Force the debt limit, NO INCREASES
-
There is more then enough daily tax revenue to "pay the bills" as Obama likes to say. Bottom line is it's time for the house GOP to really grow a set and refuse to increase the debt limit. It's time to FORCE some painful cuts, YES people will lose benifits, YES some banks will fail, YES some people will lose work, but it's the only way to preserve a nation.
It drives me crazy to hear this idiot attempt to decieve peoeple into believing that raising the debt limit does not increase debt.
There is more then enough daily tax revenue to "pay the bills" as Obama likes to say. Bottom line is it's time for the house GOP to really grow a set and refuse to increase the debt limit. It's time to FORCE some painful cuts, YES people will lose benifits, YES some banks will fail, YES some people will lose work, but it's the only way to preserve a nation.
It drives me crazy to hear this idiot attempt to decieve peoeple into believing that raising the debt limit does not increase debt.
You know I sympathize with the desire to reduce spending on principle. I agree 100% just like I'm asked at home to live within my means, that government should also do so. The problem with this is that not raising the debt limit is going to throw the entire world into another economic recession.
That aside though, when I sit down to look at my family budget, the first place I look for cuts are the largest budget items. Whenever people talk about making spending cuts in the government, the first thing that comes up are social services. Yet we spent ~24% of our budget on military spending last year. If Republicans want Democrats to consider cuts to social services (and Dems needs to do that), than Republicans need to be willing to talk about cuts on military spending. And given the scale of the problem, you can't just look at making budget cuts, you have to look to increase revenue. It should be an 'all options on the table' conversation, yet each party goes into the conversation taking their favorite parts of the budget off the table.
-
I have a very simple solution: axe military spending. Our government allocates more money to their armed forces than the next 10 biggest armies combined. (http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0053_defense-comparison) You know you're going into overkill, pun intended, when you're spending over triple the combined martial budgets of nations as military-centric as Russia & China. Our country is so huge, that it's essentially unconquerable, like the aforementioned countries. The fact that the next three most powerful armies are all armed with nuclear arsenals essentially creates a stalemate, anyway. You nukes us, we nuke you.
-
No. We need to increase military spending not decrease. China is massively increasing there spending. I realize you liberals would love to have all the money go to welfare and free health care for deadbeats, but we do actually need a military and a strong one, yes, stronger then all combined.
-
No. We need to increase military spending not decrease. China is massively increasing there spending. I realize you liberals would love to have all the money go to welfare and free health care for deadbeats, but we do actually need a military and a strong one, yes, stronger then all combined.
No. We need to increase military spending not decrease. China is massively increasing there spending. I realize you liberals would love to have all the money go to welfare and free health care for deadbeats, but we do actually need a military and a strong one, yes, stronger then all combined.
-
Seriously: 1 H-bomb>China's entire army
Fantasy League Updates Weak SexStarted by Zombo, Today, 09:10 AM @slowburn said:okay, bazooka, you win. r u fucking happy now? u got the last word. btw, your avatar and board name really grate my nerves for some reason.. http://thumbpress.com/best-of-surprised-koala-bear-meme-25-pics/ -
If the objective of the US military is to defend our nation and interests, than the military is larger than it needs to be. And when I say defend, I mean defend, not "defend". The Pentagon states we have 761 active military sites around the globe. This is not defense, this is imperialism, and imperialism is expensive. We already claim a technological advantage over the world. We maintain good relations with our geographical neighbors. America can not be invaded, it can only be attacked by terrorism or long-range missiles. Both problems can be dealt with with considerably less expenditure than we currently spend.
It's fine to call for spending cuts to welfare and health care, but only if you are willing to accept cuts to military spending as well.
"I said, 'I need someone who's going to want to get on the roller coaster with me knowing that it's not always going to be fun,'" -Paul DePodesta -
Osirus, I'm sure that if you went through your family budget you could find some things that you could do without or spend a few minutes to do more cheaply. I'm positive we could trim some fat in the military or any other budget. Unfortunately there's no reason to if you just pop up the borrowing limit every year. I have friends and family members that bitch constantly about being short of money and yet they smoke cigarettes.folks who are on disability for example got an extra $300 a month then they can continue to smoke. If not they might more strongly consider giving up cigarettes right? And in that way they wouldn't have to jeopardize their medicine rent etc
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Seriously: 1 H-bomb>China's entire army
Seriously: 1 H-bomb>China's entire army
H-bombs are so 1952. Besides, China's got them, too.
