very much rent-seeking.

140

It's fair to say that I'm personally hawkish; that is, I think the best way to protect our country is to assertively project power in order to influence events and nations in such a way that it serves our national interest and our overall security. One of the many reasons I so much dislike Ron Paul is that he (and presumably his son) advocate a kind of neo-isolationism, which is in turn a sort of hedgehog defense, a purely defensive strategy where all of our military capabilities and apperatus are confined within our national borders. This is infantile, in my view, and demonstrates a blind ignorance of geopolitical realities along with a willful inability to understand what a military is and what it's for.

 

That said, a country cannot project power or fight a war if it's bankrupt, at least not for long. That's the big picture here. So yes, cut military spending wherever practicable, but with the caveat that no military spending should be cut unless and until entitlement spending is cut in tandem.

 

Great Britain scrapped its last aircraft carrier not too long ago, primarily so they could pay for their much-vaunted social welfare system. As a result, Britain couldn't hold its own in a fight with a major power for a day, and a replay of the Falklands War--which a number of Argentinian generals would no doubt very much favor--will likely have a far different outcome.

141 Well I for one am just itching to give Lockheed-Martin more money to not deliver F-35's on time.

142

114 -

 

No, idiot, if you would read you would notice it's your boy, the Senate Minority Leader who is engaging in "shallow  hysterics."

 

Your party is demonizing anyone who ever breathes of  spending cuts.  You're a damn Democrat,  is what you are. 

143 It's also the five year anniversary of Algore's proclamation that Arctic Ice will be gone by the end of 2013. Only 15 melting days left Al.... Posted by: fixerupper ----------------------- Worth mentioning that the Fed sold off it's remaining interest in GM last week. Barky assured us that we '..would not lose a dime.' The loss on the sale? $10 Billion in taxpayer money.

144 I haven't worked for defense contractors. But what was really eye-opening for me was how much waste and laziness there was in the Red Cross. It was incredible! Anywhere accountability and hustle has gone soft is going to be a farm for bad practice and ineptitude. Posted by: bonhomme at December 16, 2013 12:59 PM (A0glY) Listen, I talked about the ways you spend money HOW MANY TIMES. Geez, it's like no one paid any attention. Now if you'll excuse me I have to go punch Krugatron.

145 "It's part of the McNamera philosophy. McNamera killed a lot of people with his philosophy."

That philosophy is still very much alive and kicking with the USAFs renewed effort to kill the A-10 Hog and, more generally, any involvement with CAS whatsoever.

146 Off Off Sock I"m really not worthy to wear! (Or even launder.)

147 "The RINOs love them some defense spending..."

Look, at least call them CINOs.  RINOs are Republicans who don't want Republicans to get elected.  Yeesh.  Obviously "seeno" isn't as sexy as "rhino".



"We can't primary any of these Repubs because you TeaTards give us Akin and O' Donnell. All.Of. The.Time."

This is actually true, because whenever the anti-establishment establishment is challenged to name the current Tea Party members of Congress, they kind of stare at you blankly or hand you a coloring book of Saint Cruz. 

But 2010 was really a Tea Party victory, you guys!

148 If the TP types are going to blindly engage in reactionary, shallow hysterics, it's no surprise that those who have to deal with specifics and reality (a dirty word in with the TP set, I know) are going to ignore them. And rightfully so.

Of course you're right. Borrowing a trillion and a half dollars every year is the responsible adult thing to do.

The silver lining of the burning times is knowing that smug collaborators like you can't escape it.

149 Now if you'll excuse me I have to go punch Krugatron.

Posted by: Milton Friedman at December 16, 2013 01:05 PM (GaqMa)

----

NEVER punch down, Milt.

150 Obama and the Left are intent on turning the military into a Diversity jobs program.

151 I'd really like to see one of the Establishment GOP leaders answer some hard questions on camera. What do they think the endpoint of massive deficit spending is? Do they simply have a screw the future attitude or do they think there is some actual underlying strategy that doesn't cause devastation on a massive scale previously associated with World Wars? Do they think the US will be last man standing and inherit mastery of the globe?

Can any of them pass a basic math test?

152 Are some of you ashamed of conservatism? Or is it that you feel that conservatism isn't really worth fighting for?

153 Re: F-22 vs F-35

Check out another Lockheed program - the VH-71 helicopter, also cancelled in a blatantly political move shortly before the aircraft were delivered.

These helicopters were done. But they weren't Sikorsky airframes.

154 Although I'd like to thank Hollowpoint for parroting the DailyKos lies and smears so I don't have to actually click over there.

155 Why bother funding an army that is flung all over the globe when we leave our own borders completely open?

156 Please set out in detail each and every cut, actual cut, not decrease in the rate of spending, enacted from 2002-2006.

To what end?

Nobody is defending the irresponsible spending that took place 2002-2006.  Spending that cost the GOP control of Congress.

157 I really believe that the mania for "immigration reform" (a/k/a amnesty) is driven by the desperation to get all those millions of immigrants on the legal tax rolls and paying into Social Security and Medicare (and eventually for Obamacare.) You know, the Republicans just might fall for that... Naturally conservative, law-abiding citizens who are in no way a net cost to the state!

