Taxes

[I Am Right]

What makes somebody's tax dollars different or fairer than someone elses tax dollars? Does it mean that a poor persons money is more righteous than a rich persons? What is FAIR about 50% of Americans paying NO taxes? If I pay taxes at 35% than ALL need to pay taxes at 35%. Think that is FAIR, you bet!

[Midtowner]

If you had any clue about poverty in America and how widespread it is and how it is impossible to live on a minimum wage salary, you'd change your tune.

If I make six figures, I'm going to have more disposable income and should pay more tax as a percent of income.

That said, I think EIC and such should be tossed out.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

What makes somebody's tax dollars different or fairer than someone elses tax dollars? Does it mean that a poor persons money is more righteous than a rich persons? What is FAIR about 50% of Americans paying NO taxes? If I pay taxes at 35% than ALL need to pay taxes at 35%. Think that is FAIR, you bet!

And if we ALL get $100,000 standard deduction before that 35% rate kicks in, that is fair too.

[REDREX]

It is a stupid argument-----If they raise the top rate back to the Clinton era rate------It would cut 5% off the yearly deficit----Lets see that only leaves 95 % of the yearly debt unfunded-----Think we have a tax problem or a spending problem?

[Sooner5030]

IMO a more "fair" income tax would be flat.....however others have made some points that the more income you have the more you benefit from the services provided.....enough so that they should pay higher rates rather than just more taxes. I am not in agreement but they have some valid points.

One way or another governments need to get revenue from commercial activity in order to provide whatever (small or large) amount of services. Most people talk about the unfairness of the progressive income taxes but I am actually against property taxes (yes I realize this is not a fed tax) more than anything else. I'd much prefer the localities, states and even the federal government raise money through sales taxes, VAT, and income taxes before using property taxes. I could understand commercial property but that is about it.

Not sure why we have this debate though. Our current conditions are not repairable.... a $15 trillion economy growing at 1.9% cannot support $15 trillion in debt and +$1 in deficits regardless of changes in the tax rates. 50% of the population do not pay federal income taxes yet some of them get EIC, SNAP, UE and other goodies. That's a shiatload of stakeholders that wont accept the change required to right the ship. Reset is not that painful......the Russians and Argentines were able to handle it without massive unrest.

[Midtowner]

Complain about entitlements, but ignore the ridiculously well funded military that we don't really need.

[Sooner5030]

Complain about entitlements, but ignore the ridiculously well funded military that we don't really need.

I don't ignore it and I disagree that "we dont really need it". We need about a $500 billion DoD rather than a $700-800 billion DoD. But just like throughout history military spending is easy to fix because it is discretionary. As a % of GDP and total spending, DoD has decreased over the last 50 years. There have been some up cycles but for the most part it has decreased. Entitlements on the other hand have ballooned over that same period and you can't fix them with a simple appropriations bill.

[olevetonahill]

Complain about entitlements, but ignore the ridiculously well funded military that we don't really need.

Dude you just get dumber by the post.

[marfacowboy]

Complain about entitlements, but ignore the ridiculously well funded military that we don't really need.

Absolutely. Especially considering we spend more than the next, what, ten or twelve countries after us? Military spending had propped up the economy since the Second World War (another example of our supposedly free market economy being dependent on government spending), and breaking away from this model will be difficult.

[diverdog]

I don't ignore it and I disagree that "we dont really need it". We need about a $500 billion DoD rather than a $700-800 billion DoD. But just like throughout history military spending is easy to fix because it is discretionary. As a % of GDP and total spending, DoD has decreased over the last 50 years. There have been some up cycles but for the most part it has decreased. Entitlements on the other hand have ballooned over that same period and you can't fix them with a simple appropriations bill.

As a percentage of the budget it is huge. Plus we need to add in things like the CIA, VA and NSA which take defense spending to close to a trillion dollars. There is plenty of room to cut spending. We don't need to gut defense but we do need to quit being the worlds police force.

