rrfan;1778483 wrote:Everybody wants to make 250K per year but are they willing to do what others have done to get there? No they just want the end result.

like_that;1778503 wrote:The sooner people understand that smart people will be rich and idiots will be poor, then we can start moving in the right direction. No matter the policy, rich people will find a way to make money. Poor people can have free shit given to them and they'll still remain poor. And the middle class gets boned on both ends.

The American dream used to be if you worked hard you could make a great life for yourself. Now people expect to be given things.

Yesterday on Facebook a girl posted about how her job sucked and she wanted to know if anyone knew of a job that was an actual career. Someone suggested a company that was hiring and she said "isn't that a cleaning company?" as if that was beneath her.

My wife acts like it's the end of the fucking world if I work over an hour and don't come home right away. She's a stay at home mom. I work over once or twice a week and I have to travel for 3 days every 3 months. It's so inconvenient for her. I have no idea how she can't see those little sacrifices lead to her cushy lifestyle.

Everyone in her family feels so bad for my brother in law. He graduated from high school and floats from job to job. My mother in law says he's so smart, he gets bored. He calls in sick whenever he doesn't want to work. Currently he's on disability because his boss was mean to him and he went to a shrink and somehow convinced the dr he can't work. He's damn near 30 years old and she pays his rent while he's working out all the time and meeting a bunch of different skanks on tinder.

And these fuckers will vote for whoever gives them the most shit.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1778529 wrote:Nope. I can't stand Hillary but that has nothing to do with why I support Bernie. I support Bernie because he's the first true voice of the majority of America in a very long time. The part of America that's never had a voice before b/c no one cares about them because they have nothing to offer for a politician. I support him because he's not afraid to tell people who he is. Hillary is a prime example of a politician who only supports what study groups suggest they should support. I support him because I support a candidate who's not afraid to show the importance of a social safety net that benefits our entire society instead of corporations. And I support him because us SJW's as we're likely to be called, know that there's reform needed after centuries of systemic racism and cronyism.

but what about all the change that your Obama vote brought on? Wasnt enough?

Spock;1778622 wrote:but what about all the change that your Obama vote brought on? Wasnt enough?

Of course it wasn't enough. I don't see a hammer and sickle on the flag yet, comrade.

sleeper;1778598 wrote:I'm still in the tank that we need to cut spending, across the board before I'm willing to consider paying more in taxes. The DoD in particular is BLOATED beyond imagination and I will be dancing in the streets when that budget is slashed and burned to pieces.

If we cut all military spending we would still have a massive problem. It's the last place I would like to see cut. At 16% of total expenditures i'd rather see it increased slowly until it reaches a 25% of total expenditures. It is THE primary function I need the feds to carry out.

Just like any agency, you can cut the fat and make cuts. There is a lot of shit the DoD spends money on that is a complete waste of money.

like_that;1778629 wrote:Just like any agency, you can cut the fat and make cuts. There is a lot of shit the DoD spends money on that is a complete waste of money.

I don't dispute that at all. Making the DoD economically efficient is one thing. Cutting their budget as a primary means of bringing national expenditures in line is another.

get rid of our debt and the feds shouldnt be in the business of education. Thats 10% right there

Con_Alma;1778628 wrote:If we cut all military spending we would still have a massive problem. It's the last place I would like to see cut. At 16% of total expenditures i'd rather see it increased slowly until it reaches a 25% of total expenditures. It is THE primary function I need the feds to carry out.

DoD is full of waste man. I worked in the industry briefly and have opined many times on here the waste that the DoD is. Essentially, about 20-30% of the DoD is just a government jobs program employing people to do very little and paying them handsomely for it.

The DoD has been cutting for a few years now. Only 32% of the army is ready to deploy at any time.
"From a height of 566,000 in FY 2011, the Army’s end strength in FY 2014 was on a downward slide to 490,000 Active Army soldiers by the end of the fiscal year."
"20,400 soldiers (4 percent of the Active Army end strength) were paid for through Overseas Contingency Operations funding—in other words, outside of the defense base budget."

http://index.heritage.org/military/2015/chapter/us-power/us-army/

sleeper;1778641 wrote:DoD is full of waste man. I worked in the industry briefly and have opined many times on here the waste that the DoD is. Essentially, about 20-30% of the DoD is just a government jobs program employing people to do very little and paying them handsomely for it.

You'll find roughly the same in every piece of that pie.

Anyone serious about spending knows there are no sacred cows. If you are not willing to cut from the big 3, it doesn't matter.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

FatHobbit;1778620 wrote:The American dream used to be if you worked hard you could make a great life for yourself. Now people expect to be given things.