158 That philosophy is still very much alive and kicking with the USAFs renewed effort to kill the A-10 Hog and, more generally, any involvement with CAS whatsoever. Posted by: Jaws at December 16, 2013 01:05 PM (4I3Uo) And best part? The Army has gone from Large Battle training, to Counter insurgency doctrine... meaning we no longer have many Heavy Divisions who can go toe to toe with large Armor units... The Army says they can get away with it, because of Air Force CAS... Oopppsssssie...

159 I like the sequester in that it forces the government to live within its means, but it is hard to deny that it disproportionately affects the military. The Air Force is set to lose another 25,000 airmen and 500 aircraft due to sequestration, becoming smaller than at any time since its creation. How can anyone argue that that is a positive development, especially with almost daily reports of China's increased belligerence?

160 Can any of them pass a basic math test? How basic? US 8th grade math is where I'd guess they would start to really show their knowledge gaps. 8th grade math is when US students get deeper into Algebra and start into Geometry.

161 How about some push-back on the Tea Party being called "far right" for the umteen-thousandth time? That's the establishment Right climbing on board with the socialists to try demonize them. The Tea Party is ***libertarian***. They share some common values with conservatives but are certainly not "extreme conservatives". I'm all for a strong defense, and it paid my bills for many years (and may yet again someday), but the DoD budget ballooned incredibly during the Iraq War and I don't think it has scaled back any since. 10 years ago I surprised to learn that US defense spending was more than the rest of NATO combined. These days I think I've heard that it's more than t he rest of the world, combined. Seems like it's a tad out of control.

162 Posted by: t-bird at December 16, 2013 01:09 PM (FcR7P) Wasn't the argument a while back that as illegals they made the SS system solvent by paying into it (with fake SS numbers) but never withdrawing? I swear I saw that all over the place. So if we grant that for the sake of argument, it would render quite the contradiction to anyone who then tried to claim that amnesty will help the tax rolls.

163 Ok... heres one...

Congress itself did a study that showed there were over 100 Billion dollars in Duplicate Government services...

See?  That wasn't so hard.

164 Are some of you ashamed of conservatism? Or is it that you feel that conservatism isn't really worth fighting for? How would you define conservatism? Do you have to know Locke and Hayek? Do you mean Federalism + US Constitutionalism + the Rule of Law?

165 "We can't primary any of these Repubs because you TeaTards give us Akin and O' Donnell. All.Of. The.Time."

This is actually true, because whenever the anti-establishment establishment is challenged to name the current Tea Party members of Congress, they kind of stare at you blankly or hand you a coloring book of Saint Cruz.

But 2010 was really a Tea Party victory, you guys!

Posted by: Shoot Me at December 16, 2013 01:06 PM (qiXMt)

As has been pointed out here many times, Akin was not Tea Party.

166 Heh, the far right is now the people wanting less Defense spending.  Thanks Mitch!

167 #137

There is another layer of duplication between state and federal levels. About ten years ago an LA paper ran an article notice there was a LOT of CA entitlement programs that were duplicates of federal programs, all while the state was mired in deficits. The one real difference between the two programs? The federal version had this funny requirement of legal residency within the US to qualify, while the CA version never asked the question.

168 Although I'd like to thank Hollowpoint for parroting the DailyKos lies and smears so I don't have to actually click over there.

So that was you I saw at the Tea Party rally holding the "Keep govt off of my Medicare" sign.

169 See? That wasn't so hard. Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2013 01:11 PM (SY2Kh) And your GOP... who read this into the Congressional Record.... has done WHAT with it??? Oh.... increased the spending to ALL of these programs via the automatic increases in all the Continuing Resolutions...

170

#137 Ronald Reagan tried that too, he established the Grace Commission, headed by efficiency expert J. Peter Grace, to examine the entire federal government and find the waste.  The report found over $400 billion in potential savings over the next 3 years - and this was in 1984. 

 

Bill Clinton tried to do the same thing, putting Al Gore in charge of "reinventing government." 

 

Our government can't be reinvented, because it is a government made up of people who are ruled by human nature, and they respond predictably to the perverse incentives of working in an insulated workplace where they can't be fired and nobody cares about how much they spend or whether they get any results.  This is the best argument of all for smalller government.  It does very little very well, and wastes lots of money trying to do anything.

 

I would give ANYTHING for a national party or candidate who would simply be honest about this, and just say: "We may not be able to cut very much out of this government, until people get tired of being ripped off to pay for bad government that does nothing very well.  But I will promise that at least I will not add to your suffering by proposing any new government programs." 

171 Are Hollowpoint and jwest the same person?

172 "@155 Why bother funding an army that is flung all over the globe when we leave our own borders completely open?" Maybe the reason we spend so much more than everybody else because THEY'VE figured out that the best way to invade a country is to sneak in across their border in the dark of night. Talk about "cost effective"!!