[jkjsooner]

If I pay taxes at 35% than ALL need to pay taxes at 35%. Think that is FAIR, you bet!

Why stop there? 35% of a million is a lot more than 35% of $20k. Why not say everyone pays a flat amount?

/sarcasm

[pphilfran]

If the budget forecast holds true...by 2017 we spend http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

590 billion on Defense - 16% decrease compared to 2012
613 billion on Human Resources Health -65% increase compared to 2012
641 billion on Medicare - 32% increase
546 billion on Income Security - flat
1 trillion on Social Security - 41% increase
565 billion on Interest - 146% increase (no typo, 146%)

In 2017 we spend 612 billion more than we receive in revenue...but...to get to that 612 billion in the red the budget expects total revenue to grow from 2.3 trillion in 2011 to 3.9 trillion in 2017....hmmmm.....

Now...looking at those numbers which ones carry the most concern?

[Midtowner]

I don't ignore it and I disagree that "we dont really need it". We need about a $500 billion DoD rather than a $700-800 billion DoD. But just like throughout history military spending is easy to fix because it is discretionary. As a % of GDP and total spending, DoD has decreased over the last 50 years. There have been some up cycles but for the most part it has decreased. Entitlements on the other hand have ballooned over that same period and you can't fix them with a simple appropriations bill.

Of course defense spending has decreased over the last 50 years. We were in an existential military struggle then. Now, we're putting out 3.4 billion dollar destroyers which our enemies have claimed they can defeat with a flotilla of TNT-laden fishing boats. The name of the game has shifted from actual defense to wealth transfer from the taxpayers to subcontractors and defense firms. Yes, the military is also a terrific jobs program lifting millions out of poverty, but I'm pretty sure if we'd just take that money and spend it on education, we'd see a better result domestically.

As far as why target the top 1% on taxes? They have 42% of the wealth in this country. That's where the money is. That's who we can tax and not materially alter their lifestyle. Take someone making $20K/year who is living paycheck to paycheck, and quite simply, a 5% tax increase will likely make them have to choose between food and electricity.

[olevetonahill]

When you get this Utopian society going you give us a call, Untill then I think we should keep our Military
Jes sayin

[cleller]

If the budget forecast holds true...by 2017 we spend http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

590 billion on Defense - 16% decrease compared to 2012
613 billion on Human Resources Health -65% increase compared to 2012
641 billion on Medicare - 32% increase
546 billion on Income Security - flat
1 trillion on Social Security - 41% increase
565 billion on Interest - 146% increase (no typo, 146%)

In 2017 we spend 612 billion more than we receive in revenue...but...to get to that 612 billion in the red the budget expects total revenue to grow from 2.3 trillion in 2011 to 3.9 trillion in 2017....hmmmm.....

Now...looking at those numbers which ones carry the most concern?

Maybe Romney should attack Obama's defense spending.

[Midtowner]

When you get this Utopian society going you give us a call, Untill then I think we should keep our Military
Jes sayin

What is out military supposed to be fighting with 3.5 billion dollar destroyers, nuclear subs, etc.?

What is the actual threat to the U.S. which requires that level of constant spending? I get the WWII model where we pretty quickly built the biggest military machine ever, but the huge constant standing army is more than we can afford.

Americans have to be willing to pay what it costs to finance the government they want. I'm not going to gritch too much about HHS as I'm well aware that there aren't any real solutions for that situation and that our spending in that area is pretty much all that's holding back a flood of social unrest, riots, crime, etc.

Defense spending? What the hell do I care if China wants to invade Taiwan and Taiwan can't defend itself? Why should I have cared about Iraq invading Kuwait? Or whether one despot in the desert is attacking the other?

[olevetonahill]

Ya know I really dont NEED these guns I have, No one has tried to break in on me so maybe I should get rid of em use that money for helpin my fellow neighbors Ya know the Meth heads , Oh wait they dont **** with me cause they KNOW i'll blow em right off my hill . You go right on thinkin theres No threat out there



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvTqW6on8MA

[pphilfran]

Mid...if they can actually take 16% out of the military spending without impacting the economy by 2017 that is not too bad...couple that with inflation and higher GDP and I would be satisfied...we need to do the same for another 5 or 10 years...