Yesterday on Facebook a girl posted about how her job sucked and she wanted to know if anyone knew of a job that was an actual career. Someone suggested a company that was hiring and she said "isn't that a cleaning company?" as if that was beneath her.

My wife acts like it's the end of the fucking world if I work over an hour and don't come home right away. She's a stay at home mom. I work over once or twice a week and I have to travel for 3 days every 3 months. It's so inconvenient for her. I have no idea how she can't see those little sacrifices lead to her cushy lifestyle.

Everyone in her family feels so bad for my brother in law. He graduated from high school and floats from job to job. My mother in law says he's so smart, he gets bored. He calls in sick whenever he doesn't want to work. Currently he's on disability because his boss was mean to him and he went to a shrink and somehow convinced the dr he can't work. He's damn near 30 years old and she pays his rent while he's working out all the time and meeting a bunch of different skanks on tinder.

And these fuckers will vote for whoever gives them the most shit.

This is exactly what I am talking about.

I'm in favor of also trimming and eliminating the fat in the DOD budget.
Here is the problem, we are going to have a lot of big ticket items for procurement in the next 10-15 years that will eat the budget alive.
These include the typical ones we know, the F-35, F-18, LCS, and the new Aircraft Carriers.
However, the Air Force is buying a new bomber to replace the B-52 (Northrop won the contract, of ~$80B)
The Air Force is also looking to replace our ICBM force in the next 20 years.
Oh, and the big one, the Navy wants to replace the Ohio Class Nuclear subs, which are a few $100B.
We are essentially replacing all three legs of the nuclear triad in the next 20 years, and that will cost a lot, lot, lot of money.
This also does not include what most R's want, which is more in Missile Defense and more Navy ships, which would increase the DOD budget even more so.

Until you get a DOD Secretary that comes like Rumsfield early, or Gates that kills a lot of programs, the DOD budget will only increase.
New report from CSIS that explains the DOD Budget Bow that is coming.
http://csis.org/files/publication/160126_Harrison_DefenseModernization_Web.pdf

ptown_trojans_1;1778703 wrote:I'm in favor of also trimming and eliminating the fat in the DOD budget.
Here is the problem, we are going to have a lot of big ticket items for procurement in the next 10-15 years that will eat the budget alive.
These include the typical ones we know, the F-35, F-18, LCS, and the new Aircraft Carriers.
However, the Air Force is buying a new bomber to replace the B-52 (Northrop won the contract, of ~$80B)
The Air Force is also looking to replace our ICBM force in the next 20 years.
Oh, and the big one, the Navy wants to replace the Ohio Class Nuclear subs, which are a few $100B.
We are essentially replacing all three legs of the nuclear triad in the next 20 years, and that will cost a lot, lot, lot of money.
This also does not include what most R's want, which is more in Missile Defense and more Navy ships, which would increase the DOD budget even more so.

Until you get a DOD Secretary that comes like Rumsfield early, or Gates that kills a lot of programs, the DOD budget will only increase.
New report from CSIS that explains the DOD Budget Bow that is coming.
http://csis.org/files/publication/160126_Harrison_DefenseModernization_Web.pdf

Are not these two different issues....trimming the fat and replacing existing and/or adding big ticket items.?

Con_Alma;1778704 wrote:Are not these two different issues....trimming the fat and replacing existing and/or adding big ticket items.?

Basically, from everything I have read and heard, any trimming of fat will be offset by the mass influx of big ticket items.
So, unless you slow the big ticket items, you can trim as much fat as you want, but the budget will continue to grow.
This is exactly what Gates was dealing with in his last years in trying to get the budget under control.

ptown_trojans_1;1778709 wrote:Basically, from everything I have read and heard, any trimming of fat will be offset by the mass influx of big ticket items.
So, unless you slow the big ticket items, you can trim as much fat as you want, but the budget will continue to grow.
This is exactly what Gates was dealing with in his last years in trying to get the budget under control.

I think we all would be advocates of "trimming the fat". As I posted earlier, however, I'm not a proponent of reducing DoD expenditures going forward. I also don't agree that the federal budget can't be brought in line without such DoD reductions. It's just a difference in priorities I guess.

Regarding the post above from Sleeper and current federal spending, it is imperative to get this budget under control now. Once interest rates starts to rise, the $230 billion being spent on just interest alone will rise dramatically and that will have a negative cascading effect throughout the entire budget.

Two observations below: first dealing with the spike in spending during the financial crisis, and second, a bold look at cuts.

1 - Note that spending shot us drastically from $2.7 billion in '07, to $3.5 billion in '09. We know we consciously pumped up spending for TARP etc.... in '09 to 'help save the economy', however this supposed one-time 'bailout spending spree' has never gone away. Why? What is it that we are still spending an extra $800 billion per year on, 6 years after the one-time TARP deal? How in hell did this spending continue? Where's the money going?