173 I may be naïve, but it seems to me that it would be useful if we designed and organized our military around what it would take to defend the United States against all identifiable national threats rather than what it would take to protect the rest of the world. We would have a uniquely different looking capability (and expense). After that exercise, we could look at what it would take to include the other free countries. We would then know what a real partnership would look like and what it would cost.

174 I really believe that the mania for "immigration reform" (a/k/a amnesty) is driven by the desperation to get all those millions of immigrants on the legal tax rolls and paying into Social Security and Medicare (and eventually for Obamacare.) It's not just about the votes, or even primarily about the votes. It's about a last-ditch attempt to save the current system before it collapses and the benefit cuts have to start. They're dreaming of course, but that's the logic.

Rockmom, I'm going to agree with you there. Just want to add that they are of course looking at that solution without any consideration for what they (because it will be a different they) do when those millions of mexicans hit retirement.

175 Oops... picking on HeatherRadish is likley to get one barreled...

176 To what end? Nobody is defending the irresponsible spending that took place 2002-2006. Spending that cost the GOP control of Congress. Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2013 01:09 PM (SY2Kh) Because your position is that it is the Tea Party types who are engaging in hysterical shrieking and who lack a touch with reality. Reality is that from 2002-2006 those who are in your camp, which I am, admittedly, drawing broadly, had exactly what (generic) you claim you need to enact what the Tea Party wants, namely, control of the White House and both branches of Congress. What happened? Precisely what you admit occurred.
Yet, and I find this remarkable, it is (specific) you who is hurling invective at those who no longer believe that the GOP will do a single thing it says that it will do re: spending and deficits. Reality demonstrates that given the power the GOP now demands before taking any action, the GOP not only refused to enact cuts but exacerbated the problem. The burden of proof is on the GOP and its apologists, including (specific) you, to demonstrate why those refuse to believe that the GOP is now Serious You Guy on this topic are wrong to do so. I am still waiting for any such evidence. If you have it, by all means, introduce it. But note that I am looking for evidence, not rhetoric. Honestly, advance support for your position. I am open to evaluating it.

177 The tea parties or whoever wants to change things will have to settle in to do it over the long haul, incrementally.  It's worthwhile to challenge McConnell and the other Old Guards and RINOs. We'll win some and lose some.

Eventually, we'll do it, provided the ship doesn't sink first. Or, as it's put here, the burning times begin.

178 151 I'd really like to see one of the Establishment GOP leaders answer some hard questions on camera. What do they think the endpoint of massive deficit spending is? Do they simply have a screw the future attitude or do they think there is some actual underlying strategy that doesn't cause devastation on a massive scale previously associated with World Wars? Do they think the US will be last man standing and inherit mastery of the globe?

Can any of them pass a basic math test?

 

Posted by: Epobirs at December 16, 2013 01:06 PM (bPxS6)

 

How about somebody asking a DEMOCRAT these questions? 

179 .. meaning we no longer have many Heavy Divisions who can go toe to toe with large Armor units...

Throw in the fact that only a handful of *battalions* have done any training  in the last year or two outside of pre-deployment for Afstan and it's even worse.  If we weren't already stocked with a bunch of guys who have been there and done that  in small unit  stuff over the last decade, we'd be truly fucked.  It's only a matter of time, however,  before they're  RIF'd or retire early because of the bullshit.

180 How about some push-back on the Tea Party being called "far right" for the umteen-thousandth time? Nah, too defensive. Besides, it's a self-indicting description of where they stand.

181 >>> Congress itself did a study... ... There's your problem right there. These morons think that "doing a study" is an action. Then there's the cost of the study. The justification for inaction will be that they didn't want to waste money on another study of what actions to take to correct the problems found by the previous study... since it would take money from The Middle Class... or something.

182

171 -

 

Twins,  separated at birth.  I think one of  them has a goatee. 

183 I was actually told by a staffer that the idea    behind amnesty was to keep social security and medicare solvent with all of those sweet new taxpayers.  I pointed out that EITC would more than offset the income, and was met with a blank stare.

184 >>175 Oops... picking on HeatherRadish is likley to get one barreled...

Posted by: OG Celtic-American at December 16, 2013 01:15 PM (vHRtU)

HeatherRadish kind of reminds me of a pit bull on my block. You want to leave the sidewalk and walk in a big radius because you want to be well past the end of her chain. Love ya, Heather.

185 Hollowpoint, you seemed to be confused by the Ryan/Murray budget on the night when there was a thread initially about it because, I believe, there weren't enough offsets for the increased Defense spending.  Assuming my memory is good, and correct me if I misstated your thoughts, has anything changed?

186 Yeah, I can tell you that as a military spouse, we are NOT getting our money's worth out of defense contractors. For example, every year our BAH goes up, but we are getting less services out of our privatized housing and their incompetence seems to be growing exponentially. And they wonder why people are moving out of base housing....

187 Apparently that's the military way. Beautiful daily reports, but never mind the actual product.

Posted by: Sphynx at December 16, 2013 12:46 PM (OZmbA)

Or as we used to say, "It doesn't matter if the ship sinks, so long as it goes down with the decks level."

