Coburn's Plan to End the Nation's Debt

[Romulus]

mods, Potus, congress, senate make it happen

[soonervegas]

I agree. I am sure it's not perfect, but it is real and meaningful. Congrats on him being a Repub and having the gonads to offer "revenue increases". Both Dems and Repubs digging their heels in on social programs and/or tax hikes is peeing me off.

[Romulus]

Is Coburn the one politician in DC who doesn't give a sheite about politics?

[87sooner]

the only plan that is acceptable is one that cuts EVERY single sector of govt. spending...
none of this crap of protecting certain areas or certain people or certain companies/industries...
cut out the fat across the board...
every american will have to sacrifice...
coburn seems to be the only one willing to say it/do it...

[Romulus]

^^^
was interested in your take on this seeing that Coburn takes a bite out of the farmer's wallets too

[sappstuf]

I agree. I am sure it's not perfect, but it is real and meaningful. Congrats on him being a Repub and having the gonads to offer "revenue increases". Both Dems and Repubs digging their heels in on social programs and/or tax hikes is peeing me off.

His plan is to close the loopholes and lower the overall tax rate. He isn't the first Repub to suggest such a thing.


Instead of just hiking taxes or only “closing loopholes,” Coburn wants to lower overall rates while flattening and simplifying the system. That takes some of the sting out of revenue increases and gives both parties something to win. Republicans get their tax reform and simplification, and Democrats get to take credit for more “fairness” through the elimination of arcane tax deductions, especially in the corporate tax code. That kind of compromise has been easily achievable — and almost entirely ignored by the White House.

[87sooner]

^^^
was interested in your take on this seeing that Coburn takes a bite out of the farmer's wallets too

most farmers (i know) in the business today don't need the direct payments...assuming prices stay strong...
i'm specifically talking about grain farmers...
i would be in favor of cutting direct payments significantly....
what really helps is the crop insurance subsidies....
crop insurance has really taken the risk down to manageable levels...
in drought conditions like this year....i would not survive without crop insurance...
so take my direct payments...but don't touch the insurance subsidies.......

[pphilfran]

most farmers (i know) in the business today don't need the direct payments...assuming prices stay strong...
i'm specifically talking about grain farmers...
i would be in favor of cutting direct payments significantly....
what really helps is the crop insurance subsidies....
crop insurance has really taken the risk down to manageable levels...
in drought conditions like this year....i would not survive without crop insurance...
so take my direct payments...but don't touch the insurance subsidies.......

How much does crop insurance cost you?

[sheepdogs]

Tom is one of the few congressman who are educated such that their stances on certain issues really has teeth. And by the way ,Tom attended OU Med along with my brother and sister in law.

[Canyonero]

Is Coburn the one politician in DC who doesn't give a sheite about politics?

Coburn = Honey Badger

[sooner_born_1960]

Indirect payments can't be off the table.

[87sooner]

How much does crop insurance cost you?

like all things it varies...
depending on the type and level of coverage i choose....and the crop i choose to grow...
without digging out my paperwork....i think my share was about $8/acre for grain sorghum....i think the govt kicked in about $16/acre....

i would also say that those earning in excess of $500k/year (net) should take bigger cuts...and that number might even be too high...

[3rdgensooner]

cut out the fat across the board...
every american will have to sacrifice...
I would like to make note of this day--a day that 87sooner and 3rdgensooner agreed on something.

[pphilfran]

like all things it varies...
depending on the type and level of coverage i choose....and the crop i choose to grow...
without digging out my paperwork....i think my share was about $8/acre for grain sorghum....i think the govt kicked in about $16/acre....

i would also say that those earning in excess of $500k/year (net) should take bigger cuts...and that number might even be too high...

Thanks...

One more question...

So for sorghum the insurance costs 24 bucks an acre...with a normal sorghum crop how much profit would you expect from an acre? Just looking for ballpark numbers...

[tommieharris91]

I would like to make note of this day--a day that 87sooner and 3rdgensooner agreed on something.

I'm agreeing with him too. Strange.

[87sooner]

i would also say the politicians that got us in this mess should sacrifice to a higher degree...
cut politicians' pay/benefits....and completely do away with their retirement...

[okie52]

Obama believes in shared sacrifice....he has said so many times.

[MsProudSooner]

like all things it varies...
depending on the type and level of coverage i choose....and the crop i choose to grow...
without digging out my paperwork....i think my share was about $8/acre for grain sorghum....i think the govt kicked in about $16/acre....

i would also say that those earning in excess of $500k/year (net) should take bigger cuts...and that number might even be too high...

Just curoius about how crop insurance works. Do you have to plant the crop and then it fails, or would it kick in for the drought when it is just a waste of money to plant the crop?

[MsProudSooner]

I would like to make note of this day--a day that 87sooner and 3rdgensooner agreed on something.

Add me to that list.

Every individual and every corporation needs to contribute to lowering the deficeit.

[The Maestro]

I knew when Dr. Coburn (how I've always known him) ran for office he was going to be that kind of politician who was going to do anything to NOT be a politician. Great man and give him props for sticking his neck out, knowing full well he was going to have enemies on both sides. He isn't going to play the game...and we should all like that.

Now the fact he has delivered my sister's five kids and seen her in ways I prefer to never even imagine...well, God bless 'em for that!

[87sooner]

Thanks...

One more question...

So for sorghum the insurance costs 24 bucks an acre...with a normal sorghum crop how much profit would you expect from an acre? Just looking for ballpark numbers...

i'd say around $150/acre.....
but that is considering direct input costs only....fuel/fertilizer/herbicide/seed/rent
that's not considering indirect costs such as land/machinery/etc

[soonerscuba]

Why exactly are we subsidizing private risk management of crops? I understand why farmers can't be hung out to dry in case of crop failure, but wouldn't direct payments in the event of acts of god simply cut out the middle-man?

[GKeeper316]

he also wants military retirees to pay more out of pocket for thier medical care, despite the fact that free health care was promised them in exchange for 20+ years of service.

**** tom coburn.

[pphilfran]

i'd say around $150/acre.....
but that is considering direct input costs only....fuel/fertilizer/herbicide/seed/rent
that's not considering indirect costs such as land/machinery/etc

Thanks...

[pphilfran]

he also wants military retirees to pay more out of pocket for thier medical care, despite the fact that free health care was promised them in exchange for 20+ years of service.

**** tom coburn.

Nobody should have "free" healthcare for life....

[GKeeper316]

Nobody should have "free" healthcare for life....

20 years in the military is price enough, i say.

[okie52]

he also wants military retirees to pay more out of pocket for thier medical care, despite the fact that free health care was promised them in exchange for 20+ years of service.

**** tom coburn.

I'm sure Tom would be willing to remove that clause if Obama would remove the $60,000,000,000 exemption for unions (regardless of income level) in his health care plan.

[OUMallen]

he also wants military retirees to pay more out of pocket for thier medical care, despite the fact that free health care was promised them in exchange for 20+ years of service.

**** tom coburn.

If we cry about every special interest group, nothing will get done.

We ALL are going to have to make sacrifices. They're talking about limiting or completely getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction for homeowners. Now THAT is something that is going to sting.

[87sooner]

Just curoius about how crop insurance works. Do you have to plant the crop and then it fails, or would it kick in for the drought when it is just a waste of money to plant the crop?

for each crop.....there is a final planting date....
you must plant the crop to be eligible for insurance...

in the case of drought....i will likely hold back inputs like fertilizer on the fall wheat crop on a wait and see basis (if it's too dry to sprout seeds or sustain them when they come up...no reason to spend money on the fertilizer....especially since it's the single largest input cost)

[sheepdogs]

Obama believes in shared sacrifice....he has said so many times.

Shared sacrifice can come in many ways such that those that could ill afford to pay more taxes could rather donate "time" instead and this should be mandatory.

[GKeeper316]

veterans are not a special interest group. hey are people who risked thier lives protecting the freedoms we all enjoy. imo, we owe them a whole lot more than just free health care.

[soonerscuba]

If we cry about every special interest group, nothing will get done.

We ALL are going to have to make sacrifices. They're talking about limiting or completely getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction for homeowners. Now THAT is something that is going to sting.While smart, there is about a 0% chance that happens on primary residence. If you are using your 2nd or 3rd mortgage and boat with galley as an investment and rely on those deductions, I would get the hell out of it.

[pphilfran]

20 years in the military is price enough, i say.

Entitlements have caused major problems for both public and private jobs....

[87sooner]

he also wants military retirees to pay more out of pocket for thier medical care, despite the fact that free health care was promised them in exchange for 20+ years of service.

**** tom coburn.

my dad was promised social security....
he paid in all his life...
he's now 83 years old....he has about $3mil in land...another $1mil in the bank....he makes $100k+/year....and he collects a pretty fat ss check each month....
he will bitch to high heaven if they were to cut his ss...
it wasn't his fault the politicians put us in this mess...
but he did benefit over the years from the govt. overspending...
it's time to give some of it back....

[Romulus]

I think his plan is mortgage reductions capped at $500,000 on primary residences and getting rid of 2nd and 3rd etc.

[pphilfran]

I think his plan is mortgage reductions capped at $500,000 on primary residences and getting rid of 2nd and 3rd etc.

That would be fine...

[okie52]

veterans are not a special interest group. hey are people who risked thier lives protecting the freedoms we all enjoy. imo, we owe them a whole lot more than just free health care.

Yet you hate cops that are often doing the same thing. Puzzling.

[OUMallen]

veterans are not a special interest group. hey are people who risked thier lives protecting the freedoms we all enjoy. imo, we owe them a whole lot more than just free health care.

They absolutely are a special interest group. And if you think they are owed more, than that's cool, give some of your personal paycheck or go visit a VA hospital instead of chiming in on a messageboard.


Of course it totally sucks they won't be given something they're promised. But the rules are changing as we're going right now.

[GKeeper316]

vet benefits should be completely off the table. and they should be the only thing completely off the table. go after farmers collecting subsidies for not growing certain crops... go after corporations using tax loopholes to avoid paying what they owe... go after medicare and medicaid and stop offering those any services to people in the country illegally, but leave vet benefits the **** alone. those were earned. the hard way.