2 - Now is the time to initiate bold cuts, before interest rates rise. We have to start generating surpluses to reduce the total debt, so that when rates rise, the effects will not be as significant as they otherwise would. We need at least $400 billion to balance the budget, and we should shoot for $800 billion in cuts in order to go positive and start reducing the national debt. 4 departments noted above should be targeted for near extinction over 5 years: education, housing, international affairs, and energy. They total $258 billion; I would bring it down to a total of $100 billion in 5 years with dramatic cuts each year. Most of it will go unnoticed in the larger scheme. Defense --- cut $100 billion now, and freeze the remainder for 5 years. SS, unemployment & labor --- cut $50 billion immediately (by reducing the fraud in disability benefits). Medicare & health --- cut $50 billion immediately (there is no government entity in America that cannot withstand a meager 4-5% cut, without any falloff in output. After that, get government out of the health care business, and transition to a medicare/medicaid voucher system by returning the money to The People so they can purchase their own health care, which will also serve to help get costs under control. Medicare would then go from $1,051 billion now, to $1,000 billion after the immediate $50 billion cut, thereafter on the voucher system just pay out $950 billion in the new program, saving another $50 billion, and allow the new system and The People to control health care costs through natural market forces.

All of the above cuts should total around $408 billion. This would bring spending back to around $3.1 trillion, WHICH IS STILL $400 billion (or 15%) HIGHER than 2007 levels. (Again,refer to #1 above --- we jacked up spending by $800 billion in one year, but then it never went away, so now at least half of that is going to go away ......and we won't miss it). Revenues are projected to rise to $3.5 trillion, so we would now be in a surplus situation, and we should use that to reduce the debt and stay on that pathway. We should also sell off most federal assets to further reduce the debt and move to leasing ---- the government should not be in the business of acquiring assets.

Anyhow ---- this could indeed be done, and any turnaround expert worth his salt could achieve it in a private entity without a problem. It is time to unleash that private expertise unto the government to get real results. Maybe Trump, an outsider is the guy; I cannot say for sure.

Sorry for the epiphany.

QuakerOats;1778723 wrote:Regarding the post above from Sleeper and current federal spending, it is imperative to get this budget under control now. Once interest rates starts to rise, the $230 billion being spent on just interest alone will rise dramatically and that will have a negative cascading effect throughout the entire budget.

Two observations below: first dealing with the spike in spending during the financial crisis, and second, a bold look at cuts.

1 - Note that spending shot us drastically from $2.7 billion in '07, to $3.5 billion in '09. We know we consciously pumped up spending for TARP etc.... in '09 to 'help save the economy', however this supposed one-time 'bailout spending spree' has never gone away. Why? What is it that we are still spending an extra $800 billion per year on, 6 years after the one-time TARP deal? How in hell did this spending continue? Where's the money going?

2 - Now is the time to initiate bold cuts, before interest rates rise. We have to start generating surpluses to reduce the total debt, so that when rates rise, the effects will not be as significant as they otherwise would. We need at least $400 billion to balance the budget, and we should shoot for $800 billion in cuts in order to go positive and start reducing the national debt. 4 departments noted above should be targeted for near extinction over 5 years: education, housing, international affairs, and energy. They total $258 billion; I would bring it down to a total of $100 billion in 5 years with dramatic cuts each year. Most of it will go unnoticed in the larger scheme. Defense --- cut $100 billion now, and freeze the remainder for 5 years. SS, unemployment & labor --- cut $50 billion immediately (by reducing the fraud in disability benefits). Medicare & health --- cut $50 billion immediately (there is no government entity in America that cannot withstand a meager 4-5% cut, without any falloff in output. After that, get government out of the health care business, and transition to a medicare/medicaid voucher system by returning the money to The People so they can purchase their own health care, which will also serve to help get costs under control. Medicare would then go from $1,051 billion now, to $1,000 billion after the immediate $50 billion cut, thereafter on the voucher system just pay out $950 billion in the new program, saving another $50 billion, and allow the new system and The People to control health care costs through natural market forces.

All of the above cuts should total around $408 billion. This would bring spending back to around $3.1 trillion, WHICH IS STILL $400 billion (or 15%) HIGHER than 2007 levels. (Again,refer to #1 above --- we jacked up spending by $800 billion in one year, but then it never went away, so now at least half of that is going to go away ......and we won't miss it). Revenues are projected to rise to $3.5 trillion, so we would now be in a surplus situation, and we should use that to reduce the debt and stay on that pathway. We should also sell off most federal assets to further reduce the debt and move to leasing ---- the government should not be in the business of acquiring assets.