188

How about somebody asking a DEMOCRAT these questions?

-

The democrats are clear on those       questions:  to wit, the evil rich are not paying their fair share, which is why we have deficits.   That, or we have allowed the evil GOP to cut tax rates, which is in effect stealing     money from the Treasury.    Stupid, but at least they are being honest with     themselves and their    base, unlike the GOP.

189 To what end?

Nobody is defending the irresponsible spending that took place 2002-2006. Spending that cost the GOP control of Congress.

The point is that if the GOP wants control again, they need to have a really good explanation for that spending.

190 I pointed out that EITC would more than offset the income, and was met with a blank stare. Cost benefit what now?

191 Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at December 16, 2013 01:15 PM (VtjlW) I think its a mistake to personify groups... ie... The Government... or the GOP... as if they are thinking entities unto themselves... Because it allows folks within those entities (and those outside as well) to not make those RESPONSIBLE for what those entities do... responsible... Thus, I don't really blame the GOP... but I DO blame those who were in office at the time... especially if they were in leadership position.... like most of the current GOP leadership... Those who blindly follow party loyalty, without asking WHO is making WHAT decisions... and where those 'Leaders' are taking us... are just the same as many Leftists... where it is all about Brand, and not result.

192 I think there have been few times in history when a great power had such a fundamentally unserious leadership. What a frickin' clown show. It's going to burn, all right. The corrupticrats (of both parties) are just pouring gasoline on the fire.

193 I don't know. I really think we are making too much of everyday stuff. When HASN'T the party sneezed defense contractors? It's a crooked group, but that is not a news flash.

194 I think its a mistake to personify groups... ie... The Government... or the GOP... as if they are thinking entities unto themselves... What leads you to believe the current group of GOP people are more responsible / willing to cut programs than the group in power between 2002 and 2006?

195 How about somebody asking a DEMOCRAT these questions?

I would pay actual money to see Obama take a 7th grade math test on live television.

196 Cutting F-22 production and keeping the F-35 program. Wise move or not?
Posted by: Ed Anger at December 16, 2013 12:53 PM (tOkJB)

They just extended the procurement of Super Hornets into 2015, so I'm guessing things aren't completely peachy with the F-35C yet.

197 Do they think the US will be last man standing and inherit mastery of the globe?

That's not the worst prediction, for some values of 'standing' and 'mastery'. China's internal investment planning makes our bankers look like choir boys and the EU isn't much better than them. Will Pakistan/India/China disappear under mushroom clouds when shit hits the fan? Not out of the question. Japan is in China's sights, too. Russia only matters these days because it can supply fuel to the EU, so they'll go down together. And Africa remains Africa.

198 I think there have been few times in history when a great power had such a fundamentally unserious leadership. What a frickin' clown show. My Roman history is a bit rusty, but I think they had some real pumpkins. The Italians and French too.

199
I don't see anyone actually proposing anything that specific, it's just a lot of screaming and yelling about RINOs who don't want to cut anything. A vaguescreech about too much spending is never going to overcome the targeted lobbying by defense contractors and other beneficiaries of specific government spending.
Posted by: rockmom




Here's a start:

http://tinyurl.com/mnt79wq

BTW - "cancel for cause" so the Feds aren't on the hook for cancellation costs.

Let us know if you need more.

200 17 And yes, defense spending can be cut if it is done in a rational manner. Close some bases and that will save billions. But it will never happen. Posted by: Vic at December 16, 2013 12:28 PM (T2V/1) Oh? So when is that last time you went to Myrtle Beach AF base and saw those Warthogs? http://tinyurl.com/ommsx9b

201 >197 Canada will survive us all.

202 Posted by: Damiano the Economic Traitor at December 16, 2013 01:17 PM (j0wOO) Yeah.... my bust.... I make decisions based on the OODA loop.... Orient, Observe, Decide, Act.... Congress works on Orient, Obfuscate, Deny, Accuse....

203 I would pay actual money to see Obama take a 7th grade math test on live television. I'd give my next two months pay to see that.

204 Close some bases and that will save billions. But it will never happen. Posted by: Vic at December 16, 2013 12:28 PM (T2V/1) /listens to the strange silence... instead of the B-52s and KC 135s from Castle Air Force Base, Merced CA...

205 198 My Roman history is a bit rusty, but I think they had some real pumpkins. The Italians and French too. Posted by: bonhomme at December 16, 2013 01:25 PM (o4Xc4) Yeah, this is on that level. Which means we're screwed.

206

#188 I'm sorry, but that just isn't true.  Barack Obama actually campaigned on reducing the national debt in 2009.  So did Nancy Pelosi in 2006 - one of the big arguments she had to be Speaker was that the Republicans were bankrupting the country by refusing to raise taxes to pay for all their increased spending.  So the national debt almost doubles she becomes Speaker, and I have yet to hear her asked by a single reporter to answer for that.  She had the votes in 2009 to repeal all of the Bush tax rates if she really believed that was the cause of the deficits, but she didn't even put that up for a vote, and caved again on it after she lost the speakership in 2010 but before she gave up the gavel. 

