The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 102
  1. #81
    Join Date
    Jan. 14, 2005
    Location
    Aiken SC / Fay NC
    Posts
    5,367

    Default

    One key point:

    Military spending and defense contract spending are two different things.

    Related, but different.
    FREE TACK/APPAREL ADS: BITS AND BARTER BOARD: http://bitsandbarter.proboards.com/i...ay&thread=5450


    3 members found this post helpful.

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Mar. 30, 2012
    Location
    Crestview, Fl
    Posts
    455

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guilherme View Post
    AirForceWife as I'm sure you know "government accounting" is to accounting as "government music" is to music.

    I was personally involved, as a flight instructor, in one of the early "aircraft contractor maintenance" contracts for the Naval Air Training Command. I've always wondered who wrote it because it bore little relation to the realities of training Student Naval Aviators. I wrote a memo up the chain to the Wing Commander citing the difficulties (I actually read and referenced the contract by paragraph). I was summoned to his office with my C.O. where we met a bunch of heavies. The result was that they thanked me for my interest but told me to mind my own business. In reality everything they did was "by the book." It could not be done any other way. It was almost a classic example of "careerism" meets "administrative inflexibility."

    By the way, this same approach explains $400 hammers and $1600 toilet seats.

    Put another way, the "system" mandated by Congress generates these results.

    Beentheredonethat's OP was not an invitation to rational discussion; it was a mishmash of untruth and politically motivated disinformation. He/She/It has done that before and they know better. To repeat the same message over and over again, even though it’s patently false, is to demonstrate that they are a propagandist pushing a Big Lie, not someone looking for information of a fair exchange of ideas.

    In my youth I hung out with a guy in grade school who I still keep in touch with. He got drafted and went to ‘Nam while I got my wings and chased Russian subs in the North Atlantic. Even though he was “anti-war” he served his time honorably and was discharged. I was in town shortly after that and we got together to drink some beer and reminisce. At one point he asked me “how many aircraft carriers do we really need?” My response was “you’ve asked the wrong question.” The right question is “what level of force projection presence do we want to maintain and where and for how long?” The answer to that question tells you how much of anything you need.

    In other words military assets (personnel and material) are instruments of national policy, not creators of that policy. How much of anything you have is driven by what you want to do in the world. If you want to be activist then you need a military establishment with those capabilities (and they are expensive). If you’re a neo-isolationist and want to retreat to Fortress America then your requirements are quite different and a lot cheaper. Of course the presence of ICBMs, cruise missiles, armed drone aircraft, and well funded terrorist groups successful at recruiting young men willing to commit suicide to make a point mean that your retreat will likely not make you any safer.

    Right now we’re not at war with anybody, but lots of people are at war with us. Some seem to have forgotten the events of 9/11. Some seem to want to ignore the events in Benghazi. The Chinese seems to have launched a cyber offensive on a massive scale. And there’s the problem of the “lone wolves.” What sort of defenses do we need in this environment? Or should be follow the Bible and “turn the other cheek” and surrender “our tunic and cloak?” The answers to these questions determine how much we have to spend.

    G.

    P.S. I address this for your comment as you seem to be reasonable, rational, and have some interest in fair discussion.
    The times are very much changing. I can't say that I'm familiar with the way the Navy handles their contracts however, Air Force, and Army are vastly going through tons of red tape changes. We've been instructed to make cuts where cuts can go and service contracts are under a ton of scrutiny. No more "hire the person that so and so knows for job x to pay them a ton of money" when they really can't do that job. Our competition requirements are a lot more strict. At my base alone, we're required to compete over 81% of our contracts. Eglin is a high dollar aquisitions base because of our test ranges for developmental weapons. To the person who said we don't need million dollar weapons to "practice" with, how do you propose we get them right then? Do we just make the paper concept and hope to god it works when we need it? It doesn't work like that.
    We just recently had a land lease go sour because of "inside information." Turns out some company had purchased property with the sole intent to lease it back to the government because a family member that was connected to the project said "the army wants that land." While things like this do happen, it's getting less frequent at least at base level which is all I can report on. I'm sure at the Headquarters level and Pentagon level, with larger defense projects there is still a lot of back scratching going on. I can tell you this though, they're touting budget cuts, and boy let me tell you we've seen them already. My office supplies are running rather slim. But our large dollar weapons contracts are booming booming. We have to have that stuff. We're cutting in our everyday running for the higher levels to keep going. These budget cuts people are begging for will only hurt the low levels it won't even touch the higher ups which are the majority of the cost now as it is.