Whatever we do we are going to get our butts kicked by the other high growth items...debt servicing puckers my butthole up...

[KantoSooner]

Do I think the military needs management and intense procurement adjustment? Yes. Yes, I do.

But here's the thing: a military is an utter waste of money....right up until the time you really need one. At that moment, there is nothing other than a military that will do.

So, instead of reducing our military to meaninglessness as soon as we're out of Afghan (which is what we did following every war up 'til WWII and arguably even then), and condemning another gaggle of young men to being casualties until we can pull our thumbs out and get organized (which is precisely what we've done in most conflicts), let's see if we can maintain a professional, potent military. And let's see if we can do it without breaking the bank. Aren't we smart enough as a people to at least take a stab at that?

[badger]

I remember mommy the accountant mentioning that some small business (read: self-employed) people think that they should not have to pay taxes if their businesses didn't make any money that year.

Um, no.

With that small (business) mindset in place, shouldn't people that spend all of their money, having none left over to pay taxes, be able to not have to pay taxes that year, since they don't have the money to pay their taxes.

OK, let's go a different route...

You pay your income taxes. And now you have income left over to spend, so you spend it.

And pay sales taxes.

And perhaps if you're really ready to take the housing plunge, you buy a property.

And pay property taxes after paying sales tax on the home you purchased with the income you pay income taxes on.

But it's no fun to sit in your property-taxed home all of the time, so you buy a car... with sales tax included in the price, paid for by the income that you pay income taxes on.

And now you need to fuel that car... and pay gas taxes on the fuel... in addition to sales taxes... in addition to the income taxes.

Eff it, let's just conclude:
TAXES SUCK

[RedStripe]

Defense spending? What the hell do I care if China wants to invade Taiwan and Taiwan can't defend itself? Why should I have cared about Iraq invading Kuwait? Or whether one despot in the desert is attacking the other?

Hitler taking over Europe on line one.

[KantoSooner]

You're doomed, Stripe. The lessons of WWI, WWII and the Cold War are so, like, old and stuff. No need for us to remember that boring stuff until next time.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Hitler taking over Europe on line one.You'll have to forgive Mid...He's young, dumb and full of stupid. However, he is an attorney, so he's got that go'n for him...

[KantoSooner]

He's also got the hardest of all legal practices, family law. No other area is so filled with illogic and hatred.
I'd've been an alcoholic within months.

[Midtowner]

Hitler taking over Europe on line one.

Great example. When Germany invaded Poland in 1939, the U.S. ranked #17 in the world in military size. Right behind Romania. Somehow, we came through WWII okay even though it took a long time for the American military to catch up to the rest of the world. Our contribution in WWI was not significant compared to other combatants. We did not save the day. Somehow the world made it through those things.

The Cold War was uniquely ours.

Korea and Vietnam? Neither should have been fought by American soldiers.

There is no reason to have this standing military that we have today. We simply do not need it. Either scrap the whole thing or require the U.N. to start funding us.

Sure, if we need a large force to go do something (I can't imagine what), we can raise it. To quote a famous WWII era song, we've done it before and we can do it again.

[Midtowner]

He's also got the hardest of all legal practices, family law. No other area is so filled with illogic and hatred.
I'd've been an alcoholic within months.

I do that, I set up small LLCs, do a smattering of criminal cases and the odd bit of complex civil litigation. I won't touch worker's comp, civil rights (unless it's a good one), labor law or medical malpractice. I try to stay out of federal court. Don't pigeonhole me as a family law person.

[okie52]

Great example. When Germany invaded Poland in 1939, the U.S. ranked #17 in the world in military size. Right behind Romania. Somehow, we came through WWII okay even though it took a long time for the American military to catch up to the rest of the world. Our contribution in WWI was not significant compared to other combatants. We did not save the day. Somehow the world made it through those things.