 

Democrats are with tax hikes like Republicans are with spending cuts - they love to talk the good game to their base but don't want to go through with it when they have the chance because they know the actual consequences will be punishment at the polls.  But only on the Republican side do the party leaders get called out on it and still expected to live up to their promises. 

207 201 >197 Canada will survive us all. Posted by: OG Celtic-American at December 16, 2013 01:26 PM (vHRtU) Unless they run out of beer and whale fat.

208 Canada will survive us all. Only because nobody wants it. They hid Parliament in Ottawa to keep the US from taking it. How long has that cat been out of the bag? Yet we still haven't marched in.

209 I've worked in a defense department facility. Trust me, there is plenty of fat to trim.

210 Lest we forget, the sequester was Republicans retreating from demanding *actual* concessions from the Dems.

211 "@117 ... I haven't worked for defense contractors. But what was really eye-opening for me was how much waste and laziness there was in the Red Cross. It was incredible! Anywhere accountability and hustle has gone soft is going to be a farm for bad practice and ineptitude." Having worked for Defense companies for a very long time, I can second that there is corruption and waste. Basically, there is a very cozy relationship between the contractors and the govt. As an example, in one of my more recent stints, a Dod entity would be too lazy or incompetent to come up with a spec, so they would have us draw up a draft for them. Naturally, we would try to skew things so that only we could reasonably met the specs. Even "competitive" bids can be a scam, and that's only one way that it happens. But it goes much further than that. Much of the waste is in the production of a vast quantity of paperwork. Some of it truly should exist, as a matter of controlling the process, but even a lot of THAT stuff is an exercise in "cutting and pasting". Mostly it's the govt mandating that the contractors mimic THEM, and THEY have people inventing bureaucracy to justify their own existence. We even had systems engineering propose that a "systems engineering tax" be tacked onto the price we quote, while people within that organization would sit around inventing new types of bureaucracy (much to the delight of their managers). Yeah, that was not an especially successful business unit...

212 They hid Parliament in Ottawa to keep the US from taking it. How long has that cat been out of the bag? Yet we still haven't marched in. Posted by: bonhomme at December 16, 2013 01:29 PM (o4Xc4) They went to Quebec city for the hot french ho's.

213 Hot French Ho's! Does that come with fries?

214 #160


If you cannot set up an amortization schedule, with or without spreadsheet software, you should probably not be allowed anywhere near budget talks.

I think some of these idiots believe something as simple as compound interest goes away by magic if there are enough zeros involved.

215
Here's a start:

http://tinyurl.com/mnt79wq

BTW - "cancel for cause" so the Feds aren't on the hook for cancellation costs.

Let us know if you need more.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 16, 2013 01:25 PM (kdS6q)

 

Cool.

 

I could tell you the entire budget of HUD is wasted.  I worked there for 8 years.  That's almost $40 billion a year.  Only Rand Paul has actually suggested eliminating entire agencies, which is a better place to start than cutting ships and planes and weapons we don't need.  At least those create jobs for Americans.  HUD and Education and Commerce don't.

216 They went to Quebec city for the hot french ho's. I've been to Quebec City. The hotties have all been smoking since age 14. By the time they're in their late 20s they look ten years older. They don't age well. That and they're probably some of the meanest people on the planet.

217 Reality demonstrates that given the power the GOP now demands before taking any action, the GOP not only refused to enact cuts but exacerbated the problem. The burden of proof is on the GOP and its apologists, including (specific) you, to demonstrate why those refuse to believe that the GOP is now Serious You Guy on this topic are wrong to do so.

Within the context of being the minority party, exactly what form of "proof" is acceptable to you?

In terms of the discretionary budget the sequester cuts did lower spending, and not just the rate of growth.

The issue at hand is, those cuts hit the military disproportionately hard.  Remember when conservatives believed in a strong military, way back in, I don't know, 2010?

218

The sequester was "genius" in a world in which Obama is a bright accomplished articulate leader.  Are you effing kidding me?  The sequester was, as I stated above, a monument to cowardice by the GOP - to avoid having a confrontation.  It was a ludicrous - even by current Beltway standards - version of "nobody moves or the n***er gets it!"/Clayvon Little scene from Blazing Saddles - taking yourself hostage.    So they "forced" themselves to come to an agreement .... and of course the agreement is crap and changes nothing.

 

rockmom you touch on what I believe (and stated) is the central point in all this - the wildly disproportionate growth in different budget categories since 2008.  Defense has not exploded - other categories have. 

 

All the anecdotes and stories about defense spending being rolled out here  - including the true ones - are off-point.  The legitimate ones need to be addressed anyway - and that wouldn't change if we had a federal budget surplus and no debt.  But this is not about that.  This is about the overall size of federal spending, and how it's grown - most of it recently - to an unsustainable and indefensible size.  The DOD budget has NOT grown recently in a way that puts it out of proportion for its legitimate share of federal spending, or its historic ratio to GDP, or anything else.

