queencitybuckeye;1642505 wrote:That nose rarely needs to be attached to someone in a military uniform.

Again, I would disagree with "rarely" but would certainly agree that the nose doesn't need to be attached to someone in the military all the time. In fact, I would hope that we as a nation would always work for it not to be....so long as we insist on being the hunter in such a way that those whom threaten and potentially threaten the safety of the U.S. in any capacity are always feeling like the hunted.

gut;1642381 wrote:Exactly. I say freeze defense spending, or at least grow it slower than inflation or GDP, for the next 20 years. In real terms, that would be up to a 50% reduction ($350B or so in today's dollars). That's a number that looks about right to me. Sad part is that savings will be wiped out by debt service when rates normalize.

How? Even if you audit and eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse, we have a ton of costly programs down the pike. We still have military healthcare and pay that takes up half the DOD budget. Additionally, there is the F-35, which is the most expensive program ever. And, a new air craft carrier, and new Navy ships. Oh, and we need to replace all three legs of the nuclear triad in the next 20 years. That includes a new Subs, 10-12 of them at $12 Billion a pop, new nuclear missiles, about 422 of those, few million a pop, and a new nuclear bomber. Add to that new warheads too. That does not include the maintenance of the old ships and planes that are taking place due to the long lead time for the F-35 and new Navy ships. And, any time a service wants to cut a program, like the A-10, Congress gets all in arms and says stop, no. Finally, the services want a new BRAC where they would reduce the footprint of all the military bases around the country, closing some, as it would save money, Congress says no. So, unless you want a nuclear force of under a 1000 warheads, military pay capped and reduced, health care reduced or capped, a smaller navy, smaller bases around the country, and can convince Congress to follow along, then maybe you can get Defense spending down.

No, having under a thousand nuclear warheads just wouldn't do at all.

ptown_trojans_1;1642835 wrote:So, unless you want a nuclear force of under a 1000 warheads, military pay capped and reduced, health care reduced or capped, a smaller navy, smaller bases around the country, and can convince Congress to follow along, then maybe you can get Defense spending down.

Are any of those supposed to make me feel scared?

ptown_trojans_1;1642835 wrote:Additionally, there is the F-35, which is the most expensive program ever. And, a new air craft carrier, and new Navy ships.

Pretty much that and everything else you mention is a blank-check mentality. New programs that haven't even started yet suddenly become necessary. We don't have to cut spending, just slow the rate of increase to 1% and the budget halves in 20 years. Yes, that means fewer soldiers, too.

You can try all you like, but you'll NEVER justify spending more on defense than the next 15 countries COMBINED. Cut spending in half and you'd still be spending almost twice as much as the next country.

Rand Paul, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz are all just as inexperienced and unqualified to be President as Obama.

It's laughable but that they're even being considered after the way conservatives trashed Obama's qualifications. Not a surprise of course that all the people that lambasted Obama's lack of qualifications and experience would not hold their team to the same standards though. Oh wait, that's cause they didn't like Obama cuz he was a Librul.

Should give Romney/Ryan another shot but the Tea Partiers are too dumb to realize that this was the highest quality Conservative ticket since Reagan/Bush or maybe even Eisenhower/Nixon; or either bring on Scott Walker or John Kasich who will have won swing states and have executive experience.

Kasich is going to get serious about trying to run again after he wins Ohio for the second time.

He's going to argue that he can win Ohio and he really wants to run in my humble opinion. Dude tried to run in 2000 when he was just a congressman.

BoatShoes;1647941 wrote:Rand Paul, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz are all just as inexperienced and unqualified to be President as Obama.

It's laughable but that they're even being considered after the way conservatives trashed Obama's qualifications. Not a surprise of course that all the people that lambasted Obama's lack of qualifications and experience would not hold their team to the same standards though. Oh wait, that's cause they didn't like Obama cuz he was a Librul.

Should give Romney/Ryan another shot but the Tea Partiers are too dumb to realize that this was the highest quality Conservative ticket since Reagan/Bush or maybe even Eisenhower/Nixon; or either bring on Scott Walker or John Kasich who will have won swing states and have executive experience.

Kasich is going to get serious about trying to run again after he wins Ohio for the second time.

He's going to argue that he can win Ohio and he really wants to run in my humble opinion. Dude tried to run in 2000 when he was just a congressman.

Interesting take on Kasich. I was just discussing this possibility with a buddy of mine the other day. Interesting that he'd even be in the discussion after so many people (who I'll be nice and not name lol) predicted he'd get smoked this cycle by anyone who ran against him.

I agree that he'll start looking at the POTUS thing after his re-election. I doubt he'll be a serious player though...his "goofy" factor is a little high IMO. Walker would be a much better bet, assuming he gets re-elected this fall.

As of today though, Rand is saying all the right things, and his numbers reflect it. His message resonates with the yutes, and he has the best chance of getting a few of them to pull the GOP lever in 2016.

I wouldn't be totally against Romney/Ryan having another go at it either, FWIW.

BoatShoes;1647941 wrote:Rand Paul, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz are all just as inexperienced and unqualified to be President as Obama.

It's laughable but that they're even being considered after the way conservatives trashed Obama's qualifications.