-
Seriously: 1 H-bomb>China's entire army
H-bombs are so 1952. Besides, China's got them, too.
H-bombs are so 1952. Besides, China's got them, too.
That's the point I was trying to make. Troops are essentially worthless amongst the nuclear mega-powers (US, China & Russia). It creates a stalemate. Besides, all 3 countries are so gigantic that they're un-invadeable, anyway. Ask Napoleon, Hitler and Hirohito how well their invasions went.
-
If the objective of the US military is to defend our nation and interests, than the military is larger than it needs to be. And when I say defend, I mean defend, not "defend". The Pentagon states we have 761 active military sites around the globe. This is not defense, this is imperialism, and imperialism is expensive. We already claim a technological advantage over the world. We maintain good relations with our geographical neighbors. America can not be invaded, it can only be attacked by terrorism or long-range missiles. Both problems can be dealt with with considerably less expenditure than we currently spend.
It's fine to call for spending cuts to welfare and health care, but only if you are willing to accept cuts to military spending as well.
If the objective of the US military is to defend our nation and interests, than the military is larger than it needs to be. And when I say defend, I mean defend, not "defend". The Pentagon states we have 761 active military sites around the globe. This is not defense, this is imperialism, and imperialism is expensive. We already claim a technological advantage over the world. We maintain good relations with our geographical neighbors. America can not be invaded, it can only be attacked by terrorism or long-range missiles. Both problems can be dealt with with considerably less expenditure than we currently spend.
It's fine to call for spending cuts to welfare and health care, but only if you are willing to accept cuts to military spending as well.
Nobel Peace Laureate Obamao gives you a +69!
-
If the objective of the US military is to defend our nation and interests, than the military is larger than it needs to be. And when I say defend, I mean defend, not "defend". The Pentagon states we have 761 active military sites around the globe. This is not defense, this is imperialism, and imperialism is expensive. We already claim a technological advantage over the world. We maintain good relations with our geographical neighbors. America can not be invaded, it can only be attacked by terrorism or long-range missiles. Both problems can be dealt with with considerably less expenditure than we currently spend.
It's fine to call for spending cuts to welfare and health care, but only if you are willing to accept cuts to military spending as well.
If the objective of the US military is to defend our nation and interests, than the military is larger than it needs to be. And when I say defend, I mean defend, not "defend". The Pentagon states we have 761 active military sites around the globe. This is not defense, this is imperialism, and imperialism is expensive. We already claim a technological advantage over the world. We maintain good relations with our geographical neighbors. America can not be invaded, it can only be attacked by terrorism or long-range missiles. Both problems can be dealt with with considerably less expenditure than we currently spend.
It's fine to call for spending cuts to welfare and health care, but only if you are willing to accept cuts to military spending as well.
We have treaties with countries and that is why there are bases. We need 'boots on ground' globally as our socialist allies prefer to spend their money on free health care, etc. Why do you think they willingly let us have bases in their country? And if you think wars will be settled with missiles your a fool. MAD is still in existence. Most of the expenses of base are paid for by the host country, such as Japan which pays for the buildings, housing, etc. No cuts, increase I say.
"You planning on having a long relationship with that glass or are you going to drink it? Drink up, man. Maybe we can get another.” - Janis Joplin, 1970. -
PS I don't think it's the money we spend on welfare that causes the problem it's the growing number of people trapped in a generational dependency. And as far as the military we can do that a lot more efficiently. Personally I hope we are working hard after next weapon of mass destruction that will make nuclear warheads look like muskets. Every shift in world power is preceded by a new and devastating weapons system. Sad but true.