[87sooner]

Why exactly are we subsidizing private risk management of crops? I understand why farmers can't be hung out to dry in case of crop failure, but wouldn't direct payments in the event of acts of god simply cut out the middle-man?

now that's a damn good question....
i can't give you a good answer...
that's the way it used to be done...
one would think it would be cheaper...
but then i suppose some politician's friend int he insurance business got an idea and then the insurance lobby got involved and next thing you know jed's a millionaire (jed being the insurance industry;) )

what's crazy is that even with crop insurance....the govt is STILL in the business of handing out disaster payments....
i actually just got one last month for the 2009 crop....and that was the SECOND one for the SAME crop year...

it's easy to see why we're in the mess we're in....

[87sooner]

vet benefits should be completely off the table. and they should be the only thing completely off the table. go after farmers collecting subsidies for not growing certain crops... go after corporations using tax loopholes to avoid paying what they owe... go after medicare and medicaid and stop offering those any services to people in the country illegally, but leave vet benefits the **** alone. those were earned. the hard way.

this is a myth from the 80's-early 90's....doesn't happen anymore...

[GKeeper316]

Yet you hate cops that are often doing the same thing. Puzzling.

cops arent soldiers. they dont protect anyone's freedoms. they only enforce laws.

[pphilfran]

"Only" enforce laws...

[87sooner]

I would like to make note of this day--a day that 87sooner and 3rdgensooner agreed on something.

stick with me and you'll be wearin jewels baby;)

[GKeeper316]

"Only" enforce laws...

ya... cops will not be ordered to go to a foreign country with a hostile populace and blow stuff up. that isnt what they are for. they enforce laws. that is all they are supposed to do.

[Caboose]

20 years in the military is price enough, i say.

Id say you are wrong. I love our veterans, but that is ridiculous.

[pphilfran]

ya... cops will not be ordered to go to a foreign country with a hostile populace and blow stuff up. that isnt what they are for. they enforce laws. that is all they are supposed to do.

Cops never put their life on the line...never go into hazardous situations...and due to their job never leave a family without a parent...

[okie52]

cops arent soldiers. they dont protect anyone's freedoms. they only enforce laws.

They "enforce" laws that guarantee our freedoms. Without that protection where would many of those "freedoms" be?

[87sooner]

i haven't seen the specifics of coburn's plan...but one thing i hope it does is go after companies that ship jobs overseas but bring their products back into this country to sell....
i would make them pay up bigtime...

[GKeeper316]

They "enforce" laws that guarantee our freedoms. Without that protection where would many of those "freedoms" be?

if you're gonna go that route and try to argue the philosophy of freedom, why do we even need cops? the only true freedom is anarchy. your point makes no sense, logically. the second you make laws restricting the actions of one person to protect other people, you have infringed upon personal liberty.

it doesn't matter if cops are put into the line of fire, and it doesn't matter that some die. they do not protect freedom either implicitly or explicitly. all they do is enforce the law. there is no protection of rights anywhere in a cops job description. protecting your rights is what your attorney does... and we all know cops play by the rules and don't ever ignore the constitution and always have the peoples' best interest at heart, right?

[pphilfran]

i haven't seen the specifics of coburn's plan...but one thing i hope it does is go after companies that ship jobs overseas but bring their products back into this country to sell....
i would make them pay up bigtime...

So we fine them and make them even less competitive...while the offshore folks can continue to use the low cost labor and undercut the US producers...who will lose market share and slowly go out of business?

The answer is not that simple...

[87sooner]

why don't you guys start a cop vs soldier thread;)

[pphilfran]

why don't you guys start a cop vs soldier thread;)

I'm done with him...;)

[bigfatjerk]

They absolutely are a special interest group. And if you think they are owed more, than that's cool, give some of your personal paycheck or go visit a VA hospital instead of chiming in on a messageboard.


Of course it totally sucks they won't be given something they're promised. But the rules are changing as we're going right now.

As it stands nobody under the age of 50 is going to get what they are promised. If we keep going as is social security will be bankrupt in about 10-12 years. Medicare was already drastically cut by the new bill. You really think it's going to last?

[OUMallen]

As it stands nobody under the age of 50 is going to get what they are promised. If we keep going as is social security will be bankrupt in about 10-12 years. Medicare was already drastically cut by the new bill. You really think it's going to last?

Nope.

[Fraggle145]

stick with me and you'll be wearin jewels baby;)

I might be too... :O This is weird. :confused: I am not ready to admit it yet. :gary:

[sappstuf]

ya... cops will not be ordered to go to a foreign country with a hostile populace and blow stuff up. that isnt what they are for. they enforce laws. that is all they are supposed to do.

They go into Los Angeles don't they?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I would welcome closing loopholes and reviewing tax breaks for all businesses and people. I am not for selective treatment like the dems are trying to do with the oil companies.

[diverdog]

veterans are not a special interest group. hey are people who risked thier lives protecting the freedoms we all enjoy. imo, we owe them a whole lot more than just free health care.

Not all of them risk their lives. The benefits are far to generous for people who are in non-combat roles. There needs to be a point system and that system buys down retirement age and upgrades benefits. A two tour infantry grunt gets a lot more points than a clerk at the Pentagon.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

my dad was promised social security....
he paid in all his life...
he's now 83 years old....he has about $3mil in land...another $1mil in the bank....he makes $100k+/year....and he collects a pretty fat ss check each month....
he will bitch to high heaven if they were to cut his ss...
it wasn't his fault the politicians put us in this mess...
but he did benefit over the years from the govt. overspending...
it's time to give some of it back....

Your Dad like my Dad, Never Ever put in anything like they are taking out. What they put in is a drop compared to what they are taking out. I called it a Ponzi scheme a while back and got escoriated. What else do you call a financial dealio that requires more people paying in that are taking out??? Even some Treasury dude said it was like a Ponzi scheme recently.

[GKeeper316]

Not all of them risk their lives. The benefits are far to generous for people who are in non-combat roles. There needs to be a point system and that system buys down retirement age and upgrades benefits. A two tour infantry grunt gets a lot more points than a clerk at the Pentagon.

wrong. everyone's job is important. the grunt on the ground is ineffective if he has no food to eat or supplies to accomplish his mission.

and i like how you think that people in the pentagon don't risk thier lives... even after 9/11.

[sappstuf]

Veteran's already pay a part of their healthcare after they retire. I had a buddy over at the house this weekend and that came up. For his family and himself he pays..... Wait for it... $38 a month

Not a bad deal. Even if it was double it would be a great deal.

I wouldn't mind if that happened.

[royalfan5]

Do you know what is better than the government subsidizing risk management for farmers?

Farmers paying me to manage their risk.

[87sooner]

So we fine them and make them even less competitive...while the offshore folks can continue to use the low cost labor and undercut the US producers...who will lose market share and slowly go out of business?

The answer is not that simple...

if a company makes products outside the US....and sells it here for a profit but pays little if any tax on those profits....why do i care if they go out of business?

[sappstuf]

i haven't seen the specifics of coburn's plan...but one thing i hope it does is go after companies that ship jobs overseas but bring their products back into this country to sell....
i would make them pay up bigtime...

Do you mean like GM? The taxpayers subsidized them to do that very thing.

[87sooner]

Do you know what is better than the government subsidizing risk management for farmers?

Farmers paying me to manage their risk.

that would be a good idea...
but can you manage my risk if i don't raise a crop because of bad weather? like for instance this year?;)

[Jammin']

wrong. everyone's job is important. the grunt on the ground is ineffective if he has no food to eat or supplies to accomplish his mission.

and i like how you think that people in the pentagon don't risk thier lives... even after 9/11.

Yeah, but that contradicts your statement about cops. These people providing food (et al) to you don't risk their life in the name of freeedom. (which seemed to be all your argument was based upon earlier) Cite 9/11 all you want, it doesn't mean they are in anyway more in the line of fire than every teacher in the country or a worker rebuilding a highway and certainly not in harms way as much as cops and firefighters. I appreciate you looking after yours and not wanting to chip in like everyone else because you chose to go into the service. (or were you drafted into service?)

I do agree with a point system that would provide greater benefits to those that have served in combat and give more for those that return to combat multiple times.

[pphilfran]

if a company makes products outside the US....and sells it here for a profit but pays little if any tax on those profits....why do i care if they go out of business?

It needs to be a level playing field....

We are now in a world economy...prior to the mid 60's there was no competition for US products...Germany and Japan were nearly leveled...China was only making trinkets...Korea and other developing countries had little or no manufacturing...if we are not careful we will have every meaningful job being shipped overseas....

[diverdog]

wrong. everyone's job is important. the grunt on the ground is ineffective if he has no food to eat or supplies to accomplish his mission.

and i like how you think that people in the pentagon don't risk thier lives... even after 9/11.

Sorry all military service is not equal. Sorry if you do not see it that way but it is a fact. Sure we need support people but we do not need to give them lifetime retirement starting as young as 39 years old.

[royalfan5]

that would be a good idea...
but can you manage my risk if i don't raise a crop because of bad weather? like for instance this year?;)

There is stuff you can do, depending on what you want to spend. The great thing about working with Iowa and Nebraska farmers, is that they generally grow some sort of crop no matter what. There will still be crop insurance, if it isn't subsidized, and I think the levels of coverage would probably drop. That being said, things vary widely depending on location. Oklahoma farmers have a lot more challenges than Corn Belt farmers as far as production concerns go.

[sappstuf]

]Sorry all military service is not equal. [/B] Sorry if you do not see it that way but it is a fact. Sure we need support people but we do not need to give them lifetime retirement starting as young as 39 years old.

Especially the AF.. Those lazy flyboys deserve about 20% tops.. ;)

[MsProudSooner]

I wonder if the number crunchers have figured how much income tax money the federal government has been denied due to people who used to be employed being now unemployed or under-employeed? People who make $10 an hour pay a lot less income tax than those who make $20 - $30 an hour.

[sappstuf]

I wonder if the number crunchers have figured how much income tax money the federal government has been denied due to people who used to be employed being now unemployed or under-employeed? People who make $10 an hour pay a lot less income tax than those who make $20 - $30 an hour.

I think revenue is down $300-400 billion off of what it was in 2007. Of course that applies to all taxpayers, not just the ones making $10 an hour.

[GKeeper316]

Sorry all military service is not equal. Sorry if you do not see it that way but it is a fact. Sure we need support people but we do not need to give them lifetime retirement starting as young as 39 years old.

that's contrary to everything the military teaches its members.