 

Nothing to do here with "sacred cows".  If you use that term in this context, you are every bit as misinformed as an LIV.  The Tea Party probably wouldn't exist (well, it really doesn't - it's the common sense idea of fiscal sanity we're talking about, nothing more) if 2008-2013 hadn't happened.   And in that period, for the umpteenth time, defense spending did NOT greatly expand in comparison to anything it has ever been in our history.

 

So if people want to "fix" the explosive, destructive, indefensible growth of non-defense spending by cutting the constitutionally mandated vital federal responsibility of defense, which hasn't been growing and has not been any part of the post-2008 spending explosion ...... well, that's about what I'd expect from a country with a ridiculous empty suit as president.

 

219
The usual answer seems to be "Medicare Part D." But I have yet to hear anyone, even at Heritage Action, proposing to repeal that. Too much fun to just blame all the current Republicans for passing it, even though most of them weren't even in Congress when it passed....
Posted by: rockmom



Enacted :2003
Number of Elections since then: 5
Current House incumbent re-election rate: .98

.98^5= 90% of incumbents from 2003 who chose to run are still there.

It's the same bunch of bums.

220 I think some of these idiots believe something as simple as compound interest goes away by magic if there are enough zeros involved. Posted by: Epobirs at December 16, 2013 01:34 PM (bPxS6) No, it only goes away if we manipulate the Interest Rate, to MAKE it go away... Peasant.....

221
 a better place to start than cutting ships and planes and weapons we don't need. At least those create jobs for Americans
Posted by: rockmom




Cool.

It's all just one big corrupt government jobs program, so let's get our trotters in the trough.

222

The first thing that needs to be done is for congress to be rid of  baseline budgeting.  Bring back zero-based budgeting.

 

We want  cuts in government?  This really is the first thing that needs to be done among  ALL else.

223

The issue at hand is, those cuts hit the military disproportionately hard. Remember when conservatives believed in a strong military, way back in, I don't know, 2010?

-

Hmmm, as I    recall, the military is about 20% of the budget, and took 50% of the cuts in the sequester.  Now, with the brilliant Ryan plan, the      useless    military bases get to stay in place, and the military retirement is cut, and social spending will increase far more than military spending.  I stand in awe of the masterful GOP negotiations.

224 #188

What would be the point of asking them anything? They regard global economic collapse as a desirable goal. They think they be in charge of what comes after. I want to know if the RINOs entertain the same fantasy or if they think there is a plan that is just too clever for us rubes to let in on. Chances are it's a really bad plan that cannot conceivably work but I'd at least like to know which kind of lie they're peddling to themselves.

225 Within the context of being the minority party, exactly what form of "proof" is acceptable to you? In terms of the discretionary budget the sequester cuts did lower spending, and not just the rate of growth. The issue at hand is, those cuts hit the military disproportionately hard. Remember when conservatives believed in a strong military, way back in, I don't know, 2010? Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2013 01:35 PM (SY2Kh) The issue at hand is you, the ever so specific you, stating the following "If the TP types are going to blindly engage in reactionary, shallow hysterics. . . ." In response to that charming bit of persuasion, I point out the facts of what occurred in 2002-2006. Your response is that is indefensible. Agreed. Thus, the logical and rational and not at all blindly reactionary and/or hysterical response is to presume that given the past and given the rhetoric emanating from those who are in leadership of the GOP at the moment then it is those, such as the ever so specific you who are being ridiculous fools for believing such rhetoric. Yet it is the ever so specific you who chooses to hurl invective. I find that illuminating. You have submitted the sequester. Fair point, the sequester did contain actual cuts. I seem to recall a great deal of shrieking and wailing and gnashing of teeth that the sequester was the worst thing ever for the GOP to do Because Elections. Note that I am not saying that came from the ever so specific you as I do not recall one way or other. Now you have the Senate Minority Leader going out and attacking the very notion of further cuts. The issue is that the money is gone. The money is the rum. It is gone. Flailing about and wanting to know why it's gone is not relevant. It is. So the evidence is that the Senate Minority Leader believes that facing more cuts, which are going to come one way or another, is beyond the pale. But it is the ever so specific you who believes that those on the other side are hysterical and reactionary. Color me unpersuaded.

226 Hollowpoint, you seemed to be confused by the Ryan/Murray budget on the night when there was a thread initially about it because, I believe, there weren't enough offsets for the increased Defense spending. Assuming my memory is good, and correct me if I misstated your thoughts, has anything changed?

It's not a good deal, I'm not going to suggest otherwise.  I particularly don't like the fact that they set a precedent for breaking the spending cap.

However, we weren't going to get a good deal because Democrats.  I think they could've done bit better, but I also understand the desire not to hand Obama a squirrel to distract from the failures of Obamacare.

In a broader sense, I'm getting tired of the 'Look At How Conservative I Am' game.

"Look at how conservative I am- I think they're all RINOs"

"Oh yeah?  I'm so conservative I'd cut military spending until the Navy had to use rowboats"

"No, look at how conservative I am, I'm so conservative I think the GOP is full of secret Marxists"

Etc, etc, etc.

