Yup.
And all that expensive hardware etc., for what?
I think you know the answer.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

1. And again, even if true, There was no evidence given that this is what caused Eagle Claw too fail nor that Democrats specifically were to blame.

2. Because getting rid of the debt is going to take at least a decade, for longer than any president to do on his own. We were on the road to recovery in the 1990s.Clinton plan was to eliminate it in 15 years (about now actually) had things hadn't gotten screwed up.

3. If you go on saying government help is temporary, you can kiss 2012 goodbye as you will lose every vote in that 8.6% unemployment rate.

I did hear about it, and your history is totally wrong. The Story was this: the Dems wanted to pass a 12 month extension, the GOP tried to tack on an oil pipeline PORK (something teabaggers are supposed to be against), the Dems said no to the pipeline and proposed a 2 month extension just to prevent to taxes from expiring so they could talk more in depth about the pipeline. The GOP said yes, but the teabaggers said NO saying it was either 12 months WITH the pipeline or nothing at all.

The TP must have thought the Dems would cavem but they were wrong and Dems told them the deal was off. That's when Boehner panicked the GOP realized that they would (and did) get blamed for causing middle Class taxes to rise John Boehner told the teaparty to stuff it and signed the tax extension WITHOUT the oil pipeline.

So once again the GOP came off looking like the party that only cares about the rich and powerful, and Obama the protector of the Middle Class. And if you don't believe me on this read Mark Mckinnion on the DB (a very conservative senior advisor to Bush Jr), he blames his own party (namely Boehner and McConnell) for not controlling the TP. The TP couldnt have have given a Obama a better PR present if they served it on a silver platter.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-to-obama.html

So..if you are opposed to temporary help, then you believe in permanent forever "help", that's is generational government dependance. The pipeline is a private project that just needs govt permission to be built, unlike Obama's Porkulus projects. Obama is raking in donations from both sides, the oil industry & the eco lobby. If a decision is made, build or don't build, Obama loses donations from one side or the other. Why do you think he wants to defer a decision untill after the election? Or maybe it's just his usuall lack of leadership.

Leopold Lippens, a mayor of Knokke in Belgium said : today 90% of the attention go to 5% of the people that are in trouble, wouldn't it be better to concentrate on the 90% of the people that are not in trouble instead of making it harder for them because of the 5%?

The financial troubles of the Belgian forces are due to salaries (74% of the budget!). The government takes away almost half of my salarie.

I once talked to a Turkish guy who was unemployed and lived in a social housing. He could have work immediately but then the rent of his social housing goes up (it's income related) and in the end he ends up with having less money.

Helping people is good, but pampering them is not. And that's the problem in some European nations.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

I once talked to a Turkish guy who was unemployed and lived in a social housing. He could have work immediately but then the rent of his social housing goes up (it's income related) and in the end he ends up with having less money.

The Welfare Trap, get you on it & the system block the way off. I've had a number of women tell me their Husbands turned down jobs in this recession becouse it wouldn't pay much more than unemployment was paying them to sit on their butts.

Originally Posted by George

The Welfare Trap, get you on it & the system block the way off. I've had a number of women tell me their Husbands turned down jobs in this recession becouse it wouldn't pay much more than unemployment was paying them to sit on their butts.

Sometimes many people these days can't afford to work. Literally living in a situation where it cost them more money to work than to not be employed.

But this is a good topic for another day. My focus point here is how America's defense establisment may change with rising or falling budgets and hopefully a new era of peace time with the conclusion of Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by Yossarian

Sometimes many people these days can't afford to work. Literally living in a situation where it cost them more money to work than to not be employed.

But this is a good topic for another day. My focus point here is how America's defense establisment may change with rising or falling budgets and hopefully a new era of peace time with the conclusion of Afghanistan.

Well...Paneta is warning of a military reduced to pre WWII levels...

His announcement is what got me to start this thread.

I think Congress should rethink such a drastic cutback, at the same time they should be responsible and not over spend on defense programs, or pay for programs we don't really have use for.

Originally Posted by Yossarian

His announcement is what got me to start this thread.

I think Congress should rethink such a drastic cutback, at the same time they should be responsible and not over spend on defense programs, or pay for programs we don't really have use for.

The thing is...the dem leaders look @ it as there is always room to cut defence, or you cut a $ from defence for every $ cut anywhere else. Even better for them is they exempt Nanny State dependence spending from the cuts(that's how they keep their Base, buy it with handouts in echange for votes) so it's really A.defence b. everything else except handouts & C. handouts, with handouts exempt. Handouts are now bigger than defence. One thing about the Dems view of Defence is a story from Clinton's 1st Inageral Parade. Reportedy one Staffer was outraged that USAF fighters flew over the procession. Another Staffer calmed him down by explaining the the fighters were "ours now", apparently the guy thought of the USAF fighters as enemy aircraft.

I know I sound very cliche when I say this,

But as partly speaking of my opinion, and I truely am meaning my opinion. Is that in today's finiacial situation facing our goverment, there is a critical and recurring need to observe every progam oftered and proposed to the Federal Government before ever blindly purchasing it.

That's the main focal point of my concern, unessary spending without using better judgement, especially in today's terrible budget situation.

Not only of defense mind you, but being as this is a military forum I figured it would make a approriate topic of discussion on the matter.

Lastly I do not make the blind mistake of confusing my opinion with fact,( I am only speaking of me of course, not trying to sound rash) so I am willing to read up on this topic further as time progresses and next years spending assements come out.

Rumsfeld seemed too ocupied trying to prepare for the next war to buy stuff needed @ the time, like the delay in aquiring the MRAPs. Ammo shortages while Govt ammo plants remained shuttered. Some programs were cut, but apparently there are a lot of elderly planes, like the older KC-135s & C-130s that the AF wants to junk but Congress has mandated that they be kept in flying condition, if not in acual use. Not saying there isn't areas that can be cut, but not with a cleaver that some want.