[87sooner]

I might be too... :O This is weird. :confused: I am not ready to admit it yet. :gary:

that makes 4...maybe i should run for office;)

[pphilfran]

Coburn calls his plan...

0fSEjlLQcRY

[OUMallen]

that's contrary to everything the military teaches its members.

What happened to the chain of command!?:confused:

[GKeeper316]

Yeah, but that contradicts your statement about cops. These people providing food (et al) to you don't risk their life in the name of freeedom. (which seemed to be all your argument was based upon earlier) Cite 9/11 all you want, it doesn't mean they are in anyway more in the line of fire than every teacher in the country or a worker rebuilding a highway and certainly not in harms way as much as cops and firefighters. I appreciate you looking after yours and not wanting to chip in like everyone else because you chose to go into the service. (or were you drafted into service?)

I do agree with a point system that would provide greater benefits to those that have served in combat and give more for those that return to combat multiple times.

see the difference between cops and firefighters and military personnel is that cops and firefighters are afforded the right to organize to look out for themselves. soldiers aren't. therefore they need people like me looking out for them.

point systems are an unfair measuring stick of someone's service. you gonna pay more retirement funds to a guy that was awarded a silver star? what about his friend that was on the same mission, doing what he was ordered to do, but because his job on this mission was support (not particularly dangerous) he didn't perform any action that was deemed meritable... so he gets no medal and less retirement funds because he was ordered to do one thing and someone else was ordered to do another.

a point system like that would only serve to encourage people to take incredibly stupid chances, sacrifice operational control, and put people in danger that didn't need to be, just for the self-serving desire to see 50 bucks more a month in retirement pay.

anyone that advocates a point system for military persannel has never been in the military. when decisions aren't your to make, why would you be punished for doing what you're told?

[GKeeper316]

What happened to the chain of command!?:confused:

what about it?

[Jammin']

see the difference between cops and firefighters and military personnel is that cops and firefighters are afforded the right to organize to look out for themselves. soldiers aren't. therefore they need people like me looking out for them.

point systems are an unfair measuring stick of someone's service. you gonna pay more retirement funds to a guy that was awarded a silver star? what about his friend that was on the same mission, doing what he was ordered to do, but because his job on this mission was support (not particularly dangerous) he didn't perform any action that was deemed meritable... so he gets no medal and less retirement funds because he was ordered to do one thing and someone else was ordered to do another.

a point system like that would only serve to encourage people to take incredibly stupid chances, sacrifice operational control, and put people in danger that didn't need to be, just for the self-serving desire to see 50 bucks more a month in retirement pay.

anyone that advocates a point system for military persannel has never been in the military. when decisions aren't your to make, why would you be punished for doing what you're told?

man, get out in the real world. That **** happens in every business too. My boss decides what I make, what I do and when I do it. If I get promoted over someone that has been here the same amount or longer than I have, he/she doesn't like it. But I make more, have more authority, will be able to retire better. That's just life. Good to see it exists in the military as well. I assume the person making the decisions in the military has a damn good reason for making decisions and isn't just randomly ordering you all around?

[87sooner]

Sorry all military service is not equal. Sorry if you do not see it that way but it is a fact. Sure we need support people but we do not need to give them lifetime retirement starting as young as 39 years old.

the military has to offer what the market demands....
if we can get enuf volunteers offering retirement starting at age 60....
maybe there should be different packages for each career field....

my brother retired at 39 after 21 years...
he works for oracle making 6 figures.....he's hurtin;)
so is my brother in law...retired O-6...works for a govt contractor making 6 figures plus stock options....
both comm guys...

[GKeeper316]

man, get out in the real world. That **** happens in every business too. My boss decides what I make, what I do and when I do it. If I get promoted over someone that has been here the same amount or longer than I have, he/she doesn't like it. But I make more, have more authority, will be able to retire better. That's just life. Good to see it exists in the military as well. I assume the person making the decisions in the military has a damn good reason for making decisions and isn't just randomly ordering you all around?

the private sector is not the military. what happens if you don't do what your boss tells you to do? you get fired (worst case). in the military, if you don't do what you're told to do, you go to prison. or get shot.

do not try to compare military life to civillian jobs.

[Jammin']

the private sector is not the military. what happens if you don't do what your boss tells you to do? you get fired (worst case). in the military, if you don't do what you're told to do, you go to prison. or get shot.

do not try to compare military life to civillian jobs.

then stop trying to act like all military jobs are front line, life or death, fighting for freedom jobs. They aren't, many ARE civillian jobs dressed up with more benefits than we can afford right now. You'd give your life for this country but aren't willing to sacrifice beyond your signed contract with the military? Nice.

[sappstuf]

the military has to offer what the market demands....if we can get enuf volunteers offering retirement starting at age 60....
maybe there should be different packages for each career field....

my brother retired at 39 after 21 years...
he works for oracle making 6 figures.....he's hurtin;)
so is my brother in law...retired O-6...works for a govt contractor making 6 figures plus stock options....
both comm guys...

That is true. When retirement was dropped to 40% there were issues with finding enlistees and getting them to reenlist. It was raised back to 50%.

That is one of the drawbacks to having an all voluntary force. Go to conscripts and you can cut pay by 75%!

[achiro]

Start doing yearly/bi-annual(hell once a decade) reviews on disability recipients. If real standards were put on those people and only those that really needed it, there would be plenty of money to pay both the military and police health benefits.
I don't disagree that all Americans may have to make some sacrifices but I think the ones that suck off the teet of the gubment should be at the top and done long before the ones that have put something into the system.

[GKeeper316]

then stop trying to act like all military jobs are front line, life or death, fighting for freedom jobs. They aren't, many ARE civillian jobs dressed up with more benefits than we can afford right now. You'd give your life for this country but aren't willing to sacrifice beyond your signed contract with the military? Nice.

i never said that. what i said was that everyone's job is equally important. just because an intel analyst in virginia isn't shooting the brown people in afghanistan, that doesn't make what he does any less important than the guy doing the shooting.

you people keep trying to equate the military with the civillian world, and while the training recieved while serving will dictate future earning potential in the civillian world, while serving in the military every single person's job is just as important to mission success as everyone else's.

the military is not the civillian world. do not try to equate the two.

[OutlandTrophy]

the private sector is not the military. what happens if you don't do what your boss tells you to do? you get fired (worst case). in the military, if you don't do what you're told to do, you go to prison. or get shot.

do not try to compare military life to civillian jobs.

Guys, this is who you are talking to.


you realize that its a federal crime to discriminate against hiring someone because of political beliefs, right?


cut him some slack, he obviously rides the short bus.

[GKeeper316]

and, for the record, i am a disabled veteran who recieves nothing at all from the VA. those sons of bitches classified what was wrong with my knees as an unknown pre-existing condition and denied my claim. even though i played football, basketball, baseball and soccer all through my childhood without a single knee problem and 2 months after graduating boot they could barely bend.

but i'll stick up for my fellow servicemen and fight to help them keep what was promised to them by thier government.

[The Profit]

I have no problem with Coburn's plan, nor do I have a problem with the plan introduced today by the gang of six. Coburn should have gone further, though with his ending of subsidies. I notice that the oil and gas industry was not mentioned, and all subsidies to that industry should be completely ended. I would also like to see all subsidies (including crop insurance) ended for farms. Like any other profession, you either make it or you don't.

[sappstuf]

I have no problem with Coburn's plan, nor do I have a problem with the plan introduced today by the gang of six. Coburn should have gone further, though with his ending of subsidies. I notice that the oil and gas industry was not mentioned, and all subsidies to that industry should be completely ended. I would also like to see all subsidies (including crop insurance) ended for farms. Like any other profession, you either make it or you don't.

http://api.ning.com/files/O4wei8fFB7j291VJtXkIj5TME4ZyFztRemG9MooZkkfOc4eipl vmRPCwJ-FSZaSFDaxCeErl1KduXjRICI6zJFU52OVl3XRk/ChiefIronEyesCodyCrying.gif

I'm so proud of you Profit! Lunch is on me if I ever get up that way.

[OutlandTrophy]

and, for the record, i am a disabled veteran who recieves nothing at all from the VA. those sons of bitches classified what was wrong with my knees as an unknown pre-existing condition and denied my claim. even though i played football, basketball, baseball and soccer all through my childhood without a single knee problem and 2 months after graduating boot they could barely bend.

but i'll stick up for my fellow servicemen and fight to help them keep what was promised to them by thier government.

for the record, you are NOT a disabled veteran. You cannot just give yourself that title.

[GKeeper316]

for the record, you are NOT a disabled veteran. You cannot just give yourself that title.


my DD-214 lists my re-enlistment code as RE-3P. look it up, dick.

[OutlandTrophy]

Don't have to.

Unless the VA designates you as disabled you are not leagally a disabled veteran.

Being homesick usually isn't classified by the VA as a disability.

[GKeeper316]

Don't have to.

Unless the VA designates you as disabled you are not leagally a disabled veteran.

Being homesick usually isn't classified by the VA as a disability.

homesick?

discharged with a disablity is a disabled vet.

[OutlandTrophy]

HOMESICK

[sappstuf]

Don't have to.

Unless the VA designates you as disabled you are not leagally a disabled veteran.

Being homesick usually isn't classified by the VA as a disability.

A service member can be placed on TDRL or PDRL and they would get a check for life(or nothing it runs the gambit) and it would have nothing to do with the VA.

[OutlandTrophy]

A service member can be placed on TDRL or PDRL and they would get a check for life and it would have nothing to do with the VA.

and our very own GKeeper is NOT one of them.

[87sooner]

I have no problem with Coburn's plan, nor do I have a problem with the plan introduced today by the gang of six. Coburn should have gone further, though with his ending of subsidies. I notice that the oil and gas industry was not mentioned, and all subsidies to that industry should be completely ended. I would also like to see all subsidies (including crop insurance) ended for farms. Like any other profession, you either make it or you don't.

sounds like your base closure plan....
close all the foreign bases and if those countries make it...fine...if not...tough...

prolly ought to do the same for ss/medicare....
if the old folks make it ...fine ...if not....tough...

[GKeeper316]

HOMESICK

wasnt any homesickness involved. i loved living in southern ca and i loved being a marine. **** you for trying to **** on my service, you worthless ****in chode.

[pphilfran]

Bet he likes this also...

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,233514,00.html

Advocates for military commissaries are optimistic they can sideline a Senate Veterans Affairs Committee plan that would end subsidies of base grocery stores so the same money could pay for health care of veterans and families exposed years ago to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, N.C.