The Cold War was uniquely ours.

Korea and Vietnam? Neither should have been fought by American soldiers.

There is no reason to have this standing military that we have today. We simply do not need it. Either scrap the whole thing or require the U.N. to start funding us. As a taxpayer, I see little benefit.

Sure, if we need a large force to go do something (I can't imagine what), we can raise it. To quote a famous WWII era song, we've done it before and we can do it again.

The US actually did save the day in WWI. Had the US not intervened France would have fallen...particularly after Russia signed a peace treaty with Germany in 1917.

[KantoSooner]

I do that, I set up small LLCs, do a smattering of criminal cases and the odd bit of complex civil litigation. I won't touch worker's comp, civil rights (unless it's a good one), labor law or medical malpractice. I try to stay out of federal court. Don't pigeonhole me as a family law person.

Sorry if I insulted you. My comment was meant as a compliment. I worked briefly for a general practitioner and I despised the divorces above all else. For sheer irrational hatred and drama, they can't be beat.

[Midtowner]

The US actually did save the day in WWI. Had the US not intervened France would have fallen...particularly after Russia signed a peace treaty with Germany in 1917.

It was basically a stalemate until we entered and basically got lucky.

But WWI is another example of why we don't need a huge standing army. At the onset of WWI, when we entered the war, we had 300,000 men in uniform, including National Guard. At the end, we'd equipped and put over 1MM into the field.

[KantoSooner]

Midtowner, we've done the 'scrap it' routine after virtually every war we ever fought. ten years after the civil war, for instance, we had a standing force of something like 35,000 and they were involved in finishing off our slow motion genocide of the indians (at least with Bill Sherman in charge, we had the man for that job).
Unless you truly believe that war is over, then eliminating a standing military means that, when one is needed, you'll have one option: take a bunch of untrained 19-22 year olds, slap a gun in their hands and tell 'em to go off and get slaughtered like dull beasts by the professional army they face until we back home can get our act together. That has always seemed a bit unfair to me.
Why don't we try a bit of trimming and maintain a mediurm sized, utterly professional force that's heavy on special ops, a mix of light and heavy armor, helicopters and ugly munition packages for them (to replace some artillery) a force projection navy and an air dominance airforce. We could probably get all of that with about 300,000 fewer personnel than today, cut a big dent out of the budget and still field a military that no one would seriously want to mess with.

[Midtowner]

Sorry if I insulted you. My comment was meant as a compliment. I worked briefly for a general practitioner and I despised the divorces above all else. For sheer irrational hatred and drama, they can't be beat.

Well, I try not to have my clients take that attack/hate approach. Especially when we have kids involved.

[Midtowner]

Why don't we try a bit of trimming and maintain a mediurm sized, utterly professional force that's heavy on special ops, a mix of light and heavy armor, helicopters and ugly munition packages for them (to replace some artillery) a force projection navy and an air dominance airforce. We could probably get all of that with about 300,000 fewer personnel than today, cut a big dent out of the budget and still field a military that no one would seriously want to mess with.

I'd be perfectly fine with something like that. Look at what the U.K. did. They were the world's policemen, they were replaced. They got over it.

Still, Argentina would be suicidal to go after the Falklands again and they know it.

[okie52]

It was basically a stalemate until we entered and basically got lucky.

But WWI is another example of why we don't need a huge standing army. At the onset of WWI, when we entered the war, we had 300,000 men in uniform, including National Guard. At the end, we'd equipped and put over 1MM into the field.


No, the tide had turned definitely in favor of Germany when Russia withdrew and freed up all of their forces from the eastern front. Germany accelerated their offensive in hopes of beating the US intervention with a million troops. They didn't make it.

World War I & II are bad examples.

The fact that the US had the largest industrial base in the world and was protected by 2 oceans gave us time to prepare for a war without much risk to the mainland. Now, with the technology changes we are vulnerable to ICBMs, sub and air attacks. We won't have time to wait on our industry or two oceans to bail us out.