    This is soley speaking on a personal level. I attend briefings everyday about cuts, they always have the same message, cut here so we can spend there. Pretty soon, I won't have the ability to do my job and many others will be in the same boat because of budget cuts.


    5 members found this post helpful.

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Dec. 10, 2012
    Posts
    689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaluna View Post
    Many of our founding fathers had slaves. Should we go back to slavery, too? The constitution is interpretted for our time. Things have changed since the 1700's.
    Non sequitur.

    Slavery was abolished via constitutional amendment. If you want a welfare state, do the heavy lifting to get a constitutional amendment added.

    The constitution is to be strictly interpreted according to the intent of the writers, which is pretty clear to discern if anyone looks at the historical documents surrounding its drafting and ratification.

    And no, it is not a "framework". It is a freaking law document outlining what the federal government has authority to do (Articles) and what it cannot do (Bill of Rights).


    7 members found this post helpful.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Mar. 17, 2007
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    114

    Default

    I hate to say it but the military has been cutting back now for a while. My kids were allowed off post healthcare because the Clinic could not order the vaccines needed for school aged children. No one in the military wants to go to war. I'm sure my husband would have stayed home all of the 9 times he was sent to do the military tour of the world. We complain of military buildup but god forbid we don't have it when the time comes. My husband too is close to 20 years of service with a very bleak and dismissal outlook for his future. He is a Alpha rated soldier who has sacrificed everything for this country. You can all take the moral high ground but my husband and a lot more like him have put their families second to defend others. I am not a right wing or a left wing anything just a wife and mother in a military family. Hell, we're not rich, have no social life, no vacations due to his high stress job and duties, and what is left of my husband at the end of the day is just enough to drive himself home. He gives everything to his job and now there is nothing there for him in the end. He tells the children that he stays at the job so someone's daddy voice can be heard. He is an ethical man who has stood his moral high ground for the good of his troops and has paid the price. So, think of this with all the skepticism you can muster and then think about the men who are now screwed. I'd be writing my congressmen about the condoned use of Drones and the use of a National defense force within the continental United States instead of trying to yank support from deployed troops, if it was me that is, or maybe this has made someone go, hmmmm. Gotta and sorry for the rush job.


    6 members found this post helpful.

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Mar. 30, 2009
    Posts
    786

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LexInVA View Post
    What I don't understand is why some of you want to increase the size of the military when the majority of those serving in the military are not actual "troops" or combat personnel and most who enlist do not want to take combat-related jobs or are suitable for them. Today's armed forces are structured in such a way that for every actual fighting soldier, there are dozens of uniformed soldiers who are not and never will be fighters. Heck, during the last ten years, a big chunk of the US-based Army and Marines never deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan while others rotated back and forth or consecutively. So why do you want to add more bodies who will never ever make an actual difference in an armed conflict?
    Wow...That is kind of offensive. I read it several times to see if I misunderstood and every time I am shocked at the content.

    Should my DH who works in Space Operations not have a job because his job can not be done in Aghanistan or Iraq? I guess he isn't an actual "troop" because his job is stateside. Never mind that we couldn't carry out military operations overseas or use drones or launch misiles or fly planes etc. without the people in his job.

    I really wish more people understood that there are more roles in the military than direct combat roles and that many of those roles are not wasteful. Believe it or not, many of the CONUS (state-side) jobs are actually mission essential for combat and special operations.