WSS
-
Osirus, I'm sure that if you went through your family budget you could find some things that you could do without or spend a few minutes to do more cheaply. I'm positive we could trim some fat in the military or any other budget. Unfortunately there's no reason to if you just pop up the borrowing limit every year. I have friends and family members that bitch constantly about being short of money and yet they smoke cigarettes.folks who are on disability for example got an extra $300 a month then they can continue to smoke. If not they might more strongly consider giving up cigarettes right? And in that way they wouldn't have to jeopardize their medicine rent etc
WSS
Osirus, I'm sure that if you went through your family budget you could find some things that you could do without or spend a few minutes to do more cheaply. I'm positive we could trim some fat in the military or any other budget. Unfortunately there's no reason to if you just pop up the borrowing limit every year. I have friends and family members that bitch constantly about being short of money and yet they smoke cigarettes.folks who are on disability for example got an extra $300 a month then they can continue to smoke. If not they might more strongly consider giving up cigarettes right? And in that way they wouldn't have to jeopardize their medicine rent etc
WSS
Oh I understand the principle that the government needs the motivation, a red-line in the sand. In our own family, that is what I did, I cashed out an under-performing IRA, paid off our CC debts completely, and we put the CC away to be used only in emergencies. But would our government open up the reserves to pay off our debts? Of course not. So the only solution is to a) increase revenue and
put all options on the table for budget cuts.Also, like I said, the big concern is how this would impact the global recovery. That isn't something my little family budgeting analogy works for. The debt ceiling has never NOT been increased, so we really don't know what is going to happen, but from what I've read, it could be a major economic disaster. The responsible thing would be to raise the debt ceiling on the condition that congress finds X dollars of revenue and cuts Y dollars from the budget to at least get the country to spend only what we earn.
"I said, 'I need someone who's going to want to get on the roller coaster with me knowing that it's not always going to be fun,'" -Paul DePodesta -
If the objective of the US military is to defend our nation and interests, than the military is larger than it needs to be. And when I say defend, I mean defend, not "defend". The Pentagon states we have 761 active military sites around the globe. This is not defense, this is imperialism, and imperialism is expensive. We already claim a technological advantage over the world. We maintain good relations with our geographical neighbors. America can not be invaded, it can only be attacked by terrorism or long-range missiles. Both problems can be dealt with with considerably less expenditure than we currently spend.
It's fine to call for spending cuts to welfare and health care, but only if you are willing to accept cuts to military spending as well.
We have treaties with countries and that is why there are bases. We need 'boots on ground' globally as our socialist allies prefer to spend their money on free health care, etc. Why do you think they willingly let us have bases in their country? And if you think wars will be settled with missiles your a fool. MAD is still in existence. Most of the expenses of base are paid for by the host country, such as Japan which pays for the buildings, housing, etc. No cuts, increase I say.
We have treaties with countries and that is why there are bases. We need 'boots on ground' globally as our socialist allies prefer to spend their money on free health care, etc. Why do you think they willingly let us have bases in their country? And if you think wars will be settled with missiles your a fool. MAD is still in existence. Most of the expenses of base are paid for by the host country, such as Japan which pays for the buildings, housing, etc. No cuts, increase I say.
Yay, military imperialism! No way that can backfire.
-
Osirus, I'm sure that if you went through your family budget you could find some things that you could do without or spend a few minutes to do more cheaply. I'm positive we could trim some fat in the military or any other budget. Unfortunately there's no reason to if you just pop up the borrowing limit every year. I have friends and family members that bitch constantly about being short of money and yet they smoke cigarettes.folks who are on disability for example got an extra $300 a month then they can continue to smoke. If not they might more strongly consider giving up cigarettes right? And in that way they wouldn't have to jeopardize their medicine rent etc
WSS
Oh I understand the principle that the government needs the motivation, a red-line in the sand. In our own family, that is what I did, I cashed out an under-performing IRA, paid off our CC debts completely, and we put the CC away to be used only in emergencies. But would our government open up the reserves to pay off our debts? Of course not. So the only solution is to a) increase revenue and
put all options on the table for budget cuts.Also, like I said, the big concern is how this would impact the global recovery. That isn't something my little family budgeting analogy works for. The debt ceiling has never NOT been increased, so we really don't know what is going to happen, but from what I've read, it could be a major economic disaster. The responsible thing would be to raise the debt ceiling on the condition that congress finds X dollars of revenue and cuts Y dollars from the budget to at least get the country to spend only what we earn.
Oh I understand the principle that the government needs the motivation, a red-line in the sand. In our own family, that is what I did, I cashed out an under-performing IRA, paid off our CC debts completely, and we put the CC away to be used only in emergencies. But would our government open up the reserves to pay off our debts? Of course not. So the only solution is to a) increase revenue and
put all options on the table for budget cuts.Also, like I said, the big concern is how this would impact the global recovery. That isn't something my little family budgeting analogy works for. The debt ceiling has never NOT been increased, so we really don't know what is going to happen, but from what I've read, it could be a major economic disaster. The responsible thing would be to raise the debt ceiling on the condition that congress finds X dollars of revenue and cuts Y dollars from the budget to at least get the country to spend only what we earn.