Anyhow ---- this could indeed be done, and any turnaround expert worth his salt could achieve it in a private entity without a problem. It is time to unleash that private expertise unto the government to get real results. Maybe Trump, an outsider is the guy; I cannot say for sure.

Sorry for the epiphany.

Quaker will you run for president? I would vote for you.

Ok, but I have been labeled a racist, homophobe, neocon, delusional old man, and member of the vast right-wing conspiracy, so exposing all that is going to take up all the drive-by media's time, thus allowing for Hillary's crimes, cover-ups, lying, money laundering, ineptitude, and radical policies to be conveniently swept under the rug paving the way for her coronation.

But if you want to contribute a billion dollars and draft the papers, I'm in.

majorspark;1778670 wrote:You'll find roughly the same in every piece of that pie.

Agreed. I think you could go into every department and cut 10% without any impact to those departments other than some short term job losses.

They will cry and kick and scream, but the reality is they aren't adding nearly enough value to justify those 10% in cuts so its a net gain for the taxpayer.

ptown_trojans_1;1778703 wrote:I'm in favor of also trimming and eliminating the fat in the DOD budget.
Here is the problem, we are going to have a lot of big ticket items for procurement in the next 10-15 years that will eat the budget alive.
These include the typical ones we know, the F-35, F-18, LCS, and the new Aircraft Carriers.
However, the Air Force is buying a new bomber to replace the B-52 (Northrop won the contract, of ~$80B)
The Air Force is also looking to replace our ICBM force in the next 20 years.
Oh, and the big one, the Navy wants to replace the Ohio Class Nuclear subs, which are a few $100B.
We are essentially replacing all three legs of the nuclear triad in the next 20 years, and that will cost a lot, lot, lot of money.
This also does not include what most R's want, which is more in Missile Defense and more Navy ships, which would increase the DOD budget even more so.

Until you get a DOD Secretary that comes like Rumsfield early, or Gates that kills a lot of programs, the DOD budget will only increase.
New report from CSIS that explains the DOD Budget Bow that is coming.
http://csis.org/files/publication/160126_Harrison_DefenseModernization_Web.pdf

We don't have the money so say no to the big ticket items.

F-35 should be cut immediately. It's a joke. We don't need more Navy ships either.

The F-35 has been a complete fucking mess.

As recent as 2007 the U.S. Navy met 90% of the combatant commander's requirements. Just 2 years ago they were able to meet only 43%. IN FY 2015 the Navy requested $38 billion less than the prior year. They are made up approximately of some 290 "ships". I think the last I heard the planned goal is to get to 306 by the end of the decade. In order to carry out all of the combatant commander's request it would take approximately 450 ships!

The point is forward military security requests are being made to the respective fleets that cannot be currently met. That's fine if that's what the American people want but our leaders are asking things that there are ot enough pieces to carry out so what security activities should be cut? Those decisions are made daily based on current global affairs.....and of course the politics of the day.

That all sounds great guys, but here is the thing, do you want to continue to have nuclear weapons and a deterrent?
All of those systems are going to be needing replacement in the next decade and are going to cost from some estimates, up to a $1 Trillion.
Do you still want to fly the B-52? Or do you want the new bomber to replace the B-2?
Do you still want ICBMs, or do you want to get rid of them?
Do you still want nuclear subs, cause they are reaching the point where they need replaced.

The wave of new big ticket items is coming and I am not sure how the hell we are going to pay for it, unless we are willing to live with 75%-50% of our current nuclear weapons deployed.
Also, does this mean not investing in missile defense anymore, which to some in the R's community is a sacred cow and linked to Reagan.
On the F-35, yeah cut it, but that means more money to maintain the F-18 and existing jets. That means having less jets overall in the next 10 years.

ptown_trojans_1;1778747 wrote:That all sounds great guys, but here is the thing, do you want to continue to have nuclear weapons and a deterrent?
All of those systems are going to be needing replacement in the next decade and are going to cost from some estimates, up to a $1 Trillion.
Do you still want to fly the B-52? Or do you want the new bomber to replace the B-2?
Do you still want ICBMs, or do you want to get rid of them?
Do you still want nuclear subs, cause they are reaching the point where they need replaced.

The wave of new big ticket items is coming and I am not sure how the hell we are going to pay for it, unless we are willing to live with 75%-50% of our current nuclear weapons deployed.
Also, does this mean not investing in missile defense anymore, which to some in the R's community is a sacred cow and linked to Reagan.
On the F-35, yeah cut it, but that means more money to maintain the F-18 and existing jets. That means having less jets overall in the next 10 years.

I don't disagree with whatyou are saying which lends to my original statement of my lack of desire to cut military spending going forward.At 16% of our total expenditures last year I don't see Dod total expenditures being a smaller percentage of our countries expenses anytime soon nor do I want it to be.