But as momentum builds on Capitol Hill to protect shopping discounts on base, prospects dim for passage this year of the Caring for Camp Lejeune Veterans Act (S 277) with its cost of $4 billion over the first 10 years.

The bill’s sponsor is Sen. Richard Burr (N.C.), ranking Republican on the veterans affairs committee. A member of Burr’s staff said the senator is “adamant” about securing health care for Marine Corps and Navy vets and families contaminated by drinking water on base from 1957 through 1987. But Burr is not wedded to his first “option” to pay for that care, by merging commissaries and exchanges into a single retail system across the military.

“We are certainly willing to work with [the armed services] committees, or the Department of Defense, to find another way, if that’s what they would like to do. But this gets the ball rolling on a discussion of how to pay for this care,” Burr’s aide said.

DoD and the Department of Veterans Affairs oppose the bill. It would direct DoD to pay the VA to provide health care for up to a million veterans and family members who lived for a time on Lejeune when tetrachloroethylene (PCE), a dry cleaning solvent, was leaking into parts of the Lejeune water system from an off-base business.

PCE is associated with birth defects, childhood cancers and other diseases. Burr agrees with family advocates that the Navy Department was slow to uncover the contamination and to allow studies to determine levels of exposure and incidence of diseases among former Lejeune residents.

Burr concedes the studies aren’t complete but families, he argues, shouldn’t have to wait any longer for government provided health care.
Many military associations and veterans groups support the legislation but were alarmed to learn how Burr would pay for it. A copy of the bill the committee approved June 29, not yet released publicly, directs the merger of all base stores under a single retail system in fiscal 2012, and would end all taxpayer support for commissaries by Sept. 30, 2015.

The bill also would eliminate transportation funding and some base support dollars for exchanges, which are military department stores.

The overall effect would be to “disenfranchise all of authorized patrons of the military resale system in order to pay for a very worthy veterans’ affairs initiative,” said Patrick B. Nixon, president of American Logistics Association, a trade group for manufacturers, brokers and others who sell products or services to military stores. Nixon also is former director of the Defense Commissary Agency, an authority on funding of base grocery stores.

When he read the legislation and saw how it would damage one of the military’s most prized benefits, Nixon said, it “couldn’t pass the sanity test. First, why would the veterans’ affairs [committee] take on this DoD program? And then why gut it to pay for a veterans affairs program?”

Burr and his staff “now realize that the juice on this isn’t worth the squeeze,” Nixon said. “The last we heard [the] staff was talking about re-crafting the legislation.”
Nixon noted that the bill hasn’t been reported out of committee yet though members approved it June 29.

“We don’t know what that means,” he said. “So we are cautiously optimistic they are going to find another bill-payer within veterans’ affairs oversight responsibility as opposed to going for a DoD benefit program.”

Senator Burr did not grant our request for an interview. A staffer noted with frustration that press coverage surrounding the bill has focused largely on the source of funding rather than progress make toward bringing health care to ill veterans and families, recognizing that many have died.

A challenge for Burr advancing his bill is that Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), chairman of the veterans affairs committee, insisted that budget offsets to pay it come from defense dollars, not from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Matt McAlvanah, spokesman for Murray, confirmed this.

“Senator Murray believes adamantly that because DoD is responsible for the exposures, they must be responsible for footing the bill,” McAlvanah said. “However, she did not specify anything about what the nature of the DoD funding source must be.”

Given the bill’s potential impact on base stores, the Senate Armed Services Committee wants to review S 277 before it is cleared for consideration of the full Senate. It might not go further than that unless other funding is found and the bill amended.

In the House, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), chairman of the armed services’ personnel subcommittee, is so alarmed by the threat to commissaries raised by S 277 that he plans special action soon, said a staffer. Wilson hopes to signal debt reduction negotiators anywhere that military shopping discounts are to be protected.

“This is just not about Burr. Burr is endemic of the general prevailing attitude. We are going to try to take on that attitude,” said a House source. Wilson’s message will be that the shopping benefit “is not an easy cut. There’s real value here and if you cut it you’re going to do serious damage.”

Wilson sought a meeting with Burr to explain what service members stand to lose if store systems are merged and commissary funding is ended. But the word already had spread that Burr was “backpedaling 90 miles per hour” from his store consolidation plan, said a staff member.

“They’d love to have an alternative funding source,” he said. “DoD is full of funding sources, all of which have machine gun nests on the corners.”

Wilson fears that S 277 has shone a spotlight on the $1.3 billion annual appropriation for commissaries and could be targeted again, by the Office of Management and Budget or the Defense Business Board, as they strive to cut defense spending, as the president has pledged, by at least $400 billion over the next 12 years.

[sappstuf]

Bet he likes this also...

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,233514,00.html

Advocates for military commissaries are optimistic they can sideline a Senate Veterans Affairs Committee plan that would end subsidies of base grocery stores so the same money could pay for health care of veterans and families exposed years ago to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, N.C.

I don't know anything about the Lejuene water stuff, but commissaries could and should be replaced. The only thing that is truly cheaper is the meats. Everything else I can find at the same price out in town. Overseas is an obvious exception.

Same for the PX(Base exchange) most electronics and clothing can be found at the same price or cheaper out in town.

[sappstuf]

and our very own GKeeper is NOT one of them.

Can't say. I was just pointing out that you can be medically retired from DOD and not the VA. It is a seperate system.

[Mongo]

Coburn = Honey Badger

this is my favorite post

[GKeeper316]

I don't know anything about the Lejuene water stuff, but commissaries could and should be replaced. The only thing that is truly cheaper is the meats. Everything else I can find at the same price out in town. Overseas is an obvious exception.

Same for the PX(Base exchange) most electronics and clothing can be found at the same price or cheaper out in town.

ya when we lived in england, the only place to get ranch dressing was at the commissary... damn brits had never heard of it.

[The Profit]

I don't know anything about the Lejuene water stuff, but commissaries could and should be replaced. The only thing that is truly cheaper is the meats. Everything else I can find at the same price out in town. Overseas is an obvious exception.

Same for the PX(Base exchange) most electronics and clothing can be found at the same price or cheaper out in town.




The fact that we are in agreement twice in a single day is incredible, and perhaps frightening. Other than on foreign bases, posts, etc., there is no need for commissaries and exchanges. They are an unnecessary expense.

[Aldebaran]

I want republicans to be required to pay taxes on the stick in their *** according it's size, circumference, and how long it has been there. That is revenue generating change I can believe in.

Other than that, I also agree with the farmer.

[GKeeper316]

The fact that we are in agreement twice in a single day is incredible, and perhaps frightening. Other than on foreign bases, posts, etc., there is no need for commissaries and exchanges. They are an unnecessary expense.

thats not entirely fair. when people are in a position to have thier ability to leave base for any given period of time taken away, they should be able to get the stuff they need on base.

example... when i graduated boot camp and reported for MCT, MCT students weren't allowed off base, for any reason. how would i have been able to buy things like toothpaste, deoderant, soap, shaving cream, etc. etc. if not for the PX?

its fine if civilians think BXs and PXs arent necessary given the availability of civillian merchants, but in the military, if you're given an order not to leave the base for any reason, and you leave the base to buy things you need to maintain your grooming standard, and you get caught, you're now facing charges of disobeying a direct order. if convicted, you go to leavenworth. just because you needed a new razor blade to shave with so you wouldn't be found in violation of your service's grooming standard.

[pphilfran]

I don't know anything about the Lejuene water stuff, but commissaries could and should be replaced. The only thing that is truly cheaper is the meats. Everything else I can find at the same price out in town. Overseas is an obvious exception.

Same for the PX(Base exchange) most electronics and clothing can be found at the same price or cheaper out in town.

I can't speak about the PX but the com has much cheaper prices than Wally World...

I wholesale to both...the com adds two cents to the wholesale price no matter the cost...Wally World will add 30%...

[pphilfran]

I have to visit Sill in the morning...I will get some prices and compare them to Wally...if I remember...

[pphilfran]

I think the Lejuene water problem was caused by an outside source having a cleaning fluid leak that contaminated the water supply...might be wrong...

Whatever the cause the problem is costing billions to resolve...

[pphilfran]

I am not so sure that the bases need the PX but, like GK stated, the grocery part is needed on base...

How much they should be subsidized I am not sure...

As a disclaimer I make about a grand a week profit on post...

[Aldebaran]

The sticks would be measured by highly trained, caring, and gentle union bosses FWIW.

[sappstuf]

I have to visit Sill in the morning...I will get some prices and compare them to Wally...if I remember...

Cool. Like I said, the meats and such there is a noticeable difference, but on everything else I don't see much difference. And sales from the venders are the same.

The other thing, now with the economy, is generic walmart brand they offer. The comm doesn't have that stuff it is all name brand. The quality of that generic stuff is hit or miss, but buying sugar and such is an easy decision for me.

[sappstuf]

The gas station onbase is routinely higher than out in town. Much higher than places like Costco.

[pphilfran]

Cool. Like I said, the meats and such there is a noticeable difference, but on everything else I don't see much difference. And sales from the venders are the same.

The other thing, now with the economy, is generic walmart brand they offer. The comm doesn't have that stuff it is all name brand. The quality of that generic stuff is hit or miss, but buying sugar and such is an easy decision for me.

Yep no generics that I know of...I bet the Wal Mart generic price is close to the name brand price at the com...

I will try to remember to make some checks...

[pphilfran]

The gas station onbase is routinely higher than out in town. Much higher than places like Costco.

Gas used to be a hell of a lot cheaper....that changed years ago...

[sappstuf]

I am not so sure that the bases need the PX but, like GK stated, the grocery part is needed on base...

How much they should be subsidized I am not sure...

As a disclaimer I make about a grand a week profit on post...

I don't think the grocery part should be done away with, but I don't know if the federal government should be doing it. There is a need for those services onbases as many junior people do not have a car. Even more probably SHOULDN'T have a car... :)

[sappstuf]

Yep no generics that I know of...I bet the Wal Mart generic price is close to the name brand price at the com...

I will try to remember to make some checks...

You can make one out to me.. I will PM you my info! :)

[sappstuf]

Gas used to be a hell of a lot cheaper....that changed years ago...

Yeah it is pointless if you ask me. You could sell those off and they would do just fine. I use them because they are there, not because it is of any actual extra benefit to me.