Don't be ridiculous, the only thing more dangerous than crippling debt is a couple of religious fanatics hiding in mountain caves. More weapons, more war!
-
understood, but I don't think it will ever get to the point of actually default.
yes that would be bad news. I'd expectsome draconian cuts before we ever got to that point.
but, again, that won't happen as long as we kick the can down the road.
WSS
-
If the objective of the US military is to defend our nation and interests, than the military is larger than it needs to be. And when I say defend, I mean defend, not "defend". The Pentagon states we have 761 active military sites around the globe. This is not defense, this is imperialism, and imperialism is expensive. We already claim a technological advantage over the world. We maintain good relations with our geographical neighbors. America can not be invaded, it can only be attacked by terrorism or long-range missiles. Both problems can be dealt with with considerably less expenditure than we currently spend.
It's fine to call for spending cuts to welfare and health care, but only if you are willing to accept cuts to military spending as well.
We have treaties with countries and that is why there are bases. We need 'boots on ground' globally as our socialist allies prefer to spend their money on free health care, etc. Why do you think they willingly let us have bases in their country? And if you think wars will be settled with missiles your a fool. MAD is still in existence. Most of the expenses of base are paid for by the host country, such as Japan which pays for the buildings, housing, etc. No cuts, increase I say.
We have treaties with countries and that is why there are bases. We need 'boots on ground' globally as our socialist allies prefer to spend their money on free health care, etc. Why do you think they willingly let us have bases in their country? And if you think wars will be settled with missiles your a fool. MAD is still in existence. Most of the expenses of base are paid for by the host country, such as Japan which pays for the buildings, housing, etc. No cuts, increase I say.
Let's keep the discussion on ideas (cut or spend on military), not on the people discussing them ("And if you think wars will be settled with missiles your a fool").
I know MAD is still in existence, that was my point. Because of the threat of MAD, no one is going to invade a country that has nuclear missiles. That's one reason Iran wants them so badly, because none of their neighbors (except Syria) like them. The quality of our current military hardware is light years ahead of anyone else, meaning we maintain a military advantage even with fewer troops/tanks/jets/bombers. Heck the F-15, a 1970s technology, has never been shot down in air-to-air combat, yet has shot down dozens of fighters. The Cold-War Doctrine of quality over quantity (Russia observed quantity over quality) has served the USA well, and we can afford to rely more on our technology and less on boots on the ground.
And while the host country may pay for the base facility, they are not paying for the personnel salaries, training, supplies, military hardware, maintenance, etc. The employees in any organization are one of the biggest expenses, and I doubt the military is any different.
"I said, 'I need someone who's going to want to get on the roller coaster with me knowing that it's not always going to be fun,'" -Paul DePodesta -
I don't have a problem with eliminating wasteful spending in the military. Anybody who's been there, has
seen that wasteful spending.
But that doesn't solve our debt problem much at all. We are already seeing the ME starting to
fall apart. Cutting our defenses will encourage disaster in several parts of the globe.
Nukes are a deterrent to being nuked. That's pretty much all MAD is. Another country invades,
nukes start nuclear war.
And a lot of these wars are going to be by proxy. Hezbollah is an example. Who ya going to nuke?
Trimming back is a good thing, but I see wasteful spending across the board by this regime. $$$$$$$ are flying
into lib causes like solyndra and syria, and the all powerful 1984 Obamaocare, and entitlements
have skyrocketed, food stamps have what...doubled? And we are 16+ TRILLION in debt?
So, we're supposed to keep spending ourselves into devastation, crash as a country, so the rest of the world
can also continue to be free to spend... Where does it all end?
In a bad place. The laws of economics will catch up with a country every single time the point of no return is breached.
We are getting there fast. We just can't keep spending like this anymore. It must stop now. Cutting miliatry spending,
to redirect even more spending towards entitlements, creating a far more giant dependent subculture
just makes for more spending.
I think everybody needs to start planning for emergency food and funds to live on. Contingency plans
if we crash. EXperts are saying this now. It's where we are heading.