227 THE GOP IS DEAD DEAD DEAD

228

Enacted :2003
Number of Elections since then: 5
Current House incumbent re-election rate: .98

.98^5= 90% of incumbents from 2003 who chose to run are still there.

It's the same bunch of bums.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 16, 2013 01:36 PM (kdS6q)

Republicans lost 54 seats in 2006, remember?  Then they had a whole bunch of incumbents retire in 2008, so even the seats that remained GOP have different people in them now.  All the committee chairs and overall House leadership have changed as well. 

 

You are also WAY underestimating the influence of Tom DeLay in that Congress.  Bush and Rove wanted that Medicare program, it was not thought up by anyone in Congress.  They gave DeLay the marching order, and he beat the shit out of Republicans to pass it, even forced Hastert to break House rules and keep the vote open longer than allowed in order to break arms and get people to switch their votes in the middle of the night.  And Doctor Bill Frist was Senate Majority Leader, he was all for expanding Medicare.  Neither of them are around anymore. 

 

229 The GOP is an inadequate vessel for Conservative hopes.  Even if we win, we lose.

We're going to burn, the math is unavoidable.  Our only hope, as I see it, is a strong 10th Amendment movement and secession-in-place.

230 Fuck that guy!

231 #228 You got it.  I was hoping that afrer 2012 there would be a serious 10th Amendment movement.  I thought Rick Perry would be the ideal person to lead it.  Now we have Chris Christie running the Republican Governors Association as his launching pad for the White House instead of using it to rally the governors against Washington.  I am way more disappointed in that than I am in Congressional Republicans being unable - or unwilling, if that's what you think - to cut spending. 

232 McConnell and Boehner walk into cage filled with rabid wolverines...

No, there's no punchline. Just wishing upon a star, as it were.

233 But it is the ever so specific you who believes that those on the other side are hysterical and reactionary. Color me unpersuaded.

You have read the post and comments, yes?

There have been a handful of comments suggesting specifics- cut the F-35, close some bases, etc.  However the main thrust of what I'm seeing is blindly reactionary.

Conservatives aren't anarchists.  There are core functions of the federal government that need to be funded.  Sadly, such expenditures are dwarfed by functions the feds don't need to and shouldn't perform. 

I think it's safe to say that the military is one of those few core functions.  Yet, half the sequester cuts hit the military, and round two of sequester cuts were to take even more.  Is there no point where military cuts go to far?

This is what people are upset about?  That McConnell isn't a big fan of further cuts to the already cut military spending? 

234
Republicans lost 54 seats in 2006, remember? Then they had a whole bunch of incumbents retire in 2008, so even the seats that remained GOP have different people in them now.
Posted by: rockmom




Your statement was:

"even though most of them weren't even in Congress when it passed...."

You are free to scrub the number to get an exact count of who's still around from 2003 who did not retire or die.

But unless that number is 50% +1 or higher, my statement stands.

235
KY should do the nation a favor and get rid of that bastard.

236 We may not be able to cut very much out of this government, until people get tired of being ripped off to pay for bad government that does nothing very well.

and

Nobody is defending the irresponsible spending that took place 2002-2006. Spending that cost the GOP control of Congress.


Not a dimes worth of difference.

237 Honestly, advance support for your position. I am open to evaluating it.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at December 16, 2013 01:15 PM (VtjlW)

=========================

You'd have a shorter wait asking him to describe the unicorns in his world.

238 Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2013 01:45 PM (SY2Kh)



Thanks for the response.  I don't disagree with what you wrote but that weird little kicker where the Senate gets to vote tax increases with a bare majority was something I think Ryan really got snookered on and until I hear him say something on it one way or another, he's dropped a bit in my opinion.

239 229 Fuck that guy! Posted by: DaveA at December 16, 2013 01:53 PM OK, bring him over.

240 How much of this shit are we going to put up with? Who is there left to convince of the Republican party's corruption and worthlessness?

241 This is what people are upset about? That McConnell isn't a big fan of further cuts to the already cut military spending? Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2013 01:57 PM (SY2Kh) I am upset that you, the incredibly specific you, respond to nearly each and every one of these threads with sneering condescension and then, when called out on it, you attempt to reframe the argument to anything other than your comments. Stop acting like the last 30 odd years have not happened. Just stop it. It's embarrassing to witness you, the extraordinarily specific you, act as if the distrust from what used to be the base for those currently in the GOP leadership is anything other then well and truly earned. You say you are tired of the more conservative than thou? I am tired of the oh look at those naive hysterical idiots. Tell you what, stop calling people names and I'll stop thinking that you have no intellectual support for your positions.

242 Thanks for the response. I don't disagree with what you wrote but that weird little kicker where the Senate gets to vote tax increases with a bare majority was something I think Ryan really got snookered on and until I hear him say something on it one way or another, he's dropped a bit in my opinion.

Meh, the Senate rule change won't mean much as long as the GOP holds the House.

I suspect Reid wanted it to placate his base- he pushes a tax increase for "the rich" through the Senate, the House blocks it, he gets to pat himself on the back for trying.

On the upside, the House could then turn to it's own base and point at how they defeated the tax increase.