[GKeeper316]

Yeah it is pointless if you ask me. You could sell those off and they would do just fine. I use them because they are there, not because it is of any actual extra benefit to me.

gas at tinker used to be so cheap there'd be people lined up like it was 1977

[The Maestro]

I have nothing but the utmost respect to the men and women of our military who work for our freedoms and especially the one's who put themselves in harms way.

Having said that, when was the last draft? You volunteered for that. No one was forced to go into the military, become a cop, be a bouncer at a strip club or host "American Idol". Yes, you can claim the promises made that were broken. It happens daily in life. Hell, I voted for 41, but the dood did say, "Read my lips...no new taxes." **** happens. And like many have said, we all have to make sacrifices to get back to reality.

[GKeeper316]

I have nothing but the utmost respect to the men and women of our military who work for our freedoms and especially the one's who put themselves in harms way.

Having said that, when was the last draft? You volunteered for that. No one was forced to go into the military, become a cop, be a bouncer at a strip club or host "American Idol". Yes, you can claim the promises made that were broken. It happens daily in life. Hell, I voted for 41, but the dood did say, "Read my lips...no new taxes." **** happens. And like many have said, we all have to make sacrifices to get back to reality.

there's a difference between a promise and a contractual obligation.

[87sooner]

I have nothing but the utmost respect to the men and women of our military who work for our freedoms and especially the one's who put themselves in harms way.

Having said that, when was the last draft? You volunteered for that. No one was forced to go into the military, become a cop, be a bouncer at a strip club or host "American Idol". Yes, you can claim the promises made that were broken. It happens daily in life. Hell, I voted for 41, but the dood did say, "Read my lips...no new taxes." **** happens. And like many have said, we all have to make sacrifices to get back to reality.

anyone screaming about giving up a piece of their pie...doesn't comprehend the looming alternative...

[sappstuf]

I have nothing but the utmost respect to the men and women of our military who work for our freedoms and especially the one's who put themselves in harms way.

Having said that, when was the last draft? You volunteered for that. No one was forced to go into the military, become a cop, be a bouncer at a strip club or host "American Idol". Yes, you can claim the promises made that were broken. It happens daily in life. Hell, I voted for 41, but the dood did say, "Read my lips...no new taxes." **** happens. And like many have said, we all have to make sacrifices to get back to reality.

That is correct. But it is going to be hard to recruit the next generation of service members when you are screwing their parents over... And in an all-voluntary force that would have long term ramifications.

[The Maestro]

That is correct. But it is going to be hard to recruit the next generation of service members when you are screwing their parents over... And in an all-voluntary force that would have long term ramifications.

Eh. I think a lion's share of people head to the military for the college help. I mean, sorry...the demographic of military volunteers is mainly poor folks. Just the way it is.

As for a promise and a contractual obligation...eh, those both get broken all the time. It sucks, but it is life.

87 is right...I mean, when I lost my job I didn't run around the house screaming about my right to keep HBO and play golf once a week. You cut everywhere you can without killing yourself.

[87sooner]

That is correct. But it is going to be hard to recruit the next generation of service members when you are screwing their parents over... And in an all-voluntary force that would have long term ramifications.

not that i want to jump in this military discussion on a debt thread;)

but since the military is such a huge part of the budget...it's going to have to take a substantial hit...
and part of that is going to be a fundamental change in the way our military operates and how it is used in the future....
if we get back to protecting our own interests instead of getting mired in places like iraq and afghanistan.....we can pare down the military....
future recruits shouldn't have to worry about going to ****holes halfway around the world to die for nothing....
they should be proud to volunteer to protect this country without a promise (contract) to retire at 38 with free healthcare for life...

and for those who don't know....i'm a conservative/christian/mostly republican former air force officer (not retired);)
ok..i'm done with the military debate

[sappstuf]

Eh. I think a lion's share of people head to the military for the college help. I mean, sorry...the demographic of military volunteers is mainly poor folks. Just the way it is.

As for a promise and a contractual obligation...eh, those both get broken all the time. It sucks, but it is life.

87 is right...I mean, when I lost my job I didn't run around the house screaming about my right to keep HBO and play golf once a week. You cut everywhere you can without killing yourself.

So why did retention numbers drop so bad when Congress lowered retirement from 40% to 50%?

Do you want the best to stay in the military and become leaders? If so, you are competing against the market. Pay and benefits better be close or people will get out and go make more money. Then you are left with Armed Services that do not have the right people in the right places.

Just the way it is.

[delhalew]

I heard Coburn go over the broad strokes with Stuart Varney. It is very balanced. Crazy that both Liberals and Conservatives might just go for it.

The details happen in committee, but the plan forces certain results. From the outside, it's pretty reasonable.

That's all I'm willing to say, so far.

[sappstuf]

not that i want to jump in this military discussion on a debt thread;)

but since the military is such a huge part of the budget...it's going to have to take a substantial hit...
and part of that is going to be a fundamental change in the way our military operates and how it is used in the future....
if we get back to protecting our own interests instead of getting mired in places like iraq and afghanistan.....we can pare down the military....
future recruits shouldn't have to worry about going to ****holes halfway around the world to die for nothing....
they should be proud to volunteer to protect this country without a promise (contract) to retire at 38 with free healthcare for life...

and for those who don't know....i'm a conservative/christian/mostly republican former air force officer (not retired);)
ok..i'm done with the military debate

You want military cuts.. Fine. I get that. I think we can cut 10-15% off the top and not effect capabilities much at all.

Beyond that, if you want to cut spending and capabilities, you need to spell out what capabilities you are willing to live without in regards to our military. As many have said before, it is a global economy. Therefore that economy could be devastated halfway around the world and have a direct impact on us. Should we be able to respond to that threat? How quickly? How long should we be able to sustain such a presence?

[okie52]

if you're gonna go that route and try to argue the philosophy of freedom, why do we even need cops? the only true freedom is anarchy. your point makes no sense, logically. the second you make laws restricting the actions of one person to protect other people, you have infringed upon personal liberty.

it doesn't matter if cops are put into the line of fire, and it doesn't matter that some die. they do not protect freedom either implicitly or explicitly. all they do is enforce the law. there is no protection of rights anywhere in a cops job description. protecting your rights is what your attorney does... and we all know cops play by the rules and don't ever ignore the constitution and always have the peoples' best interest at heart, right?

So you are an anarchist. No point in any further discussion.

[Jammin']

So why did retention numbers drop so bad when Congress lowered retirement from 40% to 50%?

Do you want the best to stay in the military and become leaders? If so, you are competing against the market. Pay and benefits better be close or people will get out and go make more money. Then you are left with Armed Services that do not have the right people in the right places.

Just the way it is.

How does pay and benefits currently stack against the job market? I really don't know but I can't imagine some of the people I know that went on to becoming a grunt would be doing much more than digging ditches if not for the military.

[sappstuf]

How does pay and benefits currently stack against the job market? I really don't know but I can't imagine some of the people I know that went on to becoming a grunt would be doing much more than digging ditches if not for the military.

For my field, not well. I'm not a grunt and never have been, but the military has gone high tech. We haven't been over 70% manned in over a decade and have been down as low as 50%. Right now we are splitting the middle with numbers dropping. Reenlistment bonuses have all but disappeared from the Navy(there are exceptions), because of budget cuts.

When a young outstanding Sailor with a new young family comes to me that has been in 5 years, and asks why he should reenlist when he can get out and make more money and not have to worry about deploying and missing his kids grow up, what should I tell him? He should be the guy to replace me but he knows his value and knows that he has options.

That is what I am up against. Even in this economy, I lose most of the time.

[The Profit]

You want military cuts.. Fine. I get that. I think we can cut 10-15% off the top and not effect capabilities much at all.

Beyond that, if you want to cut spending and capabilities, you need to spell out what capabilities you are willing to live without in regards to our military. As many have said before, it is a global economy. Therefore that economy could be devastated halfway around the world and have a direct impact on us. Should we be able to respond to that threat? How quickly? How long should we be able to sustain such a presence?



Sapp, we don't need a cold-war sized military any longer. I would like to see the military shrunk by at least 50 percent over the next 20 years. I would really like us to return to a pre-WWII mindset, when it comes to the military. Look at what we spend on the military compared to what the Chinese are spending. No wonder they have money for rapid infrastructure enhancement, and we can't even afford to repair existing highways and bridges.

[Jammin']

For my field, not well. I'm not a grunt and never have been, but the military has gone high tech. We haven't been over 70% manned in over a decade and have been down as low as 50%. Right now we are splitting the middle with numbers dropping. Reenlistment bonuses have all but disappeared from the Navy(there are exceptions), because of budget cuts.

When a young outstanding Sailor with a new young family comes to me that has been in 5 years, and asks why he should reenlist when he can get out and make more money and not have to worry about deploying and missing his kids grow up, what should I tell him? He should be the guy to replace me but he knows his value and knows that he has options.

That is what I am up against. Even in this economy, I lose most of the time.

I hope you can tell him (sooner rather than later) that we aren't deploying anymore. But that's for another thread. I bet the military jobs that require high intelligence/high education would be very difficult to recruit into.

[sappstuf]

Sapp, we don't need a cold-war sized military any longer. I would like to see the military shrunk by at least 50 percent over the next 20 years. I would really like us to return to a pre-WWII mindset, when it comes to the military. Look at what we spend on the military compared to what the Chinese are spending. No wonder they have money for rapid infrastructure enhancement, and we can't even afford to repair existing highways and bridges.

At the height of the Cold War we had almost 600 ships in the Navy. Today we have 285.

You say that you want to shrink the military by 50%. So that would leave us with 142 ships or roughly 70 ships to protect each coast... That is, of course, without projecting any force abroad.

What if things went bad in the Straits of Hormuz? It would take a carrier battle group months to get there and by the time they did the world economy would be in turmoil.. Unless you want to forward deploy a carrier battle group.. Now you will have 60 ships to protect the entire west coast to stay within your 50% cut.

Are you comfortable with that?

[sappstuf]

At the height of the Cold War we had almost 600 ships in the Navy. Today we have 285.

You say that you want to shrink the military by 50%. So that would leave us with 142 ships or roughly 70 ships to protect each coast... That is, of course, without projecting any force abroad.