-
We have treaties with countries and that is why there are bases. We need 'boots on ground' globally as our socialist allies prefer to spend their money on free health care, etc. Why do you think they willingly let us have bases in their country? And if you think wars will be settled with missiles your a fool. MAD is still in existence. Most of the expenses of base are paid for by the host country, such as Japan which pays for the buildings, housing, etc. No cuts, increase I say.
Let's keep the discussion on ideas (cut or spend on military), not on the people discussing them ("And if you think wars will be settled with missiles your a fool").
I know MAD is still in existence, that was my point. Because of the threat of MAD, no one is going to invade a country that has nuclear missiles. That's one reason Iran wants them so badly, because none of their neighbors (except Syria) like them. The quality of our current military hardware is light years ahead of anyone else, meaning we maintain a military advantage even with fewer troops/tanks/jets/bombers. Heck the F-15, a 1970s technology, has never been shot down in air-to-air combat, yet has shot down dozens of fighters. The Cold-War Doctrine of quality over quantity (Russia observed quantity over quality) has served the USA well, and we can afford to rely more on our technology and less on boots on the ground.
And while the host country may pay for the base facility, they are not paying for the personnel salaries, training, supplies, military hardware, maintenance, etc. The employees in any organization are one of the biggest expenses, and I doubt the military is any different.
Let's keep the discussion on ideas (cut or spend on military), not on the people discussing them ("And if you think wars will be settled with missiles your a fool").
I know MAD is still in existence, that was my point. Because of the threat of MAD, no one is going to invade a country that has nuclear missiles. That's one reason Iran wants them so badly, because none of their neighbors (except Syria) like them. The quality of our current military hardware is light years ahead of anyone else, meaning we maintain a military advantage even with fewer troops/tanks/jets/bombers. Heck the F-15, a 1970s technology, has never been shot down in air-to-air combat, yet has shot down dozens of fighters. The Cold-War Doctrine of quality over quantity (Russia observed quantity over quality) has served the USA well, and we can afford to rely more on our technology and less on boots on the ground.
And while the host country may pay for the base facility, they are not paying for the personnel salaries, training, supplies, military hardware, maintenance, etc. The employees in any organization are one of the biggest expenses, and I doubt the military is any different.
Yes, but the Navy, Army, Air Force and Marine Corps have all downsized. I have no problem with cutting the fat from unneeded weapons systems, etc. But we need to maintain a presence world wide.
-
Let's keep the discussion on ideas (cut or spend on military), not on the people discussing them ("And if you think wars will be settled with missiles your a fool").
I know MAD is still in existence, that was my point. Because of the threat of MAD, no one is going to invade a country that has nuclear missiles. That's one reason Iran wants them so badly, because none of their neighbors (except Syria) like them. The quality of our current military hardware is light years ahead of anyone else, meaning we maintain a military advantage even with fewer troops/tanks/jets/bombers. Heck the F-15, a 1970s technology, has never been shot down in air-to-air combat, yet has shot down dozens of fighters. The Cold-War Doctrine of quality over quantity (Russia observed quantity over quality) has served the USA well, and we can afford to rely more on our technology and less on boots on the ground.
And while the host country may pay for the base facility, they are not paying for the personnel salaries, training, supplies, military hardware, maintenance, etc. The employees in any organization are one of the biggest expenses, and I doubt the military is any different.
Yes, but the Navy, Army, Air Force and Marine Corps have all downsized. I have no problem with cutting the fat from unneeded weapons systems, etc. But we need to maintain a presence world wide.
I have no problem with cutting the fat from unneeded weapons systems, etc. But we need to maintain a presence world wide.
See, that is how you open the door to negotiations. We've gone from 'don't cut military spending' to 'let's cut what isn't needed' and suddenly our opinions aren't so far apart, as it comes down to deciding what's needed and not needed. Now lets go tell congress about it.
With our Navy, we are capable of maintaining a presence worldwide, and in general I advocate a mobile military over a stationary one. What I'm talking about is shutting down some military bases in regions where there is no serious geopolitical threat. We maintain 54 Army installations in Germany alone. That's just the Army, not including USAF or any other branch of the military. Why? The Cold War is over. I can see leaving bases in Japan, given how we demilitarized them and given their spats with North Korea. Honestly, I'd love to see us disengage with the Middle East and let everyone there take care of themselves, but I know that isn't going to happen. We've got air bases in Kyrgistan, Oman, Portugal, Singapore, to what end?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login