243 Tell you what, stop calling people names and I'll stop thinking that you have no intellectual support for your positions.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at December 16, 2013 02:10 PM (VtjlW)

============================
I would opine that holding your breath while waiting for this to occur might prove hazardous to your health.

244 I am upset that you, the incredibly specific you, respond to nearly each and every one of these threads with sneering condescension and then, when called out on it, you attempt to reframe the argument to anything other than your comments.

Again- what was the entire point of this thread again?

Oh yeah:

I'm not in favor of the sequester cuts to defense spending per se, but I am in favor of the general principle that we must limit federal spending, whatever it takes. The sequester cuts are certainly not ideal -- they barely touched discretionary non-defense spending, for example -- but they did represent some cutting.

Square that circle for me. 

Specifically, McConnell is trying to prevent more cuts to defense by reaching out to those who would be hurt by them.  Yet, somehow, even among those not in favor of further defense cuts are angry at McConnell for doing so because it's Mitch McConnell.

You're trying to paint some grand allegory that doesn't exist.  That if a Republican opposes further cuts to military spending, they therefore oppose cutting spending at all, because George Bush.

245 Mr. McConnell's message, according to people who attended a Nov. 6 fundraiser with officials from BAE Systems Inc., was that if Republican lawmakers lose primary elections from challengers further to their right who have few qualms about trimming military budgets, the defense industry could expect dwindling support in Washington.

For the ARMY children!

How sweet.

246 "It's for national security!" Is the GOP version of "it's for the children!" Posted by: wooga at December 16, 2013 12:28 PM (opN5B) Dems are the mommy party and Pubs are the daddy party.

247 I hate 'em both, but at least good dad's will beat your ass if you mess with children.

248 Rockmom You are incorrect. Illegals can and do collect SS ALREADY The requirement for SS to send an illegal their 'retirement' check is that they be OUTSIDE the US See zero hedge, Bruce Krasting articles Pat Leahy killed an attempt to prohibit illegals from collecting SS a few years ago So no it won't 'save' the system to bring in another 30 million illegals BigBiz wants illegals for A cheap labor B consumers w cash They are A & B more than ever bc they are EXEMPTED from Obamacare AND they collect EBT etc etc so they have free cash flow to spend Unlike we peons who are taxed and regulated to death

249 Hollowpoint You told us the GOP House listened to we the people and gave us a victory 'defeating amnesty' But they're passing amnesty in spring You can tell its a done deal by all the retailers advertising in espangol for their new customer base since the US Working class is taxed, fee'd, and now obamacared into penury Point 2 McConnell says he is against the Ryan budget deal but tells defense firms he will increase defense spending which can only be done by busting sequester caps, as Ryan budget does so ya know he's lying to get elected, again 3 if the GOP 'cared' about our military, why are the only 'savings' in Ryan budget over long term yearly cuts to retiree military pensions? This is what they came up with? Are u fxcking kidding me? Spin like a fxckin top but it is CRYSTAL FXCKING CLEAR by now that it is one Big Club and we, the people, are most assuredly Not in it.

250 Defense is actually the one thing I have no problem spending a ton on. It is the one thing mandated in the fucking constitution among the billion other things we blow money on. Smarter spending at the pentagon though, absolutely.

251 This is where laundering of PRISM-sourced intelligence to domestic LEA such as FBI, DHS and IRS becomes important. Real conservatives, you're royally fucked, politically speaking.

252 Does the truth not matter to you at all any more?

The ONLY mention of INCREASING defense or other spending in the entire article is from the "Senate Conservative Fund" which is NOT allied with McConnell or any of the "establishment" Republicans you smear.

McConnell's message was about avoiding further across-the-board cutting of defense budgets, not one single word about increasing them. 

There are certainly remaining areas in the Defense budget which could be substantially cut.  BUT when you cut indiscriminately and across-the-board, you merely give Obama the power to spend more money on his insane biofuels nonsense while cutting readiness and the Navy, for example.

Of course, when Congress specifies how an appropriation must be spent to avoid giving the Executive unintended flexibility, it's called an "earmark" and the insane Tea Party cult says all of those are bad, and forced them out of budgeting tools.  Even though they didn't raise the budget or the deficit by a single penny.  But you'd know all that if you thought before you reacted.

I was part of the REAL Tea Party in 2009-10.  That was grassroots action.  What passes for it today are the remnants, hijacked by the dishonest and insane.  You want to follow Matt Kibbe and DrewM as they march into the obscurity of the lunatic fringe, go ahead.

253 Hollowpoint

You told us the GOP House listened to we the people and gave us a victory 'defeating amnesty'

But they're passing amnesty in spring

You're blaming "the GOP" for something they haven't yet done (passing amnesty) while failing to credit them for what they did (shooting down the Senate amnesty bill).

How about we wait till they propose a bill and see who supports it and who doesn't before condemning the entire party and everyone in it?

254 yeah. we still don't exist.

255 Dumb suckers finally waking up?

256 I know about another EPA employee who was "reinstated" yet has not been seen in the office in over a year and a half.