What if things went bad in the Straits of Hormuz? It would take a carrier battle group months to get there and by the time they did the world economy would be in turmoil.. Unless you want to forward deploy a carrier battle group.. Now you will have 60 ships to protect the entire west coast to stay within your 50% cut.

Are you comfortable with that?

I should have added that at any one time, 15%(I could be off by a little) of the ships would probably be in the docks for repair and maintenance so knock 20 ships off that 142 down to 122. So 60 ships to protect each coast. Deploy a single carrier battle group and you are down to 50.

[sappstuf]

I hope you can tell him (sooner rather than later) that we aren't deploying anymore. But that's for another thread. I bet the military jobs that require high intelligence/high education would be very difficult to recruit into.

I guess I will have to tell him later since I am deploying in February...

[bigfatjerk]

At the height of the Cold War we had almost 600 ships in the Navy. Today we have 285.

You say that you want to shrink the military by 50%. So that would leave us with 142 ships or roughly 70 ships to protect each coast... That is, of course, without projecting any force abroad.

What if things went bad in the Straits of Hormuz? It would take a carrier battle group months to get there and by the time they did the world economy would be in turmoil.. Unless you want to forward deploy a carrier battle group.. Now you will have 60 ships to protect the entire west coast to stay within your 50% cut.

Are you comfortable with that?

I don't think I would be too pissed about our military spending if it were actually being spent protecting US borders and interests.

[sappstuf]

I don't think I would be too pissed about our military spending if it were actually being spent protecting US borders and interests.

I promise you that what happens in the Straits of Hormuz, Malacca, Gilbraltar, and the Suez Canal are of vital national interests and most of them halfway around the world.

[pphilfran]

I guess I will have to tell him later since I am deploying in February...

Where to?

[sappstuf]

Where to?

One of the places we aren't deploying to anymore.. ;)

[pphilfran]

One of the places we aren't deploying to anymore.. ;)

:)

Good luck and be safe!

[okie52]

One of the places we aren't deploying to anymore.. ;)

Still got 6 months to live it up Sapp (and an entire football season).

[sappstuf]

Still got 6 months to live it up Sapp (and an entire football season).

I am certainly happy to be home for the football season.

[okie52]

They go into Los Angeles don't they?

:D

[diverdog]

that's contrary to everything the military teaches its members.

No its not.

[Sooner5030]

even Coburn's plan would take 10 years just to balance the budget.

It is mathematically impossible to balance the budget in the next five years without contracting GDP. It is mathematically impossible to borrow more money for 10 years without making the Federal Reserve the majority debt holder (it already is the largest as of FEB 2011) of US debt securities.

we're broke....our GDP has been structurally contracting for over 6 years (it's been covered up by deficit spending).

default or inflate........those are the only two options. Why service a debt that can never be repaid?

Default....get it over with now. Create a de facto balanced budget amendment.

[GKeeper316]

So you are an anarchist. No point in any further discussion.

i am?

news to me.

[soonercoop1]

I agree. I am sure it's not perfect, but it is real and meaningful. Congrats on him being a Repub and having the gonads to offer "revenue increases". Both Dems and Repubs digging their heels in on social programs and/or tax hikes is peeing me off.

Revenue increases, if necessary, are fine with me after congress has drastically cut the size and scope of the federal government, passed a balanced budget amendment, and fixed the "entitlements"...

[Blue]

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies." President Obama in 2006

[87sooner]

even Coburn's plan would take 10 years just to balance the budget.

It is mathematically impossible to balance the budget in the next five years without contracting GDP. It is mathematically impossible to borrow more money for 10 years without making the Federal Reserve the majority debt holder (it already is the largest as of FEB 2011) of US debt securities.

we're broke....our GDP has been structurally contracting for over 6 years (it's been covered up by deficit spending).

default or inflate........those are the only two options. Why service a debt that can never be repaid?

Default....get it over with now. Create a de facto balanced budget amendment.

can you even begin to predict the fallout?

[Sooner5030]

no......every option other than default just delays the inevitable. My theory is the earlier the less painful.

[OutlandTrophy]

So you are an anarchist. No point in any further discussion.

he's just not very bright.

[soonerscuba]

And the explanation to 401k holders would be "trust us, this would be way more painful at some indeterminable point the future, which may or may not happen"?

The fact that there people in Congress agreeing with random message board kooks is extremely frightening. I mean, it isn't run of the mill stupidity like capsizing islands or Republicans hating Obama because he's black, it's literally gutting people's retirement because they want to be ideological.

[The Profit]

Two of the tea parties have already come out against both the Coburn and Gang of Six plans.

[GKeeper316]

he's just not very bright.

statistically speaking, i'm smarter than 97% of the population of the planet earth, so there ya go.

[OutlandTrophy]

sure you are. Just like there is an apartment under the South endzone and that it's a federal crime to discriminate against hiring someone because of political beliefs, right?

[GKeeper316]

sure you are. Just like there is an apartment under the South endzone and that it's a federal crime to discriminate against hiring someone because of political beliefs, right?

the apartment in the south endzone was just a guess.

and i was wrong about it being a federal crime to discriminate against someone based on political beliefs. its only illegal in like 3 states, and i was reading the statute in new york thinking it was federal. there ya go, dick.

[OutlandTrophy]

thanks, punkin.

It's weird that you are so smart yet so wrong, so often. It is pretty impressive.

[stevo]

*grabs a drink*

[Mjcpr]

*grabs a drink*

You should have a stiff one.

[tommieharris91]

You should have a stiff one.

I'm not sure stevo has the anatomy for that...

[stevo]

was that an offer?

[Caboose]

statistically speaking, i'm smarter than 97% of the population of the planet earth, so there ya go.

So then you are just trolling us with your idiotic ideas and factually incorrect statements... constantly?

Brilliant prank, sir!

[GKeeper316]

So then you are just trolling us with your idiotic ideas and factually incorrect statements... constantly?

Brilliant prank, sir!

hell i should run for office

[bigfatjerk]

even Coburn's plan would take 10 years just to balance the budget.

It is mathematically impossible to balance the budget in the next five years without contracting GDP. It is mathematically impossible to borrow more money for 10 years without making the Federal Reserve the majority debt holder (it already is the largest as of FEB 2011) of US debt securities.

we're broke....our GDP has been structurally contracting for over 6 years (it's been covered up by deficit spending).

default or inflate........those are the only two options. Why service a debt that can never be repaid?

Default....get it over with now. Create a de facto balanced budget amendment.


I think this might be the best solution. Just like if we didn't pay off all the banks in 07-08 it might have been bad in the short term back then but in the long term it would have been just fine. It would be the same here. Short term it would be real bad. But after a year or two of reorganizing, fixing a balanced budget into place it would be a good thing in the long run. Maybe the best solution really.

[DIB]

was that an offer?

srsly, pm me

[Mongo]

srsly, pm me

no, let's keep it public

[diverdog]

the military has to offer what the market demands....
if we can get enuf volunteers offering retirement starting at age 60....
maybe there should be different packages for each career field....

my brother retired at 39 after 21 years...
he works for oracle making 6 figures.....he's hurtin;)
so is my brother in law...retired O-6...works for a govt contractor making 6 figures plus stock options....
both comm guys...

The military is well paid and they offer benefits far beyond what is the norm in the civilian sector. The retirement package alone for an O6 is worth millions. To get an annuity that pays $65000 plus a year would require about a $2,000,000 investment paying 3.5% each and every year. Sure you do not get the principal but to fund this type of payout would be extremely expensive. The medical benefits are also huge.

As a nation we cannot afford these type of benefits anymore. I have no problem giving a person in a combat career field a pension after 20 years of service. However, someone working in a human resources could be given a generous retirement starting at age 55. Most companies do not offer a retirement plan and a retirement at age 55 would still be better than almost another job out there.

[jk the sooner fan]

he also wants military retirees to pay more out of pocket for thier medical care, despite the fact that free health care was promised them in exchange for 20+ years of service.

**** tom coburn.

military retirees (i am one) have NEVER been promised FREE healthcare for life

we've been guaranteed a reduced premium and access to the tricare system - but there has never been any such guarantee

so try again

i pay a penance for annual healthcare and can stomach an increase

[jk the sooner fan]

the military has to offer what the market demands....
if we can get enuf volunteers offering retirement starting at age 60....
maybe there should be different packages for each career field....

my brother retired at 39 after 21 years...
he works for oracle making 6 figures.....he's hurtin;)
so is my brother in law...retired O-6...works for a govt contractor making 6 figures plus stock options....
both comm guys...

and this is the exception rather than the rule...your average typical enlisted retiree is not making 6 figures

[jk the sooner fan]

my DD-214 lists my re-enlistment code as RE-3P. look it up, dick.

do you have a letter from the VA designating you as a disabled veteran? if you dont - then you arent one (i have one at 40%).

[jk the sooner fan]

Eh. I think a lion's share of people head to the military for the college help. I mean, sorry...the demographic of military volunteers is mainly poor folks. Just the way it is.



the statistics simply dont prove your "thinking" as reality - sure a lot of service members take advantage of the college money - but there are many more that dont

and there are plenty of lower enlisted soldiers having to rely on WIC programs because they are living below the poverty line while serving their country

you're a real friend of the service member!

[GKeeper316]

military retirees (i am one) have NEVER been promised FREE healthcare for life

we've been guaranteed a reduced premium and access to the tricare system - but there has never been any such guarantee

so try again

i pay a penance for annual healthcare and can stomach an increase

tricare is basically free. like what 10 bucks a month?

just wait till they kick you off that and put you on medicare. medicare isn't nearly as good as tricare. it will start to cost you a bunch. well, not you. 40% gets you free from the VA for life.

[soonerloyal]

I'm sure Tom would be willing to remove that clause if Obama would remove the $60,000,000,000 exemption for unions (regardless of income level) in his health care plan.

60 trillion dollars? How much crack have you ingested?

[tommieharris91]

60 trillion dollars? How much crack have you ingested?

that was billion

[Romulus]

^^^
that is 60 BILLION dollars

[OutlandTrophy]

tricare is basically free. like what 10 bucks a month?

just wait till they kick you off that and put you on medicare. medicare isn't nearly as good as tricare. it will start to cost you a bunch. well, not you. 40% gets you free from the VA for life.

basically free is not free.

You said free.

I'm going to tell your mother to cut off your AOL subscription.