I'm for a reduction in military spending...in fact I could go up to 50% over the next 20-25 years (2% reduction per year) assuming China, Russia, et al stay approximately the same as they are now. That would still give us a 5-1 advantage over the next largest military...I can live with that. Of course I would like our troops brought home and placed on the border where the real real invasion is happening.

[Midtowner]

The fact that the US had the largest industrial base in the world and was protected by 2 oceans gave us time to prepare for a war without much risk to the mainland. Now, with the technology changes we are vulnerable to ICBMs, sub and air attacks. We won't have time to wait on our industry or two oceans to bail us out.

Except that no one who wants to blow us up has ICBMs which can accomplish that. Further, carrier groups and huge standing armies with mobile artillery, 3.5 billion dollar destroyers, etc., won't do a thing about those threats. And subs? Are we worried about Chinese subs? To attack us and give us permission to default on their debt would be suicide.


Of course I would like our troops brought home and placed on the border where the real real invasion is happening.

See, that would make sense! We invaded Iraq. We should have invaded Mexico.

[badger]

Mayor Quimby: I proudly declare our town utterly defenseless! :P

[East Coast Bias]

The irony in this is that we ended the whole mess with a couple of A-Bombs. Maybe we need a few more of those? And the whole Iraq-Afghanistan is ridiculous. They have been fighting over there for thousands of years and the person with the biggest stick always wins. They had feudal kings a thousand years ago that got in power by murdering their enemies. As soon as we left Iraq the march back to that began. Its only a matter of time until the next Saddam comes to power by killing the opposition. He is probably plotting as we speak.
I say let those people work it out. Let the Israeli's take care of themselves. We should start at home with solving the world's problems...

[olevetonahill]

Mid, Yer Proctologist called

http://www.mattmbrown.com/wp-content/uploads/Head-Up-Rear.jpg

[rock on sooner]

Mid, Yer Proctologist called

http://www.mattmbrown.com/wp-content/uploads/Head-Up-Rear.jpg

How the hell did he dial?

[LiveLaughLove]

Isn't it funny that the one thing the left wants to cut is the one thing the Constitution actually requires.

The world is much much smaller and faster paced than in WW II. We cannot afford to be #14 in power.

We wouldn't have the luxury of time to rebuild our military. Do we need as large of a force as we have now? Maybe, maybe not. But it dang sure doesn't need to be drastically cut.

None of the social spending (which isn't in the original btw) will matter if we cease to exist as a country.

Russia is back to what it always was, a totalitarian enemy. China is a huge threat to us now. Sorry, but we need a vibrant military, and maybe even more so, a vibrant military intelligence.

I don't like us being in the ME either.

[okie52]

Except that no one who wants to blow us up has ICBMs which can accomplish that. Further, carrier groups and huge standing armies with mobile artillery, 3.5 billion dollar destroyers, etc., won't do a thing about those threats. And subs? Are we worried about Chinese subs? To attack us and give us permission to default on their debt would be suicide.



See, that would make sense! We invaded Iraq. We should have invaded Mexico.

The russkies are still out there. The Chinese are getting there. The point being techno capabilities should be our focus. Probably more of a war the DOD is fighting today is Chinese hackers.

Invade Mexico?....only to create a 500 mile dmz.

[diverdog]

The russkies are still out there. The Chinese are getting there. The point being techno capabilities should be our focus. Probably more of a war the DOD is fighting today is Chinese hackers.

Invade Mexico?....only to create a 500 mile dmz.

Russia is a shell of its former self. They have zero ability to project power and they have massive problems in the "stans" with Islamist.

China is a threat from the standpoint that it has a billion people. However, China has never been an expansionist nation. They want what was historically theirs and that is about it. Their ability to project power beyond Taiwan is extremely limited.


The military is built around a two front war and that is outdated. The wars of the future will be conflicts like Afghanistan. Mostly special ops sort of stuff.

[okie52]

The russkies have icbms...they can get us.