    I am really somewhat speechless at this comment. I am all for reducing spending but make sure that when we make cuts they are thought through completely and the nature of the cuts is understood. Every decision has consequences, both intended and unintended.
    My blog:

    RAWR


    7 members found this post helpful.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Jan. 26, 2006
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    4,506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LexInVA View Post
    Today's armed forces are structured in such a way that for every actual fighting soldier, there are dozens of uniformed soldiers who are not and never will be fighters.?
    that is no difference from yesteryear's military.... the average is for every one combat posiiton there are eight support personal


    2 members found this post helpful.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Mar. 30, 2012
    Location
    Crestview, Fl
    Posts
    455

    Default

    Without support personnel in the AOR which we are there, they can't do their job either. How do you suppose they maintain the things they deploy with? Get food? Water? Basic life support? A "grunt" (not meant offensively) can't obligate government funds to get the things they need, only a contracting officer can. When you find enough civilians to start filling that position let me know when they want to head on over to Afghany land Lex, I'm sure the government would love it, oh wait...we have to pay way more for civilians to volunteer to be there, that's right...we pay more for a volunteer than a soldier who's told to go.
    I would also love to know where you're getting your numbers for actual deployed vs those that didn't.


    6 members found this post helpful.

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Aug. 25, 2007
    Posts
    8,998

    Default

    This makes for interesting reading:

    http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/download/cs...grath_op23.pdf

    There's an old saying: Amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics.

    Or, "An army travels on its stomach." That's Patton (quoting Pershing quoting Lee quoting Napoleon quoting Charlemagne quoting Caesar quoting Alexander quoting a hoplite who's name is lost to history).

    The truth is that without a big logistics "tail" the "teeth" of any modern military unit will soon be blunted to the point of impotence.

    The highest T3R ratio will be the Marines. That's because the Navy provides a bunch of their support (supply, medical, transport, etc.). That makes the Navy's T3R look pretty bad. But a navy will always have a much larger support element than an army. An air force will be somewhere in the middle (only because a navy like ours has two airfields for every combat air wing, one that floats and one that doesn't).

    Insurgent operations require even larger support elements because there's no "front line" and, consequently, there's no "rear area." Everything is in the "combat zone" and that means bigger security forces to protect the logistics base.

    People look at the DoD number and get very excited. The truth is that DoD is a poor number three behind SS and Medicare in Federal dollars spent. If you were to reduce the Army to the Caisson Platoon at Arlington, the Marines to the Band, the Air Force to Air Force One, and the Navy to a chief in a canoe with a .45 you would not reduce the deficit by much more than half.

    Is there "waste, fraud, and abuse" in the DoD budget? And how. But it's not worse, and maybe even better, than the estimated 15-20% that exists in Medicare. I don't know what the SS number would be.

    G.
    Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão


    3 members found this post helpful.

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Nov. 1, 2001
    Posts
    9,469

    Default Military reduced

    See those flying monkeys? They work for me.



  10. #90
    Join Date
    Jan. 26, 2010
    Posts
    6,048

    Default

    Boy, certain people seem to come in with an agenda and name-call and not read no matter what (ahem, Guilherme, caballero, nhrw.) Whatever. Obviously, the more you accuse me with an "agenda," the more it shows yours.

    The topic was reducing military spending.
    Guilherme: "Is there "waste, fraud, and abuse" in the DoD budget? And how."

    Oh dear. You just agreed with me. SO. Let's CUT it then.

    And who said NOT to cut waste fraud and abuse in every other area? Instead of having a kitchen sink thread where everything and one more thing is randomly thrown in, this was a focus. Rather than pretending that those "against" you don't want this, focus on the topic. Start a thread on cutting waste in medicare if that's what you want to focus on. I think that's a good topic and would like to see what people have to say, but it doesn't belong in here.