[jk the sooner fan]

The military is well paid and they offer benefits far beyond what is the norm in the civilian sector. The retirement package alone for an O6 is worth millions. To get an annuity that pays $65000 plus a year would require about a $2,000,000 investment paying 3.5% each and every year. Sure you do not get the principal but to fund this type of payout would be extremely expensive. The medical benefits are also huge.

As a nation we cannot afford these type of benefits anymore. I have no problem giving a person in a combat career field a pension after 20 years of service. However, someone working in a human resources could be given a generous retirement starting at age 55. Most companies do not offer a retirement plan and a retirement at age 55 would still be better than almost another job out there.

well paid? really? there is so much wrong with your statement thats it not even funny......well yes it is - its very funny actually

retired O-6's are not the norm. the military is NOT well paid when you compare their positions to the private sector

turning your back on veterans is a horrible idea for this country....simply horrible

you do realize that in the army - even "hr specialists" are getting blown up in Iraq and Afghanistan.......if you serve your 20 years and you go where they tell you to go - to make the Army work - then you're just as important as the guy on the front line

[jk the sooner fan]

basically free is not free.

You said free.

I'm going to tell your mother to cut off your AOL subscription.

you picked up on that basically free too huh? maybe he's applying the same logic to being smarter than 97% of us......maybe its "im basically smarter than 97% of you"

[sappstuf]

The military is well paid and they offer benefits far beyond what is the norm in the civilian sector. The retirement package alone for an O6 is worth millions. To get an annuity that pays $65000 plus a year would require about a $2,000,000 investment paying 3.5% each and every year. Sure you do not get the principal but to fund this type of payout would be extremely expensive. The medical benefits are also huge.

As a nation we cannot afford these type of benefits anymore. I have no problem giving a person in a combat career field a pension after 20 years of service. However, someone working in a human resources could be given a generous retirement starting at age 55. Most companies do not offer a retirement plan and a retirement at age 55 would still be better than almost another job out there.

You do realize that positions that were strictly shore based and were office jobs have already been civilianized, right?

[pphilfran]

A few com prices for ya Sapp

Mrs Baird bread 1.36 Wally World 1.78
Mrs Baird hot dog buns 1.45 WW 1.98
Hiland milk 3.43 WW 4.55
Lays chips 2.97 WW 3.48
Mission fahita 1.92 WW 2.34

[jk the sooner fan]

i never thought shopping at the commissary was all that big a deal - you pay a 5% surcharge on your items but they're tax free.....things are a "little cheaper" - but the biggie is the prices on cigarettes......lots and lots of retirees are smokers and they like the commissary because of the cheap cigarettes

the only savings you get at AAFES is on the sales tax imo

in the big cities like San Antonio, etc - i dont see much need for a PX other than its conveniently located

[sappstuf]

A few com prices for ya Sapp

Mrs Baird bread 1.36 Wally World 1.78
Mrs Baird hot dog buns 1.45 WW 1.98
Hiland milk 3.43 WW 4.55
Lays chips 2.97 WW 3.48
Mission fahita 1.92 WW 2.34

That seems pretty good, I just don't seem to see it when I'm checking out. I will have to check the prices this weekend down in San Antonio.

Do you know how independent each comm is or how much their prices vary?

[jk the sooner fan]

That seems pretty good, I just don't seem to see it when I'm checking out. I will have to check the prices this weekend down in San Antonio.

Do you know how independent each comm is or how much their prices vary?

the DECA - Defense Commissary Agency - runs all the commissaries - i would bet that some of the prices are dependent on local distribution centers and availability of items

[pphilfran]

That seems pretty good, I just don't seem to see it when I'm checking out. I will have to check the prices this weekend down in San Antonio.

Do you know how independent each comm is or how much their prices vary?

JK is correct, there shouldn't be much difference....the prices that I posted do not reflect the 5% surcharge..

Also, direct ship folks like me pay a kickback of 2% to the com...when the com gets that check they discount the product to "eat up" the 2% rebate check...

[pphilfran]

The com operates on less than 10% gross profit...Wal Mart operates on 25% gross...

BTW the com is much, much cleaner than any public store...there is no comparison...

[pphilfran]

i never thought shopping at the commissary was all that big a deal - you pay a 5% surcharge on your items but they're tax free.....things are a "little cheaper" - but the biggie is the prices on cigarettes......lots and lots of retirees are smokers and they like the commissary because of the cheap cigarettes

the only savings you get at AAFES is on the sales tax imo

in the big cities like San Antonio, etc - i dont see much need for a PX other than its conveniently located

I didn't know there was no sales tax...

[jk the sooner fan]

I didn't know there was no sales tax...

there's no sales tax on a military base - at AAFES or the Commissary

[pphilfran]

One other item of interest...Holiday Inn Express operated the temp housing that is on base at Sill...happened a couple of years ago...other bases are also included...

http://www.ihgarmyhotels.com/pal/en/us/home?installationCode=MFO

[jk the sooner fan]

thats a smart decision imo - running the hotel on base was always a losing deal imo

[sappstuf]

One other item of interest...Holiday Inn Express operated the temp housing that is on base at Sill...happened a couple of years ago...other bases are also included...

http://www.ihgarmyhotels.com/pal/en/us/home?installationCode=MFO

Yeah I have noticed that at other bases as well. Easy way to cut some fat.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Mark Levin's take on the Coburn deal:

Mark Levin's radio show from 7-19-11, talking about Coburn's siding with Obama.

http://rope.zmle.fimc.net/player/pla...07192011%2Emp3

[GKeeper316]

i never thought shopping at the commissary was all that big a deal - you pay a 5% surcharge on your items but they're tax free.....things are a "little cheaper" - but the biggie is the prices on cigarettes......lots and lots of retirees are smokers and they like the commissary because of the cheap cigarettes

the only savings you get at AAFES is on the sales tax imo

in the big cities like San Antonio, etc - i dont see much need for a PX other than its conveniently located

the best thing about aafes is that any profit the bx or commissary makes gets funnelled to MWR programs.

[Mjcpr]

the best thing about aafes is that any profit the bx or commissary makes gets funnelled to MWR programs.

I think you mean WMD.

[soonerloyal]

that was billion

Cheesus Cripes, my eyes are getting bad. :eek:

[87sooner]

and this is the exception rather than the rule...your average typical enlisted retiree is not making 6 figures

i never said they were...
i never said all old people on ss are making $100k+/year....but my dad is....
these are the people that will have to sacrifice to get spending under control....

i think when/if people fully understand the alternative....they won't have a problem sacrificing...as long as it's done across the board...
but don't take my farm subsidies and keep subsidizing big oil or big insurance or big whoever at my expense...

[jk the sooner fan]

the best thing about aafes is that any profit the bx or commissary makes gets funnelled to MWR programs.

not "any" profit - because "any" profit would mean "all profit"

sorta like the difference between "free" and "basically free"

a small percentage of the profits go back to the Morale Welfare and Recreation fund

[diverdog]

well paid? really? there is so much wrong with your statement thats it not even funny......well yes it is - its very funny actually

retired O-6's are not the norm. the military is NOT well paid when you compare their positions to the private sector

turning your back on veterans is a horrible idea for this country....simply horrible

you do realize that in the army - even "hr specialists" are getting blown up in Iraq and Afghanistan.......if you serve your 20 years and you go where they tell you to go - to make the Army work - then you're just as important as the guy on the front line

Everyone in family served in the military including me. I know exactly what they are paid.

[sappstuf]

the best thing about aafes is that any profit the bx or commissary makes gets funnelled to MWR programs.

Yep.. I remember one time in Panama they had strippers at the Mexican restaurant on Fort Clayton... Kids where 10 feet away in the next room. Good times!

It is about the only time I thought that maybe I should have joined the Army...

[uncle mo]

The new party of Reagan
By Dana Milbank, Published: July 19
After he switched to the Republican Party in 1962, Ronald Reagan famously quipped: “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.”

Now, the Republican Party is doing the same thing to him — and Democrats are happy to take Reagan back.

At Tuesday morning’s meeting of the House Democrats, caucus chairman John Larson rallied his colleagues for the day’s debt-limit debate by playing an audio recording of the 40th president.

“Congress consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility,” Reagan says in the clip. “This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations.”

“Kind of sums things up,” Larson said, playing the same clip again at a news conference.

Nobody knows what Reagan, who died in 2004, would make of the current fight over the debt limit. But 100 years after Reagan’s birth, it’s clear that the Tea Party Republicans have little regard for the policies of the president they claim to venerate.

Tea Party Republicans call a vote to raise the debt ceiling a threat to their very existence; Reagan presided over 18 increases in the debt ceiling during his presidency.

Tea Party Republicans say they would sooner default on the national debt than raise taxes; Reagan agreed to raise taxes 11 times.

Tea Party Republicans, in “cut, cap and balance” legislation on the House floor Tuesday, voted to cut government spending permanently to 18 percent of gross domestic product; under Reagan, spending was as high as 23.5 percent and never below 21.3 percent of GDP.

That same legislation would take federal spending down to a level last seen in 1966, before Medicare was fully up and running; Reagan in 1988 signed a major expansion of Medicare.

Under the Tea Party Republicans’ spending cap, Reagan’s military buildup, often credited with winning the Cold War, would have been impossible.

No wonder Democrats on Tuesday were claiming the Republican icon as one of their own. After the caucus meeting with the Reagan clip, Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) began the day’s debate by reading from a 1983 Reagan letter to Congress warning that “the full consequences of a default — or even the serious prospect of default — by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate.”

“In the year of his 100th birthday, the Great Communicator might be amazed at how far his own image has shifted from the original,” Quigley charged. “He’d see his most dedicated followers using his name as justification for saying no to honoring our debts. He’d see his legacy used to play chicken with the world’s greatest economic engine.”

Republicans have continued their ritual praise of Reagan during the debt-limit fight. Rep. Trent Franks (Ariz.) claimed that the budget caps would allow America to be “that great city on a hill that Ronald Reagan spoke of.” Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.) invoked Reagan’s belief that “the closest thing to eternal life on Earth is a federal government program.”Kevin Brady (Tex.) cited Reagan’s line that “the nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’ ” Both Steve King (Iowa) and Bobby Schilling (Ill.) informed the body that they had granddaughters named Reagan.