Except that those 3 are indeed more qualified. And in addition, they believe in the founding principles of the nation, they believe in capitalism, private property, individual liberty, and defending the nation. They are real Americans who espouse the American dream. They will not apologize for their nation, they will not fundamentally transform it (into a Marxist state). They certainly will not lead us to where the current occupant of the WH has led us; nor will there be a mile-long list of scandals, improprieties, and illegal activities (including the targeting of true Americans by their government).



You are sooooooooooooooo far out of touch with reality that it boggles all those of right mind.

QuakerOats;1648381 wrote:Except that those 3 are indeed more qualified. And in addition, they believe in the founding principles of the nation, they believe in capitalism, private property, individual liberty, and defending the nation. They are real Americans who espouse the American dream. They will not apologize for their nation, they will not fundamentally transform it (into a Marxist state). They certainly will not lead us to where the current occupant of the WH has led us; nor will there be a mile-long list of scandals, improprieties, and illegal activities (including the targeting of true Americans by their government).



You are sooooooooooooooo far out of touch with reality that it boggles all those of right mind.

And the pot finally meets the kettle.

It's bizarro-world to see Hillary moving to the right of Rand Paul on foreign policy.

I could see Rand winning the POTUS and being an unsuccessful, uncompromising idealogue like Obama. But without a sycophant media there will be no 2nd term.

Heretic;1648390 wrote:And the pot finally meets the kettle.

When the defenders of liberty and advocates of fiscal sanity are ridiculed, you know the republic is in trouble.

QuakerOats;1648418 wrote:When the defenders of liberty and advocates of fiscal sanity are ridiculed, you know the republic is in trouble.

You'll have to point out who those people are, because with you, I only see a hilariously divisive person who does nothing but chirp the same blanket statements over and over again until the Boy Who Cried Wolf thinks things are becoming out of control.

Heretic;1648425 wrote:You'll have to point out who those people are, because with you, I only see a hilariously divisive person who does nothing but chirp the same blanket statements over and over again ....

And the pot finally meets the kettle.

believer;1648793 wrote:And the pot finally meets the kettle.

Considering you're essentially the same as him, with the added bonus of having some wit and literacy, that means nothing to me. Especially since I identify more in the "center-left" zone, where I'm left socially and more center to a bit conservative fiscally, as opposed to being so far out on one side that I'm completely out of touch with reality.

This ISIS thing has the neocons collective stiffy raging, and it's probably not going to bode well for Rand if it continues.

Whoever runs needs to address the wealth gap first and foremost. I'm a republican and I'll even admit it's getting pretty bad and has been since we've most towards a more post industrial era. In the first half of the 20th century we made great strides and saw an unparalleled economic boom that lasted us up until the oil shock. We have yet to find an answer for the globalized/technology driven world that we are in now. The top 10 percent earners owning 73% of the wealth isn't the way we can get out of this recession

Classyposter58;1650896 wrote:Whoever runs needs to address the wealth gap first and foremost. I'm a republican and I'll even admit it's getting pretty bad and has been since we've most towards a more post industrial era. In the first half of the 20th century we made great strides and saw an unparalleled economic boom that lasted us up until the oil shock. We have yet to find an answer for the globalized/technology driven world that we are in now. The top 10 percent earners owning 73% of the wealth isn't the way we can get out of this recession

I'd be a fan of lowering taxes for everyone and cutting social programs/government jobs that are useless(70% of them). That would do a lot to help the middle class without making the rich move their money overseas from higher tax policy.

Classyposter58;1650896 wrote:Whoever runs needs to address the wealth gap first and foremost. I'm a republican and I'll even admit it's getting pretty bad and has been since we've most towards a more post industrial era. In the first half of the 20th century we made great strides and saw an unparalleled economic boom that lasted us up until the oil shock. We have yet to find an answer for the globalized/technology driven world that we are in now. The top 10 percent earners owning 73% of the wealth isn't the way we can get out of this recession

Republican? Hmmm... Reading between the lines, it reads like you would like to take more from the wealthy and give it away... ostensibly to Obama's beloved middle class. Pretty sure the current statists in charge have been giving benefits out like none ever before and the gap is getting WIDER. More of the same is the cure, eh?
Republican? Hmmmmm

sleeper;1651012 wrote:I'd be a fan of lowering taxes for everyone and cutting social programs/government jobs that are useless(70% of them). That would do a lot to help the middle class without making the rich move their money overseas from higher tax policy.

This is the answer along with LESS government intrusion via healthkare, EPA, IRS, and Homeland Security.
As a wise man once said, "Government isn't the solution, it is the problem."

BGFalcons82;1651022 wrote:This is the answer along with LESS government intrusion via healthkare, EPA, IRS, and Homeland Security.
As a wise man once said, "Government isn't the solution, it is the problem."

Those policies have helped the upper echelon wages absolutely explode though and with globalization and a lack of good paying manufacturing jobs that created the middle class has seen it sink. For instance the 30th percentile in 1979 made $11.66 an hour and in 2013 it's $11.83, 60th was $18 in 1979 and $19.27 in 2013, 90th was $30.32 in 1979 and $39.72 in 2013