    So, one more time, I'm for focusing on cutting the HUGE waste in the military as in not having billion dollar embassies around the world, stop the giving money to every other country, ands stop going to fake wars. A little cut in that would fund healthcare and job training for the people actually IN the military and working. (Notice nowhere did I say take away the jobs and healthcare of the low paid military worker.)

    If you have some other ideas, give them. If you disagree, do so. If you think we should keep spending massive amounts on the military, or spend more, please DO say where that money is going to come from AND how we cut the deficit.



  11. #91
    Join Date
    Nov. 1, 2001
    Posts
    9,469

    Default

    None of the things you cite as concerns will be addressed by cutting the military.

    Embassies are part of the department of state (executive branch), not the military. Foreign aid isn't determined by the military either, that's the executive branch and congress. And the war thing? that is the decision of the executive branch again.
    See those flying monkeys? They work for me.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  12. #92
    Join Date
    Jan. 26, 2010
    Posts
    6,048

    Default

    Okay, so maybe I'm using the wrong term. I keep switching them up. I just mean in the most general sense anything involve defense, military, fighting, such. I'm not saying "the" military is doing the spending. Of course, in the end, only Congress can spend.



  13. #93
    Join Date
    Nov. 29, 2008
    Posts
    3,081

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beentheredonethat View Post
    Boy, certain people seem to come in with an agenda and name-call and not read no matter what (ahem, Guilherme, caballero, nhrw.) Whatever. Obviously, the more you accuse me with an "agenda," the more it shows yours.

    The topic was reducing military spending.
    Guilherme: "Is there "waste, fraud, and abuse" in the DoD budget? And how."

    Oh dear. You just agreed with me. SO. Let's CUT it then.

    And who said NOT to cut waste fraud and abuse in every other area? Instead of having a kitchen sink thread where everything and one more thing is randomly thrown in, this was a focus. Rather than pretending that those "against" you don't want this, focus on the topic. Start a thread on cutting waste in medicare if that's what you want to focus on. I think that's a good topic and would like to see what people have to say, but it doesn't belong in here.

    So, one more time, I'm for focusing on cutting the HUGE waste in the military as in not having billion dollar embassies around the world, stop the giving money to every other country, ands stop going to fake wars. A little cut in that would fund healthcare and job training for the people actually IN the military and working. (Notice nowhere did I say take away the jobs and healthcare of the low paid military worker.)

    If you have some other ideas, give them. If you disagree, do so. If you think we should keep spending massive amounts on the military, or spend more, please DO say where that money is going to come from AND how we cut the deficit.
    I think you'll find that the inefficiency is actually a factor relative to the average of all individual objectives within the society.

    You could go over the should's and the how's endlessly, but it's the total of societal intent that controls the balance, and not the rules.

    Think of it as a "scientific principle" that governs the behavior of large groups.

    At a certain level of size of what is being observed, the individuals begin to disappear, and the combined total of the entire group then become the subject of the observation.

    If put into a "scientific principle", it may then equate to something like...

    The total loss in the societal system is equal to the average of the tolerance for loss by all of the individual members in the social system. Then those individual members of the social system have to be divided within the equation into subsets which reflect the power of those members of each subset, to effect change over the whole.

    So what I'm saying here, is that the ratio of loss in the system will remain relatively steady regardless of how the system is organized. Because the loss is an intrinsic component derived primarily from the individual level, and not primary in the organizational level.

    If people are inclined towards corruption, they will behave in corrupt ways, no matter what system of order you facilitate as a framework of guidance.

    Because the framework of guidance, is only as functional, as the functional percentage of the entire group that abide by the rules of that given framework.

    I'm sure someone else can say that in fewer words then I just did...



  14. #94
    Join Date
    Jan. 26, 2010
    Posts
    6,048

    Default

    Sigh. You're probably right. I was talking to the insurance guy about reducing the corruption and misuse in the unions, and he just laughed. You'd hope it's not all just an exercise in futility.