The Chinese hackers are hitting the DOD every day. It's one of our biggest security threats They never had the power to be an expansionist country in the past. They are, however, about 1.4 billion people or roughly 5 times our population. their economy will pass ours in the next decade or so.

Special ops...if only we would embrace that approach rather than constant interventions and deploying troops worldwide.

[diverdog]

The russkies have icbms...they can get us.

The Chinese hackers are hitting the DOD every day. It's one of our biggest security threats They never had the power to be an expansionist country in the past. They are, however, about 1.4 billion people or roughly 5 times our population. their economy will pass ours in the next decade or so.

Special ops...if only we would embrace that approach rather than constant interventions and deploying troops worldwide.

No doubt they are a security threat and we need to be vigilant but we cannot afford our military without raising taxes. That is the bottom line. You will not be able to cut SS or Medicare.

[diverdog]

Mid, Yer Proctologist called

http://www.mattmbrown.com/wp-content/uploads/Head-Up-Rear.jpg

Vet I think he is looking for you. :sneakiness:

I keed I keed

[olevetonahill]

Vet I think he is looking for you. :sneakiness:

I keed I keed

I aint up a Libs ***. I just ride em

[okie52]

No doubt they are a security threat and we need to be vigilant but we cannot afford our military without raising taxes. That is the bottom line. You will not be able to cut SS or Medicare.

Never said we would...I'm for cutting military spending up to 50% over the next 25 years as long as other countries don't increase theirs.

We should, however, be able to delay SS and Medicare benefits for 2-3 years...

[diverdog]

Never said we would...I'm for cutting military spending up to 50% over the next 25 years as long as other countries don't increase theirs.

We should, however, be able to delay SS and Medicare benefits for 2-3 years...

Agreed. Move it to 70 and expose all income to the payroll tax. Take SS out of the budget and put it in a lock box.

[pphilfran]

You don't need to tax the entire income to make the system work....bump up the age slowly to 70 and take it to a 140 or 150k limit and we would be golden...

What monthly SS check would you cut a self employed person that pulls in a million in a year...he will pay in 124 grand in a year...and don't say fair followed by nuttin...

[Midtowner]

This country just needs to put SF in charge.

[pphilfran]

This country just needs to put SF in charge.

Crash....and burn.....

[pphilfran]

Don't need to entire crew....ict and cruiser should be able to handle it...

[Midtowner]

Don't need to entire crew....ict and cruiser should be able to handle it...

Aren't they already?

[jkjsooner]

The US actually did save the day in WWI. Had the US not intervened France would have fallen...particularly after Russia signed a peace treaty with Germany in 1917.

The question is whether the day should have been saved. From the little I know of WWI it didn't seem like there was a clear good and bad side. Ferdinand was killed, the Austrians responded and everyone sort of fell in line with their existing alliances and war broke out. I suppose you can argue the Germans and Austro-Hungarians started it but I don't think it's at all analogous to WW2 insofar as right vs wrong.

It's not like we had Hitler essentially starting the war by taking over much of Europe not to mention the systematic killing of the ethnic minorities.

Of course there was Stalin on our side and he did his share of really bad things and arguably would have started the war if Hitler hadn't but at least on the western front the European war definitely had a more clear right vs wrong angle.

[pphilfran]

I know what we could do...

We could fix SS with a minimal amount of pain
We could fix the energy problems (might take ten or twenty years but we could get us off of imported crude and lower CO2 emissions)
Probably could do a decent time with the military spending
We would chit can the IRS and bankrupt H&R Block
Probably wouldn't do too bad with the economy...no doubt we could do well with unlimited spending....
Heathcare? Not so sure about the outcome on that one...we would probably end up with 3 people insured at a trillion per policy...

[pphilfran]

Aren't they already?

There are a dozen people here that could probably put together a damn good plan in three months or less...

[badger]

Meh, by the time I'm at retirement age they'll be shipping me off to the horse slaughterhouse so the pigs can get another keg of whiskey. They won't be looking to cut me an SS check. Ah well, gift to the grandparents and such.

[Harry Beanbag]

The question is whether the day should have been saved. From the little I know of WWI it didn't seem like there was a clear good and bad side. Ferdinand was killed, the Austrians responded and everyone sort of fell in line with their existing alliances and war broke out. I suppose you can argue the Germans and Austro-Hungarians started it but I don't think it's at all analogous to WW2 insofar as right vs wrong.

It's not like we had Hitler essentially starting the war by taking over much of Europe not to mention the systematic killing of the ethnic minorities.

Of course there was Stalin on our side and he did his share of really bad things and arguably would have started the war if Hitler hadn't but at least on the western front the European war definitely had a more clear right vs wrong angle.

You may be on to something. Without the humiliating terms forced on Germany after WWI, we likely would never have heard of Adolf Hitler.

[soonercruiser]

Complain about entitlements, but ignore the ridiculously well funded military that we don't really need.

You know....I find it really suprising that a so-called well-educated lawyer doesn't even recognize the #1 responsibility for government written into the Constitution.
Where's the degree from Mid, Univ. of Phoenix...on-line?
Maybe I missed the part about creating a government dependant class of citizens.
:disturbed:

[soonercruiser]

Never said we would...I'm for cutting military spending up to 50% over the next 25 years as long as other countries don't increase theirs.

We should, however, be able to delay SS and Medicare benefits for 2-3 years...

You guys really kill me with your fantastic memories.
Over the last 4 presidencies, the military, pay, entiltements, and heart of the military budget itself have been cut significantly at least 3 times! I served and worked through that!
Clinton and Carter; and now Obama and the Dems can ONLY manage to cut the defense budget.
Nothing else, NOTHING else ever gets cut! Especially when the Demoncrats are in charge!
Bullsh**!

[jkjsooner]

You guys really kill me with your fantastic memories.
Over the last 4 presidencies, the military, pay, entiltements, and heart of the military budget itself have been cut significantly at least 3 times! I served and worked through that!
Clinton and Carter; and now Obama and the Dems can ONLY manage to cut the defense budget.
Nothing else, NOTHING else ever gets cut! Especially when the Demoncrats are in charge!
Bullsh**!

Sure we've had cuts but we've also had dramatic increases in military spending as well. If we're going to fight two wars, budgets are going to increase. You can't have that type of increase without some serious cuts down the road.

That's just the nature of military spending.

[okie52]

The question is whether the day should have been saved. From the little I know of WWI it didn't seem like there was a clear good and bad side. Ferdinand was killed, the Austrians responded and everyone sort of fell in line with their existing alliances and war broke out. I suppose you can argue the Germans and Austro-Hungarians started it but I don't think it's at all analogous to WW2 insofar as right vs wrong.

It's not like we had Hitler essentially starting the war by taking over much of Europe not to mention the systematic killing of the ethnic minorities.

Of course there was Stalin on our side and he did his share of really bad things and arguably would have started the war if Hitler hadn't but at least on the western front the European war definitely had a more clear right vs wrong angle.

There wasn't really a good side/bad side. And, no, WWI wasn't at all like WWII as far as good guy/bad guy.

Germany did their share of dumb things like the Zimmerman letter and the Luisitania although the US was also provoking them by aiding the Brits.

As to us siding with Stalin....I think Churchill said " War makes strange bedfellows".

[C&CDean]

Complain about entitlements, but ignore the ridiculously well funded military that we don't really need.

You know, you're normally a pretty smart guy. Here? Not so much.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

"provide for the common defense" can be and has been taken to extremes just as "promote the general welfare" can

[okie52]

"provide for the common defense" can be and has been taken to extremes just as "promote the general welfare" can

So reduce defense spending and drop Obamacare?

[Curly Bill]

So reduce defense spending and drop Obamacare?

Sounds like a plan to me!

[okie52]

Sounds like a plan to me!

:cheerful:

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

So reduce defense spending and drop Obamacare?
Sounds good to me. Kanto's earlier post on defense spending hits it on the head...smaller, more professional ground force. Navy and air force kept around the same size.