But while Reagan nostalgia endures, a number of Republicans have begun to admit the obvious: The Gipper would no longer be welcome on the GOP team. Most recently, Rep. Duncan Hunter Jr. (Calif.) called Reagan a “moderate former liberal . . . who would never be elected today in my opinion.” This spring, Mike Huckabee judged that “Ronald Reagan would have a very difficult, if not impossible time being nominated in this atmosphere,” pointing out that Reagan “raises taxes as governor, he made deals with Democrats, he compromised on things in order to move the ball down the field.”

During the debt-limit debate, a procession of Democrats — Vermont’s Peter Welch, Maryland’s Chris Van Hollen, New York’s Paul Tonko, Texas’s Sheila Jackson Lee and Gene Green — claimed Reagan’s support for their position. Reagan is “revered by many Democrats,” said Welch, who praised Reagan for fighting “the absurd notion that America had an option when it came to paying our bills.”

Half a century after he left the party, the Gipper is winning one for the Democrats.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-new-party-of-reagan/2011/07/19/gIQAuckfOI_print.html

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The new party of Reagan
By Dana Milbank, Published: July 19
After he switched to the Republican Party in 1962, Ronald Reagan famously quipped: “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.”

Now, the Republican Party is doing the same thing to him — and Democrats are happy to take Reagan back.

At Tuesday morning’s meeting of the House Democrats, caucus chairman John Larson rallied his colleagues for the day’s debt-limit debate by playing an audio recording of the 40th president.

“Congress consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility,” Reagan says in the clip. “This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations.”

“Kind of sums things up,” Larson said, playing the same clip again at a news conference.

Nobody knows what Reagan, who died in 2004, would make of the current fight over the debt limit. But 100 years after Reagan’s birth, it’s clear that the Tea Party Republicans have little regard for the policies of the president they claim to venerate.

Tea Party Republicans call a vote to raise the debt ceiling a threat to their very existence; Reagan presided over 18 increases in the debt ceiling during his presidency.

Tea Party Republicans say they would sooner default on the national debt than raise taxes; Reagan agreed to raise taxes 11 times.

Tea Party Republicans, in “cut, cap and balance” legislation on the House floor Tuesday, voted to cut government spending permanently to 18 percent of gross domestic product; under Reagan, spending was as high as 23.5 percent and never below 21.3 percent of GDP.

That same legislation would take federal spending down to a level last seen in 1966, before Medicare was fully up and running; Reagan in 1988 signed a major expansion of Medicare.

Under the Tea Party Republicans’ spending cap, Reagan’s military buildup, often credited with winning the Cold War, would have been impossible.

No wonder Democrats on Tuesday were claiming the Republican icon as one of their own. After the caucus meeting with the Reagan clip, Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) began the day’s debate by reading from a 1983 Reagan letter to Congress warning that “the full consequences of a default — or even the serious prospect of default — by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate.”

“In the year of his 100th birthday, the Great Communicator might be amazed at how far his own image has shifted from the original,” Quigley charged. “He’d see his most dedicated followers using his name as justification for saying no to honoring our debts. He’d see his legacy used to play chicken with the world’s greatest economic engine.”

Republicans have continued their ritual praise of Reagan during the debt-limit fight. Rep. Trent Franks (Ariz.) claimed that the budget caps would allow America to be “that great city on a hill that Ronald Reagan spoke of.” Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.) invoked Reagan’s belief that “the closest thing to eternal life on Earth is a federal government program.”Kevin Brady (Tex.) cited Reagan’s line that “the nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’ ” Both Steve King (Iowa) and Bobby Schilling (Ill.) informed the body that they had granddaughters named Reagan.

But while Reagan nostalgia endures, a number of Republicans have begun to admit the obvious: The Gipper would no longer be welcome on the GOP team. Most recently, Rep. Duncan Hunter Jr. (Calif.) called Reagan a “moderate former liberal . . . who would never be elected today in my opinion.” This spring, Mike Huckabee judged that “Ronald Reagan would have a very difficult, if not impossible time being nominated in this atmosphere,” pointing out that Reagan “raises taxes as governor, he made deals with Democrats, he compromised on things in order to move the ball down the field.”

During the debt-limit debate, a procession of Democrats — Vermont’s Peter Welch, Maryland’s Chris Van Hollen, New York’s Paul Tonko, Texas’s Sheila Jackson Lee and Gene Green — claimed Reagan’s support for their position. Reagan is “revered by many Democrats,” said Welch, who praised Reagan for fighting “the absurd notion that America had an option when it came to paying our bills.”

Half a century after he left the party, the Gipper is winning one for the Democrats.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-new-party-of-reagan/2011/07/19/gIQAuckfOI_print.htmlhaha

[diverdog]

haha

Truth hurts.

[uncle mo]

Truth hurts.

I am hoping this makes Cruiser's head explode.

[okie52]

Has he11 frozen over?

Dems now revere Reagan?

[OU_Sooners75]

Has he11 frozen over?

Dems now revere Reagan?

Dems revere whatever helps them get elected or re-elected.

[okie52]

Dems revere whatever helps them get elected or re-elected.

Funny how that works.

[uncle mo]

For those who think the "Bank Bailout" was a mistake and bad policy you might want to read these articles.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/it-was-a-low-down--no-good-godawful-bailout-but-it-paid/2011/07/05/gIQAbmIZ3H_print.html


The bailout of the financial system is roughly as popular as Wall Street bonuses, the federal budget deficit or LeBron James in a Cleveland sports bar. You hear over and over that the bailout was a disaster, it cost taxpayers a fortune, we didn’t really need it, it didn’t work, it was a failure. It has become politically toxic, which inhibits reasoned public discussion about it. ¶ But you know what? The bailout, by the numbers, clearly did work. Not only did it forestall a worldwide financial meltdown, but a Fortune analysis shows that U.S. taxpayers are also coming out ahead on it — by at least $40 billion, and possibly by as much as $100 billion eventually. This is our count for the entire bailout, not just the 3 percent represented by the massively unpopular Troubled Assets Relief Program. Yes, that’s right — TARP is only 3 percent of the bailout, even though it gets 97 percent of the attention. ¶ A key reason for the rescue’s profitability is that the Federal Reserve System has already turned over more than $100 billion of bailout-related income to the Treasury, and it’s on track to turn over $85 billion more this year and next. That’s not something most people include in their math. On the negative side, we’re including

what may be the first overall cost calculation of a special tax break that’s worth tens of billions of dollars to four big bailout recipients. And, of course, we’ve analyzed reports from the Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and other sources.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/behind-the-numbers-of-the-bailouts-profit-for-us-taxpayers/2011/07/19/gIQAHmGXQI_print.html

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Has he11 frozen over?

Dems now revere Reagan?Dana Milbank has put a very imaginative spin on what motivated Reagan, and what made him such a great American hero.

Here's a little exerpt from his Wiki:

Tears of a Clown: Glenn Beck and the Tea Bagging of America On October 5, 2010, Doubleday released Milbank's polemic biography of right-wing pundit Glenn Beck: Tears of a Clown: Glenn Beck and the Tea Bagging of America,[15] which a review in Milbank's paper, the Washington Post said was a "droll, take-no-prisoners account of the nation's most audacious conspiracy-spinner."[16]

Gives you a little flavor of the Milbank slant on things, haha.

[bigfatjerk]

For those who think the "Bank Bailout" was a mistake and bad policy you might want to read these articles.
I don't have to read the article to know it was bad policy. Especially the way it was done. Promoting bad behavior is never a good thing.

[diverdog]

I don't have to read the article to know it was bad policy. Especially the way it was done. Promoting bad behavior is never a good thing.

the smaller regional banks needed tarp.

[diverdog]

Has he11 frozen over?

Dems now revere Reagan?

Nope. We are pointing out how far off the cliff the tea baggers have gone. Reagan would be a commie in their books.

[okie52]

Nope. We are pointing out how far off the cliff the tea baggers have gone. Reagan would be a commie in their books.

Laughable. There were always no tax repubs...even back in Reagan's era. What is funny is to hear dems now embrace union busting, big defense spending Reagan as though he was one of their own.

[diverdog]

Laughable. There were always no tax repubs...even back in Reagan's era. What is funny is to hear dems now embrace union busting, big defense spending Reagan as though he was one of their own.

where did you get that idea? i have been cosistent in pointing out the hero of the right taxed and spent his way to a recovery.

i did vote for reagan twice but i had no illusions about the man.

[GKeeper316]

Laughable. There were always no tax repubs...even back in Reagan's era. What is funny is to hear dems now embrace union busting, big defense spending Reagan as though he was one of their own.

before he was governor of california, ronald reagan was the president of the screen actor's guild, a labor union.

[sappstuf]

before he was governor of california, ronald reagan was the president of the screen actor's guild, a labor union.

That is probably what the air traffic controllers thought, before he fired 11K of their asses...

[sappstuf]

Laughable. There were always no tax repubs...even back in Reagan's era. What is funny is to hear dems now embrace union busting, big defense spending Reagan as though he was one of their own.

Reagan even admits when he is wrong..

RRUbwnkEPqc&

[okie52]

where did you get that idea? i have been cosistent in pointing out the hero of the right taxed and spent his way to a recovery.

i did vote for reagan twice but i had no illusions about the man.

The article amazingly glossed over the numerous differences that Reagan had with the left...the inference was Reagan would be a dem now even though he was reviled by the left during his term (and for many years after).

The irony for the left was that Obama had pursued many of the same policies that Reagan pursued.....supply side economics that was "voodoo economics" during his administration.

The hypocrisy isn't any worse than repubs quoting JFK as though they embraced him during his term.

[diverdog]

The article amazingly glossed over the numerous differences that Reagan had with the left...the inference was Reagan would be a dem now even though he was reviled by the left during his term (and for many years after).

The irony for the left was that Obama had pursued many of the same policies that Reagan pursued.....supply side economics that was "voodoo economics" during his administration.

The hypocrisy isn't any worse than repubs quoting JFK as though they embraced him during his term.

okay i see your point. i thought you were referencing me.

[okie52]

before he was governor of california, ronald reagan was the president of the screen actor's guild, a labor union.

He was also a democrat. Your point is????

[okie52]

okay i see your point. i thought you were referencing me.

Nope, wasn't directed at you DD.

[okie52]

Reagan even admits when he is wrong..

RRUbwnkEPqc&

Beat me to it Sapp.

[Condescending Sooner]

Cheesus Cripes, my eyes are getting bad. :eek:

Uh huh. Spouting off and don't even know what you are talking about. Nothing new there.