  15. #95
    Join Date
    Nov. 29, 2008
    Posts
    3,081

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beentheredonethat View Post
    Sigh. You're probably right. I was talking to the insurance guy about reducing the corruption and misuse in the unions, and he just laughed. You'd hope it's not all just an exercise in futility.
    I'm right there beside you hoping with you, and I'm so happy that there are people in the world such as yourself, who care about making the world a better place, and trying to make some difference in any way they think they can.

    But, I think the answer has to come from individuals providing other individuals with examples of why corruption is a strategy for the short sighted.

    And to begin that path toward individual change, some individuals must take the initiative to live by those ideals that will lead to that greater change, and there must be something that can be seen by others in those who live by those ideals. Something that others will find attractive, and want to emulate.

    This is the challenge we face as a society, and all I can say from my own experience....

    Is be a good parent to your children, be a base of support for those you care for, be an honest worker for those deserving of your labor, and continuously seek out those who are worthy of your support. For by supporting those which you desire to be successful in the world, is the only way to shape the world to become that which you desire.



  16. #96
    Join Date
    Jan. 26, 2010
    Posts
    6,048

    Default

    Very well said, alterhorse.



  17. #97
    Join Date
    Aug. 25, 2007
    Posts
    8,998

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beentheredonethat View Post
    Okay, so maybe I'm using the wrong term. I keep switching them up. I just mean in the most general sense anything involve defense, military, fighting, such. I'm not saying "the" military is doing the spending. Of course, in the end, only Congress can spend.
    You are indeed using the wrong terms and mixing up ideas. Mental discipline is a Good Thing. Practice it.

    I spent just over 24 years, Active and Reserve, as a Naval Aviator. Buy me some beer some time and I'll tell you REAL stories about how money can be burned. Literally. But, as noted, this is more of a systemic problem than individual, invidious "corruption." If that is found (stealing and reselling govt. property, for example) somebody usually goes to jail. Try to bribe a contracting officer and, if you get caught, you'd better have a good lawyer.

    You might also do some reading and learn a bit more about how military procurement has worked over the centuries. What we have today is the evolutionary result of what has gone on before. Military folks don't like revolution, but we do evolution very well. Further we don't make the rules; Congress and the President do. We just follow them. If the rules are well made we're very happy. If they are stupid we're not happy but we obey them anyway. We all took an oath to do that. We take things like that seriously.

    We are a bi-polar society where government is concerned. We love benefits but hate to pay for them. We love security but long to be able to "walk on the wild side" every now and then without legal (or normal and natural) consequences. We love free speech, unless we find it offensive. We hate lawyers, until we get arrested. We love being a "society of laws, not men" until the laws prevent us from doing our will. I suspect this is just "human nature."

    G.
    Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão


    3 members found this post helpful.

  18. #98
    Join Date
    Mar. 15, 2007
    Location
    (throw dart at map) NC!
    Posts
    4,914

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guilherme View Post

    By the way, this same approach explains $400 hammers and $1600 toilet seats.

    Put another way, the "system" mandated by Congress generates these results.

    Beentheredonethat's OP was not an invitation to rational discussion; it was a mishmash of untruth and politically motivated disinformation. He/She/It has done that before and they know better. To repeat the same message over and over again, even though it’s patently false, is to demonstrate that they are a propagandist pushing a Big Lie, not someone looking for information of a fair exchange of ideas.

    In my youth I hung out with a guy in grade school who I still keep in touch with. He got drafted and went to ‘Nam while I got my wings and chased Russian subs in the North Atlantic. Even though he was “anti-war” he served his time honorably and was discharged. I was in town shortly after that and we got together to drink some beer and reminisce. At one point he asked me “how many aircraft carriers do we really need?” My response was “you’ve asked the wrong question.” The right question is “what level of force projection presence do we want to maintain and where and for how long?” The answer to that question tells you how much of anything you need.

    In other words military assets (personnel and material) are instruments of national policy, not creators of that policy. How much of anything you have is driven by what you want to do in the world. If you want to be activist then you need a military establishment with those capabilities (and they are expensive). If you’re a neo-isolationist and want to retreat to Fortress America then your requirements are quite different and a lot cheaper. Of course the presence of ICBMs, cruise missiles, armed drone aircraft, and well funded terrorist groups successful at recruiting young men willing to commit suicide to make a point mean that your retreat will likely not make you any safer.

    Right now we’re not at war with anybody, but lots of people are at war with us. Some seem to have forgotten the events of 9/11. Some seem to want to ignore the events in Benghazi. The Chinese seems to have launched a cyber offensive on a massive scale. And there’s the problem of the “lone wolves.” What sort of defenses do we need in this environment? Or should be follow the Bible and “turn the other cheek” and surrender “our tunic and cloak?” The answers to these questions determine how much we have to spend.

    G.

    P.S. I address this for your comment as you seem to be reasonable, rational, and have some interest in fair discussion.
    I agree with some things that you say but not others. Activism versus neo-isolationism does require different needs, but the reality is that our *actual* deployment doesn't change too much over time, despite the President or Congress. ANd it has to change with the global events at hand. McCain and Romney faulted us for not being involved in Syria, Iran and other "Arab Spring" nations. On the one hand, the tragedies occuring there are awful and Iran is posturing. On the other hand, where do we get the money and troops to follow up there? We don't have it after these wars with Afganistan and Iraq. And after propping up Wall Street companies.

    We ARE at war with several nations, whether Congress officially declares it or not. Military members confirm it. Obviously, this is why we have such a presence in the Arab world. And obviously, we invest lots in clandestine info-gathering in nations around the world, esp. those considered as "threats" by congress members. We aren't different from China or any other nation in that regard.

    In my opinion, we are not any less safe. Our homeland deaths are minimal. No one has forgotten 9/11, evidenced by anyone who flies or pays attention to government spendiing. Benghazi is a totally different situation and occured in Libya...a bastion of safety, right? Absolutely no one has ignored it. In fact, the hearings have made a mountain out of a tragedy. Four people lost their lives and that's terrible and a failure of intelligence. More people lost their lives in Chicago last week due to incorrectly targetted gun violence. That's not included in these hearings. Those who want to shrink our government wish to shrink our foreign outreach programs. If we have a massacre in, say, our Columbian embassy, I expect these same people will blame the government for that as well. You can't have "little government" and expect the government to prevent issues worldwide, not to mention domestic issues and weather-related disaster relief. Those who advocate "little government" have to accept the consequences of "little government" when disaster occurs...as well as when everyday crap occurs. Avoiding "Benghazi" requires spending more government money to protect all diplomats that receive threats. Are you willing to fund the government to protect all diplomats that receive threats worldwide? I'm sure you are, but where will this money come from? I'm serious in this question - where will qualified protection of all diplomats who receive threats come from?

    Where do you think the money should come from to fund our expansive worldwide diplomatic endeavors so that no embassy is attacked?

    It seems, Guilherme, that you are advocating for bigger government - departments who keep up on foreign threats, departments that keep up with and prevent foreign cyber-attacks. This costs money. Where is this money going to come from? I'm serious here - what would you cut in order to fund these things?

    This is a complex issue, and I'm curious to hear your solutions...solutions that solve these complex problems.
    Proud member of the Colbert Dressage Nation



  19. #99
    Join Date
    Aug. 25, 2007
    Posts
    8,998

    Default

    I don't advocate for "bigger" government, just more "thoughtful" government. That might be a forlorn hope in the age of "social media" but I can dream.

    We are not at war with anybody and have not been so since 1945. Lots of people have been at war with us, however. That is a reality that a large portion of the populace seems to have trouble grasping. Once an enemy strikes you then you have choices (nuke 'em 'till they glow in the dark; ignore them; something in between). I prefer that the CinC use sound judgement and respond in a way that will eliminate an enemy's ability to do us harm and, at the same time, deter them from rebuilding their capability. There's no "school" answer on how to do this in any given scenario. If you want to have a range of options you have to have a range of capabilities. This means a large and diverse military/naval force that can be quickly directed to apply such force as is required.

    After the force comes the diplomacy. This is the second battle. It really isn't enough that you intimidate the opposition into non-aggression you must induce them to do so from a more internal motivation. Again, there is no "template" to be applied except very generally.

    Put another way, in any conflict you must win twice: first in the field and then at the peace table. If you don't do both you'll not succeed over the long haul.

    But military spending is only about 17-18% of the Federal budget. Like I say, if you flat "gut" this part of government you don't solve your deficit and debt problems. There's a "two-step" that has to be danced and so far both ends of the political spectrum are busy with solo performances for their respective audiences. That leaves the rest of us "in the middle."

    This is not going to be solved by slogans or a "public motivation" campaign. It will be solved by educating people, particularly the ever popular "middle class" that we are a nation with limits. We can't guarantee everybody a "middle class lifestyle" without spending that very group into poverty and, thereby, destroying the very economic engine that makes our system work.

    G.
    Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão


    5 members found this post helpful.

  20. #100
    Join Date
    Dec. 10, 2001
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,836

    Default

    (Quote)It seems, Guilherme, that you are advocating for bigger government - departments who keep up on foreign threats, departments that keep up with and prevent foreign cyber-attacks. This costs money. Where is this money going to come from? I'm serious here - what would you cut in order to fund these things?(Unquote)

    We could start cutting with all the obese government in Washington. Term limits, no healthcare beyond what the average citizen gets, no pay after leaving office, NO government sponsored vacations. If you need a vacation, go to Camp David, that is what it is there for. No Hawaii, no taking your kids entire class to Mexico for Spring Break, necessitating massive Secret Service attendance. No lavish parties for Hollywood, just entertaining dignitaries which is actually the JOB of the Government. No massive giveaways of any kind to other Countries with out investigation of need, or oversight.

    No giveaways to failing companies (too big to fail) put more controls over banks and financial institutions. (and yes, I'm quite aware that it was Regan who loosened those controls, thanks)

    I also personally feel we could walk away from the DMZ but since I haven't spent a whole lot of time researching that issue, I could be way off there. Same with being the World Police, it sounds like it is none of our business, but I'm sure if you research deeper, there are many reasons why we intervene. Same with the UN, that seems like nothing but a way for one country to stroke another with promises and giveaways, and one whole lot of graft. Did anything ever happen to that leader who's son bilked the UN of billions? Probably not. Perhaps it is time someone else takes up the bulk of the support for the UN.

    Straight from the UN site: Only nine countries (starting with the largest contributor: United States, Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Canada, Spain, China) contribute 75% of the entire regular budget. Cuba contributes .043% of the regular budget. Oil-rich Saudi Arabia contributes .713%.

    I'm a lot less worried about abuse of Medicare, then I am about how much we send to other countries, which never seems to actually get to those it is meant to help.

    It horrifies me that we are not taking care of our Veterans. If you do not take care of the Good Men defending you, you will not have them for long.

    It is easy for all of us to sit here saying we should get out of Afghanistan, but we really should have the opinion of someone who has actually served there.
    OLD FRIENDS FARM-Equine Retirement-We LOVE Seniors!! Spoiling Retirees since 1998
    http://www.angelfire.com/oldfriendsfarm/home.html
    Charter Member of UYA!


    2 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Stallions that reduce height?
    By Tasker in forum Sport Horse Breeding
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Oct. 28, 2012, 08:49 AM
  2. Special food to reduce pet dander
    By nlk in forum The Menagerie
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May. 11, 2011, 08:04 PM
  3. Best Topical to Reduce Scarring
    By Kyzteke in forum Horse Care
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Jun. 9, 2010, 12:20 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: May. 13, 2010, 08:07 AM
  5. To Sell or Not to Sell? To Reduce Price or not to Reduce Price?
    By Names Changed to Protect the Innocent in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: Apr. 20, 2009, 02:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness