Big ships were part of the U.S. cruise missile attack and aerial support over Libya. This is just politics as usual !

Don't know a lot about the military, eh, Tompom?

I would say that I would rather have my tax dollars spent taking care of our poor old and sick (So called "entitlement programs") than I would on the military-industrial complex. So I am fine giving more money to that and taking away from defense.

And before anyone rebuts with if we don't spend money on defense we won't have a country to take care of our poor old and sick, I believe that since we spend more than the rest of the world combined on military, we can afford to scale back a bit.

And also the more money we spend on military to protect the rest of the world means less our allies need to spend as they rely on us way too much. This means they get to keep their money while we quite literally blow ours away on bullets, bombs, etc.

The defense budget has doubled in the last few years and because of some cuts they start to cry? Some of us have had to cut our own budgets to the bone and we still manage to survive. Don't worry, we will start that war with Iran and all will be good for the military complex.

We can't build ships and other equipment just to employ people. The military is not a jobs program. If we need these ships, etc., then go ahead and build them, but to do it just so someone has a job is not a good expenditure of public funds.

And Tompom, ships are the main force deployment asset we have. It's the only practical way to move the enormous amounts of hardware we use to fight. Aircraft are faster, but can't carry much.

How are we ever going to cut the budget without cutting some of these programs. Of course, if we could reduce the corruption in defense contractors we could keep the building the same and cut spending by half, but the congressional whores that the industry has in its back pocket would never allow that, now would they?

Upgrading & retrofitting are a large and important part of both the aircraft and ship building industries. New manufacturing of both is nice, but staying ahead or at least current in technology and performance is most important.

Tompom,

You may consider defense to be discretionary spending, but many of us consider it to be not just one of the few legitimate functions of the Federal government, but that defense is the sine qua non of our country.

Take a look at Greece and you'll see that ALL spending is discretionary.

All these politicians care about is making it look like they give a hoot about the people who put them in office. Most of them own stocks in the companies that are pillaging the government at every turn. Everyone knows that the whole acquisition system for DOD is a complete disaster and ends up costing tax payers more and more each year. Notice of course that all but one of the negative comments come from republicans that have facilities on the chopping block. This is all part of the pork barrel spending that everyone complains about yet, when it comes to something like this, the President is an a$$. Perhaps if Congress gave the President line item veto authority, there could be a more direct approach at killing these BS pork barrel projects that every member of Congress wants in the budget. Just as many posts have stated: it seems that the 97% has been forced to make cuts over the past couple years in order to live within their means and just to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. But, this isn't the case with the government. So, we can do one of two things make budget cuts or raise taxes, otherwise the deficit will continue to rise. So, as most of the American public has been forced to cut out about every enjoyment in life that they had in order to survive it's time for others that have been making huge profits to pick up their fair share of the burden. Congress needs to overhaul taxes and place more of a burden on the top 3%, who have been living high on the hog at the expense of the other 97%. Then, they need to look at tax reform for businesses. If they choose to build there products overseas and then bring them to the US I say put a tariff on them. This includes tariffs on all the call center jobs that companies like AT&T have shifted overseas. If businesses aren't going to choose to bring jobs back to America, then make it less lucrative for them and better for the rest of us. 50% of this nation lives in poverty and the lowest economic class, there is no reason why those who live in their million dollar homes and go out and spend $500 on a meal at a restaurant, shouldn't have to pull their weight. I believe in the security of our nation otherwise, I wouldn't have spent 21 years in uniform but, perhaps instead of playing police for the world and having bases all over the place that cost billions of dollars a year to run with foreign workers maybe we need to bring our troops back to the US, place them all around the nation providing better security within our borders and let the government spend money running bases that employ Americans, who will pay US taxes. Hell, we still don't have a budget for the fiscal year that began October 1st, does anyone really think that the current Congress can come to any compromise? I say vote them all out and let's look at a fresh start.

Yeah, Tompon is out of touch a little bit and has no idea what he is talking about. All you have to do is do a little past history research to find out that after every war the government cut back on the military and defense spending. Guess what happened when we got caught up in another war? We were caught with our pants down and lacking the resources to fight the modern battlefield. The Navy has to be stronger than the other services. It cost a lot of money to send troops and equipment from point A to point B. Also, our adversaries aren't waiting for us to catch up with them in the technology department. The Navy punches a hell of a lot of firepower whether you know it or not. Especially the submarines.

These cuts are due to the inability of congress to get their act together in the "Super Committee" if you remember. That didn't work because the republicans wouldn't negotiate, as we've seen before. So this anti-President nonsense from the right carries a very hollow ring. The hiprocracy is astounding!

Clifford - you should probably be careful referring to anyone as an idiot after posting your garbage. Clearly you and Ido are related. Share the same half-brain.

That's the problem with using the budget as a weapon. The GOP instists on spending cuts. Spending cuts are going to cost someone somewhere his/her job. Our mothballed fleet (we have hundreds of ships in storage) is large enough to take on all navies except for the Russians. Soon we will not have any forces actively engaged in battle so military cuts can be made. Many many small cuts can be made across the board. Stuff like the 200K+ for the US Senate's barber shop. The Congress franking privilege can go too. Stop printing $1 bills and force the $1 dollar coin to be used. Or destroy the hundreds of thousands of $1 coins in costly storage. You cut enough of the small fluff cr@p it would 1. add up and 2. send a message.

IDO, unemployment is what happens when you shrink the Government. People get laid off and have to find other jobs.

The military budget is out of control and needs to be pared back. If medicare and SS are on the table for cuts Defense must also be on the table for cuts, it is that simple.

New defense cuts threaten bases, shipyards

......and diets threaten potato chip manufacturers......................

Billions can easily be trimmed from the military budget without missing a beat. It's become a pork monster for nearly every state. Time to trim.

I'll bet if we requisitioned or rented a few 50,000 MT Panamax grain vessels or some Cape grain vessels (980,000 MT of cargo) we could move some tanks and other equipment on them. Building a floating fortress isn't the only option, though we may need some of them. Libya was very close to our base in Sigonella - with agreement from our Italian ally we could have attacked from there. The French and British attacked from quite far away. We have friends around the world - eg. Kuwait etc that could help us mount a big military operation if we needed help with the logistics.

If we don't have any allies willing to contribute, perhaps we shouldn't be launching foreign wars. Probably cruise missiles can be launched from aircraft as effectively or more effectively than from ships. Admirals like them, but how many do we need? We have to cut the budget somewhere and the miliatry is over half of our discretionary budget.

Is the total lack of experience showing yet?

1,000's will loose their jobs & once agian it will cost the rest of us because the newly unemployed will have to go on food stamps, unemployment, etc...they won't be able to shop in their communities so the purveyors will loose money in this already awful economy...this in no way will help the goverment.........our only hope is that Obama is not re-elected or else I'm afriad that alot more industries are going to be forced to close their doors

Devil's son, I'm just trying to picture all those guys with random, various haircuts. Barney Frank with a mullet, perhaps? -Or Mikulski!

Neither Bush nor Obama has done much to maintain a good relationship with the Russians. We should not be so fast to assume things with them are OK. It could end up costing Trillions.

We need to drastically reduce the number of overseas bases immediately. And stop invading other countries. Bombing missions like Libya cost much less than invasions and occupations.

The US military budget is nearly as much as all other countries on Earth. NATO accounts for 2/3 of the worlds' military budget. Russia fields an active duty army with nearly as many soldiers as our own, a reserve force of 20 million and a nuclear arsenal around the same size as ours. All for around $60 billion a year. That amount seems to keep the Russians very safe from foreign invasion. The US spends more than $700 billion a year. Russian taxpayers are obviously getting a lot more for their money than we are.

Basically, we don't give a damn about doing anything with regard to congressional fiscal policy that might help the creation of jobs, um, ah, that is, unless it's within the creation of weaponry. Same with deficits. Cut the goddamn food stamps. Cut back on the old folks social security. To hell with school lunches. Let the roads and bridges fall all over hell. Got no money for medicine? Die!, goddammit!. Just don't cut any money that might cause a shortage of WAR materials. So said the goddamn American Congressional members, with much authority and pomposity.

The repubs don't want taxes on the rich, they want to cut government spending, so what are you going to? As a former US Navy submariner I hate to think of Electric Boat closing, or the Portsmouth Navy Yard. Lose these jobs, and they will never come back. Here is a piece by P. Krugman that explains how we are hurt by excessive cutting of, our budget with no new taxes. We will lose industries that are vital for our country's survival. People better wise up or one day we will all wake up and find that all of our streets signs are written Chinese!!

Severe Conservative Syndrome

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Mitt Romney has a gift for words — self-destructive words. On Friday he did it again, telling the Conservative Political Action Conference that he was a “severely conservative governor.”

As Molly Ball of The Atlantic pointed out, Mr. Romney “described conservatism as if it were a disease.” Indeed. Mark Liberman, a linguistics professor at the University of Pennsylvania, provided a list of words that most commonly follow the adverb “severely”; the top five, in frequency of use, are disabled, depressed, ill, limited and injured.

That’s clearly not what Mr. Romney meant to convey. Yet if you look at the race for the G.O.P. presidential nomination, you have to wonder whether it was a Freudian slip. For something has clearly gone very wrong with modern American conservatism.

Start with Rick Santorum, who, according to Public Policy Polling, is the clear current favorite among usual Republican primary voters, running 15 points ahead of Mr. Romney. Anyone with an Internet connection is aware that Mr. Santorum is best known for 2003 remarks about homosexuality, incest and bestiality. But his strangeness runs deeper than that.

For example, last year Mr. Santorum made a point of defending the medieval Crusades against the “American left who hates Christendom.” Historical issues aside (hey, what are a few massacres of infidels and Jews among friends?), what was this doing in a 21st-century campaign?

Nor is this only about sex and religion: he has also declared that climate change is a hoax, part of a “beautifully concocted scheme” on the part of “the left” to provide “an excuse for more government control of your life.” You may say that such conspiracy-theorizing is hardly unique to Mr. Santorum, but that’s the point: tinfoil hats have become a common, if not mandatory, G.O.P. fashion accessory.

Then there’s Ron Paul, who came in a strong second in Maine’s caucuses despite widespread publicity over such matters as the racist (and conspiracy-minded) newsletters published under his name in the 1990s and his declarations that both the Civil War and the Civil Rights Act were mistakes. Clearly, a large segment of his party’s base is comfortable with views one might have thought were on the extreme fringe.

Finally, there’s Mr. Romney, who will probably get the nomination despite his evident failure to make an emotional connection with, well, anyone. The truth, of course, is that he was not a “severely conservative” governor. His signature achievement was a health reform identical in all important respects to the national reform signed into law by President Obama four years later. And in a rational political world, his campaign would be centered on that achievement.

But Mr. Romney is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, and whatever his personal beliefs may really be — if, indeed, he believes anything other than that he should be president — he needs to win over primary voters who really are severely conservative in both his intended and unintended senses.

So he can’t run on his record in office. Nor was he trying very hard to run on his business career even before people began asking hard (and appropriate) questions about the nature of that career.

Instead, his stump speeches rely almost entirely on fantasies and fabrications designed to appeal to the delusions of the conservative base. No, President Obama isn’t someone who “began his presidency by apologizing for America,” as Mr. Romney declared, yet again, a week ago. But this “Four-Pinocchio Falsehood,” as the Washington Post Fact Checker puts it, is at the heart of the Romney campaign.

How did American conservatism end up so detached from, indeed at odds with, facts and rationality? For it was not always thus. After all, that health reform Mr. Romney wants us to forget followed a blueprint originally laid out at the Heritage Foundation!

My short answer is that the long-running con game of economic conservatives and the wealthy supporters they serve finally went bad. For decades the G.O.P. has won elections by appealing to social and racial divisions, only to turn after each victory to deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy — a process that reached its epitome when George W. Bush won re-election by posing as America’s defender against gay married terrorists, then announced that he had a mandate to privatize Social Security.

Over time, however, this strategy created a base that really believed in all the hokum — and now the party elite has lost control.

The point is that today’s dismal G.O.P. field — is there anyone who doesn’t consider it dismal? — is no accident. Economic conservatives played a cynical game, and now they’re facing the blowback, a party that suffers from “severe” conservatism in the worst way. And the malady may take many years to cure.

Listen to all of these do nothing Republican Congress people cry about the possibility of closing bases in there Districts, If they would of gotten off there BUTTS in the last 3 plus years and helped our president create more jobs then maybe we wouldnt have to close some bases, Lets start closing the bases in Republican Districts first. That way you either help push the car down the road or you get run over by the car. Republicans Chose to get run over

I find it very strange that the same posters who previously complained about Obama spending so much are now complaining because he is cutting the defense budget. Can't have it both ways (over 1/2 the non-mandated budget goes to support the military).

This means that those complaining are just paid shills for the Republican party - that party that claims that the Feds are spending our grandchildren's money. Again - can't have it both ways. Either we spend our children's money or cut back and not spend on these federal give-aways that the military really does not need or want. And to head off the shills: I am a retired Naval Officer and a lot of the major weapons platforms are a waste of money - they are designed to fight the last war (not the next one), and tend to be build across multiple states (to give $$ to the districts of supporting congressmen).

But hey - everyone supports cuts that don't affect their own little part of the world. To paraphrase the saying on taxes - don't cut near me, don't cut near you, but just cut near the guy behind the tree.

The biggest problem isn't the military wanting to build up the equipment, it is the companies man loading their projects to enhance their profits at the expense of the taxpayers. Every government project has people on it that add no tangible value to the end product, but they get paid the most and the companies get a percentage on each employee as profit. Subsequently the cost is substantially higher, worse yet many of the prime contractors are essentially a monopoly in their respective areas leaving the government with little competitive choices, because Congress has allowed these companies to buy out the competition.

Cindy

It was the republicans who made this necessary by not negotiating in the Super Committee. Blaming Obams is silly.

Tompom, you missed the boat in your last statement about Libya being near Sigonilla. Yes, it is relatively speaking, near, but, the Spanish, (where we had a base in Rota,) and Sigonilla, Sicily, refused to allow US warplanes to even enter their airspace when WE went after Mohamar Khadafi(sp?) back when Reagan was president. Our planes, from England, had to go out AROUND Europe, and back into the Med, via the Straits of Gibraltar.

There is more at stake here than anyone realizes. And jobs are just the tip of the iceberg. The biggest problem we have is a bunch of "video game heroes" that care less for defending this country against present and future enemies, than they do for getting reelected. That includes ALL the politicians in Washington, D.C. They are made up by lawyers, MBA's, and media gurus.

Build alot more "Subs"........way more stealthy, they can carry and fire any warhead you want it to and it can be fired a few hundred miles off shore, "which makes almost all land accessible"......and we'll keep the US Boots at home for Border Patrol and US Homeland Security, and maybe some NATO missions,.......

close those bases and more!...we need more people on unemployment and food stamps in order to complete the "fundamental changing of America"...damn , it's so simple

You can argue with more ships or less ships but there is one thing I can say for sure. If Obama is for it the Republicans are against it even if it was a Republican's idea to start with. Nothing this man can do to please the Republicans even if he lets them have their way.

If we want to balance the budget/reduce spending then the department of OFFENSE is where it should begin. Military spending is NOT a jobs program and the fact that the US spends more on the military than the next 17 countries COMBINED means we can afford it. This does not mean we fall behind the technology curve but rather that we should re-tool military contract oversight and the grant process. Can any of you anti-anything-Obama-does robots tell me how much fraud was found in the miltary contracts in iraq? How much does the US spend when large programs (F-22/F-35/Littoral combat ship/etc.) go over budget? I have worked for LARGE corporations on military programs and found that the companies willfully misrepresent progress and hide MAJOR design issues in order to hit milestone payments.

The Romans ignored this issue... are we doomed like they are?

@interestedobservere

" (over 1/2 the non-mandated budget goes to support the military)."

...that is is one of the few things that the federal government has the Constitutional power to do...isn't it cool?...it certainly doesn't have authority to pay out for all of your libbie welfare crap

Comeon all you Teapublicans you remember the saying We have only got so much money coming in and so much going out, We got to get our checkbook in order, cant continue to overspend, lets cut cut cut, well we finally going to cut where we need to cut 1st.

DUPHUS. you are prolly 1 of those Tea-publicans crying aloud about getting insurance, you just want to be able to go to the emergency room and don't pay a dime and saddle the rest of us taxpayers with the bill, sorry Einstein its time to get some insurance and stop leeching off the rest of us Americans who pay for insurance. Dont tell me let me guess you live in a RED STATE?

beanne Comment collapsed by the community

Obama is a dumb ass

==========

....an old saying; "take's one to know one"! Bottom line people, WAKE UP, if you cut Fed spending, some company is going to lose that government business and revenue, thus some people are gingto be laid off. so get your heads out of your butts, and come to grips with that!!!!! PS, Beanes cause gas and irrational thinking!!!

spider-737231

Don't know a lot about the military, eh, Tompom?

===========

....enlighten us, what branch were your in, rank (officer, E-5, etc.) when, where, just curious,

Closing US bases is the last place we should be cutting. We should be cutting the over 900 bases in foreign countries. Stop spending on foreign aid. Build new bases in America and bring our troops home. Secure our Southern border, not Afghanistan's borders.

The government knows what the American people need. The problem is it goes against all the politician's personal agendas.

The best thing to do is take the money out of government hands and make it worthless to buy corrupt politicians because they would have nothing to sell.

notliborcon (independent = liberal who is afraid to admit it)

do you know how much fraud is in all the welfare and "entitlement" crap that you love ?...I notice I don't see jack from Hussein or you about reforming and cutting that spending...that's because you live by ideology , you know "I deserve someone else paying for my existence"...interesting

I can see all the Teapublicans who get laid off by closing bases lining up at the unemployment line collecting that Bad Ol Govt checks, do us a favor and be a Real Teapublican and don't line up, Don't go get no welfare money, stand up for your convictions, but alas I can guarantee you 100% of them will be lined up Hypocrits the whole cadre. Go ask the Koch Brothers for a job tell them that you are good loyal Teapublicans

The USA is NOT "policeman to the WORLD!"

The majority of overseas bases need CLOSED and the MONEY DRAIN STOPPED. 90% can be SHUT DOWN with essentially NO EFFECT ON the MYTHICAL "National Security" (I suppose that you military TOUTS realize the the US "defense budget" is ALMOST equal to the TOTAL OF EVERY OTHER COUNTRY COMBINED?)

50% of "defense" should be cut - NO MORE NEW TOYS - stop feeding the Pentagon's EVERY WHIM!

How many of you RETHUGs served?

william whittemore-3007421

Yeah, Tompon is out of touch a little bit and has no idea what he is talking about. All you have to do is do a little past history research to find out that after every war the government cut back on the military and defense spending. Guess what happened when we got caught up in another war? We were caught with our pants down and lacking the resources to fight the modern battlefield.

=============

....Nice try, this has nothing to do with money, but lack of foresight, intelligence, planning and inteligence on the part of our highly paid fat cat armchair generals in the Pentagon. They were still thinkiing about facing off against the Russkies on the fields of 1960's Germany whilepeople like Al Quaid snuck up and bit them in the @$$, got it? Money doesn't buy inteligence, putting the right people in the job does.

See this is the problem, no one wants to make the hard choices but are quick to complain, Cuts have to happen and it has to happen in every Department, and you wonder why America is in this mess .....

Just remember this day, Ken, when you are old and sick and poor just like everyone else in this country will be if Barry continues his operation to remove this country from its leadership position in the free world and reduce us to the level of a being yet another third world country.

Whatever you subsidize, you will achieve more of and whatever you penalize, you will achieve less of. The United States is on a very dangerous spiral of subsidizing sloth and indigence and penalizing savings and investments.

Down with the Socialist States of America and Up the Democracy and Freedom!

Harry

Don't forget about all the theft and fraud in the defense industry. The $200 hammer or the $350 toilet seat cover for the aging B52 bombers.

I wonder if the GOP is going to short some stocks in the Market over this, You know since we have to close some bases let me be the 1st to Recommend that we close bases in Joe Liebermans State 1st, Then we can close some bases in Max Bachus state and then we can close some bases in Mary Landrau state, see Republicans I nominated an Independent and 2 Democratic states to go 1st

The vast majority of your money goes to the military-industrialists in the U.S.

War spending does NOT come out of the defense budget. It just gets added to the national debt.

We can not do anything else in our country b/c the defense budget has vacuumed up every last tax dollar.

We live on an isolated continent with friendly neighbors.

Why the h*ll we need to spend more on defense that the entire REST of the world combined?

CUT DEFENSE BY 90%.

.

ldo

Mr. Obama continues to tout "Jobs" but yet his "policies" will do nothing more than increase the unemployment rates

==========

...........terrific, and what will Ryan's and Cantor's budget cuts do? You think there will be no unemployment from their plans? Bottom line, it is not as simple as people like you would want everyone to believe.

It seem,s that cuts are everywhere..except in the salary's of politicans...who continue to get raises. This country used to be number one in every field..because of our elected..especially those in congress...we are not number one any more...nor will we be any time in the future. We have fallen in education..the sciences...now in space exploration...not one republican, or democrate for that matter has addressed jobs..nor the amount of jobs they, congress, has helped to leave this country and handed out tax breaks to do so.

This used to be a country for all its peoples..that is no more..it is all about profits today....and everyone of us pays the price for it. According to those running for president today in the republican party,,if you can not afford insurance so be it.,..you can die off. Medicare, medicaid...all will get cuts...social security...and more will get cuts.....so that the wealthy can get their lowered taxes...

Mac Forrester

Basically, we don't give a damn about doing anything with regard to congressional fiscal policy that might help the creation of jobs, um, ah, that is, unless it's within the creation of weaponry. Same with deficits

I'm with you on this. It's hilarious to watch the usual group of loonies get on their soapbox about job killing measures by the Obama Admin in the first sentence, and in the next breath they whine about spending, deficits and crumbling infrastructure and defending our own borders instead of someone else's

Except when it comes to actually taking measures to do just that...THEN it's back to whining about killing jobs.

Face facts. If you want the government to create jobs, have the government create jobs that actually have a direct and quantifiable return on investment! Defense spending is well past decreasing marginal returns and the technologies to glean from its R&D don't translate into the public atmosphere until they're declassified (which can take at least a decade).

Want the government to create jobs with high ROI? Invest in the following:

1. New efficient forms of mass transportation and plans for deployment
2. New energy programs to lower the costs of electricity and plans for deployment
3. Publicly funded R&D programs into everything from medicine to technology...treat it like a combination of DARPA, the Manhattan Project and the X-Prize except that the patents are licensed to US companies for very little with the requirement that the products be deployed and that the businesses exclusively employ Americans
4. Increase NASA's budget and give them greater independence similar to DARPA
5. Remove a company's ability to deduct all expenses associated with outsourcing from their taxable income. Furthermore, remove foreign tax credits in equal parts to the revenues generated from products or services produced or commissioned abroad but to be sold in the US. Lastly, trade cannot be done with nations that do not maintain the same level of worker health/safety as the US+Allies.
6. Increase support for trade schools
7. Increase subsidies for college tuition to accredited schools; but maximum loans made as a multiple of no more than X-times the median annual pay for the entry-level profession(s) tied to that major (e.g. no more drama and poli-sci majors qualifying for $80K+ in gov't-subsidized student loans)
8. Increase funding of all forms of government assistance to the poor/needy, but the recipient must be working (barring severe disability) and present the appropriate tax documentation of the income, and the work must qualify (collectively if need-be) as full-time (40-hours/week); have the benefits time-out in stages and only prolong them if the recipient(s) are attending school in a field that will improve their employment opportunity. Simultaneously, end birth-right citizenship and make employing illegal aliens a first time felony and a minimum of $50K per offense, or the worker's pro-rated 1-year pay...which ever is greater, this will help pay for deportation and legal fees.

Anyway, no Republican will touch any of this and Obama is stifled on half of it by the GOP-TP House and Senate and the other half would nuke his chances with his more liberal constituents.

If I wasn't already furious that (thankfully) former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld took out an entire class (USS Spruance DD-963) of serviceable Destroyers, many close to 10 years before their service life would have ended, using many for target practice*, I'd probably be really pissed about the cuts in shipbuilding. One of the too many to list major defense mistakes of the Bush Administration was putting a primary emphasis on the Army while cutting back on the Air Force and Navy.

I would hope that any serviceable moth balled ships are returned to service, an action that would provide plenty of work for shipyards, if not quite as much money for them as building new ones, before new ones are built and in fact, would like to see a similar program of using and updating existing equipment before building shiny new stuff across all branches of service, and indeed, the entire Federal Government.

*including the first ship I went to sea on, the USS Fife (DD-991). This was almost certainly so moth balled Destroyers couldn't be put back in service instead of building shiny new ones on the taxpayer's dime, something# the DoD and of course the entire Federal Government, has a serious addiction to !!

# buying shiny new things instead of fixing the dusty old things.

Half of every tax dollar we pay goes to defense. HALF! Defense spending has more than doubled since 2000. We have over 600 bases overseas. We are spending more on defense than the next twenty countries.

The Right and military contractors have most of you hoodwinked into thinking we cannot survive unless we spend a trillion on defense every year? The constitution said we can "raise an army". It says nothing about having a standing army with imperial outposts covering the globe. Remember Rome anyone? That is what contributed to their downfall - an overreaching empire with huge military expenses, and a mercenary army. Sound familiar? What happened to the USSR? Something similar???? Helloooooooooo anyone?????

Every dollar in cuts on soial programs should be matched with military cuts. It costs 5 times as much to keep our troops overseas. Bring them home, give them duty assignments on our borders, have them shop and spend in our economy, this would save a lot! We are not at risk from wars - our biggest risk is having a stupid population that cannot compete with foreign countries ECONOMICALLY because our kids are spoiled and undereducated.....

Some of you don't realize how we are falling behind - and why. Cutting the military is one of the best ways to create a healthy economy - one that is NOT dependent on gun and weapons sales.....and one that does not need to kill thousands to make a living....

So just let me get this straight and can you conservatives please confirm this for me ..... the Offense Department is actually a shovel ready jobs program brought to you by the Republicans and the Military Industrial Complex.... in other words....we're just here to help.

The "Defense" Budget and its associated departments, programs, contractors, promoters etc etc are all part of a massive Protection Racket which only the Mafia could be proud of.

If I recall correctly, it was congress in their grand bargain, that wanted the super-committee to cut 1.2 trillion dollars from the budget. If they couldn't come to an agreement, then automatic spending cuts in defense and social programs would take place. Well the super-committee failed, as expected, and this is the result. It was congress' idea to do this, not the president's.

Dorf

your "facts" on defense spending are summarily pimp slapped down by several sources on the WWW...

the defense of the nation is one of the very few things that the federal government has the C onstitutional authority and duty to spend money on...I don't see where it says squat about welafre , food stamps , Medicaid or Medicare , section 8 housing , shouldn't we also be cutting those unconstitutional handouts?...interesting isn't it?

"Every dollar in cuts on soial programs should be matched with military cuts"

hahaha...note to sleep walker , what liberal neo-comm politician is talking about cutting ANY "social" programs?...that's right , none...certainly not Hussein

oh...and according to your libbie favorite "fact source" Wikistupidia...the defense budget was 19% for fiscal 2011...wake up and smell what you are shoveling...find some real news outlets ,John Stewart and Steven Colbert aren't "news reporters" , hell they aren't even funny...isn't it cool?

@Yank

haha...nice diatribe...the "military industrial complex" pablum is tired and played...and the "entitlements" budget , war on poverty , war on drugs , NEA , EPA , are all orginized crime and ponzi scheme rackets that only a Chicagoan politician can appreciate...oh , and they are shills for George Soros and the "progressive" movement (the communists in America used to call themselves progressives)...isn't it cool?

@ Seriously? N...R?!: Here here! As usual, first rate. Thanks, my very sensible friend.

AG-99

I couldn't agree MORE. The military is NOT and should never be a Federal jobs program. If a base is surplus to requirements sell it to the state government for the proverbial dollar and let them close it. If a shipyard's only business is Federal contracts then they either diversify and become competitive or accept the FACT that the Federal gravy train will have leaner years and that may mean that they have NOTHING on the slips. As usual, John McCain is absolutely on the WRONG side of this one.

@Fracking

posters already mentioned the fraud and waste in the defense budget , hence my reply and retort , please try to keep up...

Ken-1575988

I would say that I would rather have my tax dollars spent ..... (So called "entitlement programs") than I would on the military-industrial complex. So I am fine giving more money to that and taking away from defense.

No worries Ken, that's Obama's plan - to have as many people NOT working for US monthly checks, but GIVEN the money instead so that 'the people' can be controlled like robots by the US Government.

ABO 2012

Operational Aircraft Carriers

USA---11

Italy-----2

Spain---2

Russia, France, Thailand, India, and the UK---1 each

China----0

Each time that each time these floating cities go out, they are accompanied by 21-25 other Navy ships in a flotilla. Look at the top 3 countries and that represents the status of "bad, debt ridden economies" with a dire need to cut spending. I served aboard an USN oiler during the Vietnam Era and our sole purpose to was to feed these massive, fossil fuel burning financial disasters. It really sucks when all we produce in the US in WMD's and we cruise the world like peacocks in our war machines.

Cut defense, stay home and mind our business.

No worries Ken, that's Obama's plan - to have as many people NOT working for US monthly checks, but GIVEN the money instead so that 'the people' can be controlled like robots by the US Government.

So---how bout you? Do you know how many people are receiving government checks that are active duty & reserve? Do you know that, on average, the top 10 defense contractors average get over 70% of their money from tax dollars. I'm 61 y/o and don't remember a time when someone in this country wasn't crying for more defense spending.

I'd rather see tax dollars go to education, infrastructure, healthcare, etc, as well as paying down the debt.

Thanks for your "all bold" shill of the day.

You people do realize that shipyards do more than JUST build ships, right? They are also used to overhaul and refuel ships that need their scheduled maintenance that our navy simply can't handle on our own. I'm talking bigger and badder than any you've ever seen. Educate yourselves.

ex tea party member-I guess you don't understand that Dem, Rep and Ind don't support this, maybe go back and read the article. It is our military that allows us the freedoms we have in this country. Take that away and freedom will be next. It seems like that is what Obama is after since he tramples on our Constitution everyday, why should this be different. Lets layoff more people, in times when people need there jobs. Why not revisit this when unemployment is back to the 5.3% it was on average under Bush. Or we (Obama) can press on and when it fails he will try and blame it on Rep and Bush.

If Obama was any kind of leader he would see that his plan is flawed, but he is not and being the self serving person he is he will never and has never admitted that he is wrong. Instead he tries to push the blame anywhere else, besides where it goes and that is with him.

VOTE OBAMA OUT 2012 - ANYONE IS BETTER, ANYONE!

Sorry sandrich, I can't count past ten and am confused by your presentation of a clearly superior and overwhelming force with the ships the US has operational currently. If I could understand it though, I would have to say you nailed it!

1/2<s>

How have you been doing, my Friend?!

Peace

Cut defense, stay at home and mind our own business...

Now, what happens when all those folks hit the unemployment lines? Guess no one is truly aware of the hundreds of thousands millions of civilians employed by the 'military industrial complex.' Now, Obama is looking to reduce the nuclear arsenal at a time when both he and Hillary are making dire warnings about Iran. Then, you have Russia and China bolstering their militaries and anyone foolish enough to trust a treaty with Russia needs to go read a bit of history.

I'm not a hawk, I deplore the idea of American aggression when it is unnecessary. However, to cut out those many jobs, during a recession (economy recovering, supposedly) is going to create what? Lots and lots of many more people on food stamps and the dole. Is this wise?

sandtrich,

first, only france has what one would call a fleet carrier, out of your list of countries (other than the US). The other carriers are all either helicopter carriers or only suitable for planes similar to the harrier (an escort carrier in US terms, which you would need to jump the US number to 20 or so if you were to include those).

However, you also forgot Brazil, which bought the former french carrier (clemenceau) after the charles de gaulle was put into service. Not sure if it is operational as an aircraft carrier at this point, but it IS in service with the brazilian navy (I believe there are problems with the laws preventing the navy from operating fixed wing aircraft, which would make the need for an aircraft carrier a bit of a stretch).

canary-in-the-coal-mine - The USA is NOT "policeman to the WORLD!

STOP SPAMMING.

This was exlained to you over and over again, just like you are a two year old.

Until the US gets the f**k out of the United Nations the US Military will ALWAYS be used as the United Nation's B!tches. UN Mission for US Military to hold French Indochina (Vietnam) after WWII. UN Mission Korea. UN Mission Vietnam. UN Mission Somalia I and UN Mission Somalia II. UN Mission Iraq (Nation Building). UN Mission Afghanistan (Nation Building). Etc.....Etc.. And who paid for all those UN Missions, the US Taxpayer and the US Citizens of the US Military with their lives.

And once again like I warned all of you before (this article) with previous Newsvine Posts. Repeat the Same Mistakes and Expect a Different Result. And it does NOT matter if it is the Blame Game of the Repugnants, Demoncraps, In Depends (Adult Diapers), or Scrotums (Tea Party aka Tea Baggers), the Results Matter.

I previously mentioned the Closure of 14 US Military Installations at the US by President Clinton and the Resulting near Great Depression Era Economies at the surrounding US Towns and Cities. This cascaded into the US Contractors that supported those US Military Installations to leave also. After that the US Civilians that worked for these US Contractors fled. The Local, City, State Governments then increased the Taxes on those US Civilians that remained in those Towns, Cities to make up for the loss of Revenues. This increase in Taxes then caused more US Civilians to flee, with the resulting Local, City, State Governments increasing Taxes even more.

Secretary of Defense Leon Penetta's example from the Article only mentions the "Direct" US Civilian Jobs of 16,000. As without the Income of the 16,000 US Civilians, no one was around to spend at Fast Food, Car Dealerships, Retail Sales, Real Estate, Lawyers, Doctors, Utilities, etc. with this decrease in Local, City, State Revenues (Taxes) then resulting in less money for Teachers, Fire Fighters, Police, etc.:

When Panetta served as a House member from California in 1991, he saw BRAC first hand when the BRAC commission closed Ft. Ord near Monterey, costing more than 16,000 jobs.

This is also the kind of disasterous results (massive US Civilian Unemployment) of President Bush's 2005 Base Realignment and Closures (BRAC). As well as previous Presidents BRAC.

Ken-1575988 - I would say that I would rather have my tax dollars spent taking care of our poor old and sick (So called "entitlement programs") than I would on the military-industrial complex.

How about this. I refuse to spoon feed you then have to change your diapers afterwards. So go research the Who, What, Why (Motives), When, Where, How many/much, etc. of the current US Military Defense Industrial Complex. Hint: Was created by a Demoncrap, not a Repugnant.

william whittemore-3007421,

Most of these people are too lazy to do the research of what happened just before the Pearl Harbor Attacks (1940 USN Sailing around in 1911 to 1917 Battlerams without any Anti Aircraft Batteries, except Anti Aircraft training Battleram, BB-35, USS Texas). Prior to the 9/11 2001 Attacks President Clinton's Gutting of the US Intelligence Agencies (US Left Blind), and his Cut to the Bone Reduction In Forces of the US Military and Closures of 14 US Military Installations (US Congressional 9/11 Committee Findings).

wildcatwest - The US military budget is nearly as much as all other countries on Earth.

How about this allow the US Military to take people out and execute them for Contract Defaults, Fraud, Crimes against the Citizens, etc. like the Chinese and Russian Federation do, as to why they get every Chinese Yuan or Russian Rubles worth. Instead of the US Military having to provide a "Fair and Living Wage" to a US Civilian so that a hammer that costs the Chinese a Yuan costs the US Military $300 (same with the USAF Toilet Seat) or at least allow the US Military to violate US Law (US Code) "US Military Must Buy Only US Products, Goods, or Services, so that the US Military can go to Walmart and buy less expensive Made In China.

You were saying, notliborcon - "Military spending is NOT a jobs program"

And add to the above example of the $300 hammers. How about this we DO the Automatic Cut of 10% of the US Military Defense Budget, and then throw about a million US Civilians on Unemployment according to Secretary of Defense Leon Penetta (2012 youtube.com) and President Obama (youtube.com).

Oh, yes, before anyone starts arguing go research something that President FDR figured out after his Failed New Deal to the American People (US Government spending money did not have to create jobs). US Consumerism versus the Sales of "War Materials" (current name Foreign Military Sales).

Let's do even more, like chop the US Military Defense Budget by 50% and throw almost a hundred million overpaid too expensive US Civilians on Unemployment, and instead of President Obama's Reduction In Forces (RIF) of the US Military fill some of the US Civilian Jobs with below minimum wage US Military Personnel. As President Obama's RIF will Unemploy 80,000 US Military + 27,000 US Military Returning from the Wars + 10,000 Returning Stateside from Closed US Military Installations at Germany + the xxx,xxx US Civilians that used to provide support to the RIF'ed US Military Personnel.

And:

notliborcon - How much does the US spend when large programs (F-22/F-35/Littoral combat ship/etc.) go over budget?

Pricey Jet Fighters Add Up To Local Jobs
CBS Evening News: Funding For F-22 Jets Is On The Chopping Block, But Building Them Keeps 95,000 People Employed

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/25/eveningnews/main4893248.shtml?tag=mncol;lst;1

With that example and your next statement:

notliborcon - I have worked for LARGE corporations on military programs and found that the companies willfully misrepresent progress and hide MAJOR design issues in order to hit milestone payments.

"Liar Liar Pants on Fire", since you do not know why these companies do that sh!t.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSkv_29Rncg

Bob in Dallas - Secure our Southern border, not Afghanistan's borders.

Illegal And Against President Obama's Policies of April 2009 (with Mexican President) and August 2009 (with Canadian Prime Minister), as stated by President Obama, "US Military will not be used to secure US Borders". Legally, you can use the State's Militias (National Guard) with the State's Governor's and AG's Approval; but, NOT the Federal Active US Military this is why the Big RIF of the US Military of the above numbers (80,000 + 27,000 + 10,000 + xxx,xxx US Civilians). And before you even considered that the Federal Active will become National Guard, most States cannot afford that as even with Federal Subsidises they have been chopping their current National Guard Units, with their current Budget Shortfalls. And before you say that the President Obama RIFs will not occur the MMCs (Major Military Commands) of All Branches have already had the emails (Criteria for selection to be RIFed) for a while now as well as the US Military Units to be Deactivated with no reassignments of those US Military Personnel.

Almost laughing. Do any of you actually know why President Obama Backpeddled on his April 2009 US Military Defense Budget Cuts of the USAF (F-22, 95000 Civilian jobs lost above, not including the US "suppliers".) and USN, specifically the elimination of one USN Aircraft Carrier Strike Group according to his 2012 State of the Union Address, not to decrease from 11 to 10. Because over a hundred thousand angry laid off US Labor Union Workers that support just one USN Aircraft Carrier were planning to drive from Virginia to D.C. and Strike at the doorsteps of the White House. And this had NOTHING to do with the Iranian Threat, as if any of you bother to do the research and know how to add and subtract you will see that what he stated about the 11 to 10 USN Aircraft Carrier Strike Groups is a lie anyway (negates the Iranian Threat excuse).

Stupid is as stupid does - Forrest Gump

If the military supports the budget, than that's OK with me. But it's the TEA-GOP-Republican elitist who don't like the budget. President Obama is on the right track! Even with the constraints forced on him and the country by the confrontational "Do Nothing" Congress. The economy is getting back on it's feet slowly and the positive signs abound. It's the negative bigots who cannot see this man win, who throw road blocks in front of him. The country is drowning in red ink due to two unfunded wars and Bush Tax give-away to the richest Americans, but the president has tried to stay positive and challenges the 112th to do their fiduciary jobs they are charged with. We can't cut and slash our way into growth, just like less taxes will grow jobs. Both are pure falseness on steroids. The president has tried for going on four years the need to equalized the tax pain. The repeated comments that he is vulnerable is pure hogwash as the nation knows the House numbers are lower than the president. The states with good numbers and the people who are doing their best to get back on their feet are the true heroes. Americans realize the Congress isn't going to do anything, so we are. Even small business's have seen the president is the only one working for the every day Joe.

Oh well, national defense is going to have to come second to more important things like foreign aid.

Hello mygirl1!

It is another case of damned if you do, damned if you don't, though the loss of domestic employment is already being felt as part of the broad-spectrum economic and job market crunch from shich so many conditions contributed to over the last decade +. And this further hit domestically is not a plus.

However, I would imagine that so much inventory contracted for, paid for, and utilized in our latest aggressions into Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as in Libya under the stamp of the UN), and the many countries we sell our arnaments to has fortified the private piggy banks of those defence contactors to the point they themselves will not feel a thing. The workers will take the hit, as you note. And multiplier affects do work both ways, undoubtedly.

Decommisioning, while also a huge cutback, allows for restarts of these facilities upon a more undeniable set of circumstances for us to actually increase our war machine considerably. And not all projects will be halted, you can bet your sweet bippy on that! (wink, wink) As someone else noted, once these current in-house, already trained workers aquire other means of support/income, the next wave of employees will also be paid at radically slashed compensation packages when these needs become apparent again in the future, as they most likely shall be, one way or the other at some point in time.

Anyhow, good to see you, and I hope you enjoyed your Valentine's Day!!

♥♥♥

Randy-Instead of just regurgitating what you here from the Dem's why don't you actually do some research for yourself it may open your eyes. Obama's plan is being Rejected by Dem, Rep and Ind. The do nothing Congress as you call it is actually trying to save us from all the debit this president has put us in, you all say bad Bush. Well Bush added 4.5 trillion in 8 years to our defect. Obama has added 5.3 trillion in 3 years and his-current budget is another 1.4 trillion. Bad Bush right. How about the average unemployment under Bush was 5.3% and under Obama has not been below 8.5%. You need to get your facts right. Everyone can have there own opinions but facts are just that FACTS and can't just be made up, unless you are a Lib and it fits your agenda.

VOTE THE OBLIVIOUS ONE OUT 2012

The ignorance of some people on this thread...By cutting the defense budget by this much does not mean the money will be reallocated to something else. In fact, trimming the defense budget will result in a significantly lower tax revenue from all the direct and indirect workers and businesses. I agree that cuts need to be made and revenue needs to be increased. But, we all must not lose sight of the negative impacts of any cuts or revenue increasing measures. To say that there is no downside only shows your myopic affliction.

Notsojingo: Happy Valentines day to you as well, I got some roses, hope you got some sweetness as well.

cheers

Tontash: You flatout are ignorant. the defense budget has not doubled in the last few years - nothing even close however the fastest growing segment of the GVT budget happens to coincide with that one segment of the population that contributes the least to our society and our nation - the entitlements programs and the 437% of Americans that are nothing but free loaders off the back of those that actually do pay taxes and contribute.

@Ternan

TOUCHE'

So by my reading you conservatives are happy that the Offense Dept is in fact just a make work program which is required to keep the unemployment down and so that those people who are employed in the "offense" industry and those offensive contractors who are paid by your tax dollars are necessary so that you can keep tax revenues up????????? So we pay people to do nothing (most military personal are not on active duty in a foreign war) and we pay contractors and companies to make weapons/ships/planes/tanks that we stockpile they then pay tax on the money that we paid them and we are going to somehow come out in front on that deal.....that is in fact a pyramid scheme.

So we have a government that is running a Protection Racket and a Pyramid Scheme....it's a funny world.

David##### I don't read your garbage anymore too much time to get nowhere and your hatred is well known you don't need to convince us any more.

Dave##### - no doubt there is a down side ..... everything has one ....but the idea that continuing to spend money on offense and that we will not eventually have to reduce those stockpiles (a good foreign war will do for that....let's start one, who cares how many get killed as long as the stockpiles are reduced and we can then get more contracts to build bigger and better guns - pyramid scheme) to keep revenues up just doesn't add up. Wouldn't it be better to keep a Space Exploration Program going at least we would be shooting the money off in to space where the result of the spending would cause no harm?

I think this is where a Democratic President looks for ways to cut spending in Republican leaning states, and a Republican President looks for ways to cut spending in Democrat leaning states.

Right now, we have a Democratic President - so guess what.

Why don't they close that over blown, over budget "taj mahal" of Iraq Embassy or give it to Iraq and let them pay to guard all those contractors that want to do business there.

Yank in Australia-First of all...I served honorably in the US Army for 21 years. I do not disagree that the defense budget should be trimmed. I just think, as was pointed out by David...that BRAC closures of the passed have not seen the savings that were projected. Additionally, there are reasons why we maintain bases throughout the world. But, if you do not have the intelligence level or security clearance to ascertain the advantages as to why we keep troops there in addition to the UN mandates that keep a military presence there, I am not going to waste my time explaining it.

When President Reagan decided to increase an investment in the defense military industrial complex, it was obvious that this would produce many jobs with guaranteed US manufacturing. It provided significant growth in GDP. It pushed our country into economic growth not seen since Eisenhower's investment in the interstate highway system. Reducing the military industrial complex eliminates these jobs and associated businesses. The president hasn't proposed anything on the level of Reagan's defense initiative or Eisenhower's interstate highway system.

Personally, I don't get caught up in all of this. I have made my peace of the inevitable path our country is on. I have my contingency plans in place (purchasing Aussie $ is one). I will live comfortably with or without my military pension and with or without my social security check.

The US defense budget is as large as the combined military budgets of all the world's countries combined. America could cut defense spending by 25% and we would still outspend the next ten countries combined. Only an idiot would still believe there is a genuine purpose behind squandering that kind of cash each year.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/defense-spending-budget.asp

It would force the arms dealers to learn a new trade if they lost our tax dollar paid saleries. When the defense contractors work on a "no bid" and "cost plus" basis, it's not capitalism. There has never been a country that is in debt to the magnitude that we are. I have a son that will be an O-4 next month. His pay package with time in and, with the field that he's in gets him a $125K bonus every 4 years. His total package, as they pay the bonus spread over the 4 years, is $155K with housing, white glove moves, dental---everything. His wife works for the military industrial complex as well, but makes more. At 20 years, he'll retire at 50% of pay for life.

Gee, I made $411 as an E-4.

Let these people find a productive life in the private sector. As of now, they are the recipients of tax dollars for their salaries.

The military has become too powerful, (defines Neo-Fascism). There is almost no separation between business and government. That, coupled with the fact that every politician takes money from somebody, don't count on having liberties as we've been accustom to.

Half of the discretionary spending goes to the military, $1.2 to $1.6T will be spent this year on defense and defense related, (Homeland Security, interest on war debts, taking care of "us Veterans", unplanned wars--see Libya, etc.

Sit back, let the world go on without our intervention. China, Russia, nor India, travel the world looking to create a hot spot.

Just a few key points seemingly missed by some of the posters. The US military needs the majority of the new ships because of the new proposed force structure and the fact that ships do not last forever. If we are to project power, especially in the Asian Pacific areas, we need the new aircraft carriers, and the new troops ships to have sufficient capacity to land a force sufficient to not be overwhelmed until reinforcements can arrive. The F-35 fighter is the replacement fighter for the f-16, f-16, and Harrier. It's very design was set up to save costs on pilot training simulators, spare parts, etc. The above mentioned planes are now 30 to 40 years old having started to come on line in the early 70's.

I saw both Democrats and Republicans defending the defense industry and speaking against base closings. Further the lone dissent mentioned was from REPUBLICAN Lindsay Graham.

The defense department has taken steps to reduce costs on new equipment programs by getting rid of cost plus contracts and going to hard bids. What this means is the end of significant cost overruns except when congress scales back on a buying schedule that increases the cost of each unit purchased. The research and development costs stay the same whether you buy 50 or 500 new fighters, tanks, trucks, or ships so when you reduce the quantity purchased, the price per unit rises because there aren't as many units to absorb the development costs.

During both Carter and Clinton's administration, defense was significantly cut. What it boiled down to is that the support units were the first on the block and then replaced with non military contractors. The military still needs to transport supplies and equipment, which during WWII through Vietnam was handled by military personnel. US embassies and diplomats were guarded Marines. Now these functions are handled by contractors like Blackwater and the like which raise their fees significantly when the bullets start flying. Those cuts also had an effect on equipment and training of our armed forces, much of which needed to be restored for the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to happen.

There are savings to be sure in a top heavy defense department, but we must make our cuts intelligently and cautiously to avoid repeating past mistakes. Our national defense is mandated as a Federal Government function in the constitution unlike many of the other things our government does. Our soldiers, sailors, and Airmen are poorly paid for the sacrifices they are asked to make, especially in time of war and about 3/4 of the defense budget goes directly to them.

Dave####, good on you your service is/was appreciated, however the production of arms is not a viable manufacturing industry because you can only use the articles produced if there is a war. The Tax Paying Public do not buy cruise missiles, F-14s, body armor, etc etc so as an industry it does not benefit the taxpayers in fact it hurts the taxpayer because such a great portion of the revenue is sent to the pockets of the few defense contractor and I don't know the actual numbers but I would suggest that over all very little of that spend goes in to the pockets of the troops and the vets who certainly deserve it.

So I do not agree that there is a long term benefit to our country (s) by providing a profit stream for the Military Industrial Complex, and I have been around long enough to know better.

My response to the usual "hundreds of overseas bases" (last week it was 700, this week's estimate is 600) rants is that there are far fewer bases now than there were 10 years ago. Many that are listed are no longer being used, but have not been transferred back to the government of the nation they are located in. As long as significant threats to our and indeed the global economy exist in the Middle East and Asia (and I realize part of the Middle East IS Asia), we have to have the capability to rapidly deploy and supply our forces. Overseas bases have a huge advantage over their Stateside counterparts in that regard.

Oh, and to the viner who referred to Aircraft Carriers as "fossil fueled", EVERY deployable U.S. Navy carrier is nuclear powered. They still require fuel for their aircraft, but not for propulsion.

Yank in Australia, the employees of Defense contractors ARE the tax paying public, unless our military equipment and supplies are built by robots !! Plenty of defense technology ends up in Civilian applications, the ship I commissioned 30 years ago had ONE OF FOUR GPS systems in the ENTIRE WORLD at that time, now many personal phones have GPS apps. Not only that, but plenty of what is used to outfit troops is not weaponry, but things like clothing made to deal with extremes in the global climate

I would say that I would rather have my tax dollars spent taking care of our poor old and sick (So called "entitlement programs")

Would that the case I and most other Americans would not likely have a problem with the so called "entitlement programs." Taking care of Americans who are unable to do for themselves is something we all should support both morally and financially with our tax dollars.

However, I and many other Americans object to able-bodied, able-minded individuals' expectations of lifetime free stuff at the expense of hard-working, productive, taxpaying Americans rather than their accepting their responsibility for supporting themselves.

We are borrowing 40 cents on every dollar we spend - this is not remotely sustainable and we have to start making sacrifices. We already spend far more than anyone else in the world on defense, and we are effectively subsidizing many of our "friends". European countries continue to spend less of their GDP on defense than NATO mandates because they know the US is taking up their slack. This foreign welfare needs to stop.

Ron,

You are correct! Our spending is outrageous! We do need to make sacrifices across the board in order to clean up the mess. Now the only problem is convincing Washington that this is the case. The President is releasing his current projected budget that calls for an additional 1.3 trillion in taxes, yet shows a budget deficit of over 900 billion still. The fiscal conservatives in congress want cuts before raising any taxes, the fiscal liberals want to tax and spend more. Neither side has a workable solution because they are to the extremes. How about freeze spending levels and raise some taxes and get rid of the deficits to start with, then start working to pay down the debt instead of just making interest payments which keep getting larger and larger.

All departments should have spending freezes and a 5% reduction in budgets. What's good for the military is good for everyone else.

US spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined, and it is mostly money borrowed from China. This is idiotic and unsustainable. The military budget should have been cut in half starting NOW!

The big spenders, borrow and spend, fiscally liberal repubs and tea party fiscal liberals are refusing to cut the deficit.

Whatever you subsidize, you will achieve more of and whatever you penalize, you will achieve less of. The United States is on a very dangerous spiral of subsidizing sloth and indigence and penalizing savings and investments.

Now that is f'in' hilarious! You are right! Our last Republican president subsidized housing. He proclaimed that everyone should have a house whether they could afford it or not! At the same time, he made sure government would not interfere with any shady practices that developed concerning housing loans. We will be digging out of that mess for another 10 years!

Now, they want to subsidize more military when it already consumes1/2 of our national budget. Need I point out where this will lead? It brought Russia to its knees.

EEngineer

Now, they want to subsidize more military when it already consumes1/2 of our national budget. Need I point out where this will lead? It brought Russia to its knees.

But think of how much money Boeing and Lockheed can make in the interim...don't you understand that they need to meet their quarterly earnings forecasts? There are boats, yachts and greens fees to be paid!

It's kind of like mandating the termination of 100 watt light bulbs so we could send those jobs to China.

One mans ceiling is another mans floor.

....but, john, please understand that liberals "loathe" the military. Inevitiably, the few times that they are forced to actually cut spending, defense goes first.

Liberals loathe the military? You've got to be kidding. Same old tired lie. There are lots of politicians that have actually been in the military and have been decorated soldiers that are considered liberal. There are also lots of conservatives in politics that had relied on their connections to stay as far away from real active duty service as possible.

@ Jim: Wasn't it President Bush who signed the law regarding the Light Bulb issue? I believe it was called the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The law just didn't go into effect for a few years. Not saying Bush was wrong, I actually think that was a decent bit of legislation...but you know, try to keep with the facts.

But an effort was made to stop the mandate. Guess who blocked it ? Could it be the same guy who is sitting on a pile of House-passed bills .... refusing to bring them up for consideration ?????? Which President failed to recognize the loss of jobs and do anything about it ????????????

Lightbulbs from China because american industry can't get its act together. Those jobs didn't have to go to China, we just don't have the ability to respond anymore. Not enough profit I guess. Those light bulbs could have been made here with a littl foresight and courage on the part of American indsutry.

Bill Clinton?

spider-737231

I actually believe that cuts need to be made, and massive ones at that. The problems I see is that what makes us great is our wealth, and part of that is jobs creating our defense. The other problem I see is our ability to maintain so many bases around the world with less means to support them.

Bases around the world should be closed long before any support structure here is eliminated.

Loathe the MILITARY? Sorry, I just LOATHE wasting money. When the USA decides enough is enough and starts spending money HERE at HOME rather than WASTING IT ALL OVER THE WORLD, come back and talk. Let's ask then - what PURPOSE does the EUROPEAN force serve? WHY are WE still a PHYSICAL PRESENCE in Korea? The Koreans aren't strong enough to DEFEND THEMSELVES? What PURPOSE is served by staying in AFGHANISTAN? We COULD just bomb the taliban back in to the stone age...oh wait - they ARE IN THE STONE AGE. It's a goddammed TAR PIT. Tell the Pakis that they have seen their last US dollar, too.

@ canary-in-the-coal-mine

If you were a company, I'd buy 50 shares right now!

Glad some people get it!

Also, interesting tidbit, government contractors (a la Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop, etc.) get more competitive and creative with their bids when politicians get all budget-slashie. It's amazing how when politicians give carte blanche to the contractors, we end up with showers that electrocute soldiers and F22 carbon monoxide-chambers...somehow I don't think it's a coincidence!

For the past three years we have been loudly informed by 'conservative' economic experts that THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT CREATE JOBS.

Cutting defense will not harm manufacturing or the economy because THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT CREATE JOBS.

---------------------

Some other popular 'conservative' items on the play list -

WE CANNOT SPEND MONEY WE DO NOT HAVE.

THE DEBT WILL TURN US INTO GREECE.

BUSINESS WILL NOT CREATE JOBS BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS TOO BIG.

WHY SHOULD I GIVE MY MONEY TO THE GOVERNMENT - THEY JUST WASTE IT.

---------------------

Come on 'conservatives' - man up - and live your dream ...

Nerm_L: These bastards love to toss Greece around. Hope to distract us while they steal all the Gravy. Republicans are piss poor at everything, even lying. Fact their lies glare like "seed warts" on a camels lips.

Ken-1575988

Liberals loathe the military? You've got to be kidding. Same old tired lie. There are lots of politicians that have actually been in the military and have been decorated soldiers that are considered liberal.

Sorry Ken, they just don't come to mind..could you name a few Liberal former military politicians? And, by the way...one of the defining characters of "Liberal" is to loathe the military...where u been??!!!

@ justoneguy: Harry S Truman- John F Kennedy- James Earl Carter- Wesley Clark- John Kerry etc. etc.

Ken-1575988 - Liberals loathe the military?

YES. The Representative of all the Demoncraps, as Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, "All those returning from the Wars are potential Homegrown Domestic Terrorists" (as in Guilty until proven innocent, violation of Due Process).

B Murphy - @ Jim: Wasn't it President Bush who signed the law regarding the Light Bulb issue?

One more thing to add to my list of screwups of President Bush. However, realize that President Obama is now the US President and can demand to repeal any previous US Laws or if that fails request that US Congress does not Appropriate Funds to enforce that US Law, basically killing the US Law and allowing the President to not enforce that US Law (no money to).

Ferrosynthesis-3490482 - Lightbulbs from China because american industry can't get its act together.

Try again. The CFL situation had to do with Mercury Content, EPA, etc.. This is why many Nations banned CFLs and went straight to LED lightbulbs.

Just a though, about light bulbs, why in the world do they keep frosting lightbulbs instead of just making the glass clear (use less energy for more light). It is not as if anyone is hanging a lightbulb from a socket without a shade, fixture or something.

canary-in-the-coal-mine - Loathe the MILITARY?

We told you so, Ken-1575988. AND canary-in-the-coal-mine and Seriously? No...Really?! too lazy to do the actual research.

Nerm_L, Mac Forrester,

Before you start foaming at the mouth about Greece, how about this, go do the research into the ratio of Greek Government Workers to Greek Citizens. And then do the research into the actual cause of the Greek problems, like the Glass Steagall Acts that made Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction 100% Legal as used by Goldman Sachs on Greece, etc.. Then go research who removed the US Glass Steagall Acts, 1999 and 2000, as to why the US is currently in a Depression (same Causes) and NOT a Recession (different Causes).

Uh, huh, thought so. Too lazy just like before (previous Newsvine Posts pertaining to Greece).

Mac Forrester,

Add Medal of Honor winner, Senator Daniel Inouye, Democrat, Hawaii.

david-475776: Yes Siree David: Also I forgot, Lyndon B Johnson and one of my hero's, The Great "George McGovern". A sturdy group of men all, who did not run about, mouthing their military exploits.

david-475776: While I'm not going to dispute your claims about the particular "Greece" ratio you have posted, I don't really think it makes much difference either way. That problem is in fact, a "money monger" problem. The whole EU notion was stupid in the beginning. A union of nations, some efficient and prosperous, producing "high value products" with high value market appeal, with citizens of a particular set of societal values, decide to mix themselves with other nations who are inefficient in production, produce products of small value, little or no market appeal, and opposing societal values, is really a dumb assed proposition. Additionally, to do this under a "common currency", and expect that currencies exchange value to remain robust, while all production is weakened is plain "mind bogglingly crazy". I could go on here, but surely you get the picture by now. Could the union have done better another way? Yes. Think co-operatives, with each country using Its own currency. Suffer the managed diminishment of the strong currency only for the time used to raise the productivity, and hence the value of the weaker currency. Sorry, don't have to do much research on this. Regards

@david-475776 -- The 'repeal' of Glass-Steagall restrictions you are talking about is the Gramm - Leach - Bliley Act (also know as the Citigroup Relief Act) (Pub.L. 106-102).

Another compromise bill between Sen. Phil Gramm and the Clinton administration was modification of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. ch.16 , § 2903(c)) that allowed banks to further merge with other types of financial institutions.

BTW, adjustments to the Community Reinvestment Act were made in 2005 that allowed banks to 'fudge' their numbers and still meet the requirements of the CRA and issue more loans under the CRA umbrella. The Democrats protested those changes.

I know you won't accept Wiki links but here they are anyway. The articles point to external sources of information so you can do your own research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Acthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

Republican Senator Phil Gramm of Texas has the most responsibility for allowing the banks to play fast and loose with mortgages. And the Bush administration did encourage banks to make questionable loans.

The people that want to continue deficit spending for military toys are the very same people that pushed for repeal of Glass-Steagall - the very same people that pushed toxic mortgage lending - the very same people that laid the foundation for the current recession.

Phil Gramm may be gone - George W. Bush may be gone - BUT - their cheerleaders are still in Congress.

@david-475776 -- The links I posted are joined. Here are the separated links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

Nerm-none of the mortgage problem would have expanded without increasing the amount of mortgages that Fannie and Freddie were allowed to underwrite. So...who was responsible for increasing the amount that Fannie and Freddie could underwrite even after being warned of the consequences?

The bottom line is this...both parties have blood on their hands. And, every mortgage has at least two parties. Ask yourself this question...Why did the banks (big 5) agree to refinance mortgages of underwater homeowners in exchange for a little cash in exchange for lawsuits being dropped by the State AGs? Because any individual lawsuit could be challenged with income fraud while State AGs had no skin in the game. The banks come out ahead when you take into account the liabilities of litigation.

bush was supposed to have been in charge in 2007 and 2008. He is the one to blame for leaving his huge, free falling catastrophic, nightmarish economic great recession mess.

repubs have been praying for a great depression since 2009.

NermL and Mac Forrester....

Greece is the perfect example of what happens when a country offers up irresponsible spending on early pensions, public unions and weak tax laws or lack of enforcing them. IE people become accustomed to certain government wages and benefits. When the government can no longer meet these obligations people tend to get a little irritated. You both must have been asleep the last 18 months. America is fortunate in that the US dollar is the worlds reserve currency and that our treasuries are still considered to be safe but with little return.

With china and india expected to become the number 1 and 2 world economies by 2040, think that the worlds reserve currency will still be the dollar or that our treasuries will still be in demand?

With a $15 trillion and growing debt load what is better... Taking small corective steps now or wait until our debt load becomes completely unmanageable?

NermL....

GOVERNMENT CANNOT CREATE JOBS.

This is true, unless you think that cranking up the printing presses will pay for them. Ask my dad, he grew up in germany during the twenties. Good thing he liked turnips, kohlrobi and cabbage.

However, the private sector does provide the revenue stream to fund government jobs and programs.

WE CANNOT SPEND MONEY WE DO NOT HAVE.

Fundamentally this is being fiscally responsible. Of course the caveats here would indicate that in times of war, natural disaster or recessionary times borrowing would be appropriate.

As long as we have someone willing to extend the US credit, not a real problem. You must have forgotten about the old political mantra that both sides embraced prior to 2010. Deficits don't matter, unfortunately with a growing debt load of $15 trillion + that mantra needs to change.

Your little spin above really should be changed to spending the money wisely and not like a drunk. We both know both sides of the aisle like to spend.

THE DEBT WILL TURN US INTO GREECE.

I made my point above, make a small correction now, rather than a big one later.

BUSINESS WILL NOT CREATE JOBS BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS TOO BIG.

Really? Did you dream this up last night? Why would a private sector worker want to pay more for bigger government? Why would businesses hire if the government can't define the regs that may or may not add costs to the business that they will in turn have to pass onto the end user? BTW - The HCR law consisted of over 2000 pages as passed by the WH and congress. Care to estimate the number of pages of regs that were written that we have to follow? 2000? 5000 or higher?

WHY SHOULD I GIVE MY MONEY TO THE GOVERNMENT - THEY JUST WASTE IT.

The government won't turn down donations, but it seems that your concern is well placed. After all we all know that buffett hasn't voluntarily given into the coffers of the treasury.

Perhaps the following will shed some light on the matter...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-13/buffett-charity-flops-when-put-to-test-philip-maymin-correct-.html

You may think that conservatives were born at night, but I assure you it wasn't last night.

american-2051576: I won't argue whether they were born during the night or day. I do however, contend, most conservatives were born breech. Regards

...who was responsible for increasing the amount that Fannie and Freddie could underwrite even after being warned of the consequences?

In fact, who forced them to write more sub-prime loans? Who bragged of pumping $.44T into the secondary mortgage market? Who bragged about creating ARM's because they allowed more dubious buyers to be able to purchase homes who wouldn't have been able to with conventional loans? George W. Bush, that's who.

Complain all you want about CRA; it existed for 30 years with a small default rate. It took a Republican to trash the economy with shaky home mortgage loans!

With his butget of only 3.8 trillion he is going to have to skimp on something. Lets see now that is only spending about $13,000.00 for every man, woman, and child in the US for 2013. Do you think you will be able to pay that much in taxes, or even more to make up for those who don't? I know of some familes of four that don't even make $52,000 per year and even if they did, Obamas budget would be spending 100% of their income.

I say if they are currently in office, vote for someone else.

old-pilot - how much did Mitt Romney pay in payroll taxes last year?

Answer: $0

Wow ! The pot is calling the kettle black ! LOL !! Uh oh !!! A quick coverup by RealAmericans First to HIDE THE FACT that he accused old pilot of bad math ....... before recognizing that he, RealAmericansFirst, is the one who truly sucks at math !!!

Then, he changes to something entirely irrelevant !!!!! LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RealAmericansFirst, you obviously cannot do math, or you think a trillion (1,000,000,000,000) is only a billion (1,000,000,000). does this mean that all real americans failed math, or is it you cannot use a dictionary.

Clifford,

RMF was just pointing out what Romney paid last year. In order to fix this problem we have to keep all of the tax dodgers and 'play it downers' to pay their effective tax rates with no loopholes. GE should be sued for back taxes. Next we have to end all subsidies to any industry that makes a profit year over year.

Any necessary industry that does not show a profit year over year can reapply for a reasonable tax break after the tax laws are rewritten.

Next we need to end deductions, period. Too many Americans on both ends of the spectrum use the deductions loop hole to get money back on their returns, such as billionaires donating money to charity, a portion of that money comes back to them as a return, lessening their tax burden while those that make under 35,000 have the ability to pay no taxes because their deductions can wipe them out under certain circumstances.

Next lower corporate income tax to 25% and raise capital gains taxes by 12%. After the loop holes are closed this will allow companies to keep more of their money while still paying their fare share for use of the highways and other Government maintained services. These same changes should apply to those making over 100,000,000 a year. Up to 250,000 a year should see no tax changes until unemployment is below 6% to 7% then raise taxes by 5% on under 250k a year.

Those that make between 250k and 10m a year should see a small tax decrease of 2% to 5% to try and stimulate small business, 15m to 100m should see a small tax increase up to 8%.

Finally cut all Congressional salaries by 40% and instate term limits of two consecutive years and three terms served max. Do not allow retired politicians to be employed by any company they ever had any dealings with; ever. Kill the Chamber of Commerce and all other lobbying groups of Corporate America, and then over turn Citizens United.

Next reform Social Security, make a mandate stating that each decade that the life expectancy increases the retirement age for SS. Make another mandate stating that you only can withdraw what you put in. If you withdraw everything you have put in before you die then you are out of luck and should have managed your fund better.

Next cut defense spending by up to 25% and close down bases in parts of the world where they are no longer needed. Decommission any hardware that's up keep costs more then the physical value of use of the hardware; example if it costs 200,000,000 to maintain an air craft carrier but when translated to a dollar value it's use only comes out to 98,000 then decommission it for now.

Make a mandate to strengthen regulations on medicare, medicade, and welfare to try and root out fraudulent claims at a better rate.

Do all of that and we will be on the right track to both getting the economy/gdp to move higher and tackling some of the debt through higher. Everyone, once the economy can sustain it, will eventually pay a higher rate while corporations will pay less on direct income but more in their investments, which is where their real money is anyway.

Geowil, take a couple of aspirin and maybe you'll feel better tomorrow. Some of the things you propose are IMHO lubricious.

@ Geowil

I think your ideas are interesting and that some of them are on the right track, but I think the execution needs revising. For example...your suggestions on tax code changes.

...those that make under 35,000 have the ability to pay no taxes because their deductions can wipe them out under certain circumstances

[bolded for emphasis] People that are making under 35K are still being hit with payroll taxes and their take home pay is much more sensitive to state taxes like sales, income and property. If you only look at the picture from Federal Income Tax, you miss the forest for the trees. State taxes are often very regressive.

Additionally, people making over the income-cap of payroll taxes are proportionally less affected by the burden than those making considerably less than the cap.

Next lower corporate income tax to 25% and raise capital gains taxes by 12% After the loop holes are closed this will allow companies to keep more of their money while still paying their fare share for use of the highways and other Government maintained services.

Not a bad idea on the surface, but let's talk about those loopholes...how do you intend to close something like transfer pricing? How about the engineered losses that GE creates with GE-capital in order to offshore earnings? How about how companies can buy back their own shares from money they pull from the ether (AKA Cayman Islands banks)

I agree that we need to close loopholes, but if you research how these companies engage in them, you will see that you have a much larger and more complex problem than simply saying..."no more transfer pricing"...understand what these functions are first, and you'll see that these "loopholes" were actually legitimate functions that some businesses now are merely abusing to lower their US-tax burden. To get rid of transfer pricing and int'l capital purchasing agreements themselves will fundamentally effect how companies conduct international business and may incentivize them to uproot completely

I have my own models that might serve to get around some of it...but these are VERY complex issues.

Also, agreed about GE and the like, but I'm afraid that no matter how low one lowers the corporate tax rates, anything higher than 0% or less is still too much.

Finally cut all Congressional salaries by 40% and instate term limits of two consecutive years and three terms served max...

I agree, in fact, I'd like to also apply that to the Senate while we're at it. Also, let's adapt the FCPA that applies to US companies, apply it domestically and create a sister-bill that would bind politicians the same way.

Decommission any hardware that's up keep costs more then the physical value of use of the hardware

How do you quantify the physical value of use of the hardware? What value does an aircraft carrier create for us in the Persian Gulf that can be measured in dollars? Next, this type of policy in times of peace would put the US at a very poor state of readiness in very short order...it takes time to re-commission something, and reinventing the wheel is 50x more expensive then improving it over time.

Imagine how poor of a position the US would have been in in WWII if we didn't have the Spanish American War and thus have a sphere of influence in the Philippines?

Take a look at how poorly prepared the US armed forces were for WWII. We didn't have snipers for heaven's sake! We had brilliant sharpshooters honed from WWI and never bothered to maintain a means of keeping that knowledge and expertise within the military. In WWII, we had to start over on A LOT of things! Tanks, aircraft, weapons and tactics! All were out of date and people paid for it with their lives.

There are plenty of areas where there is waste in the military, and much of it has to do with the politicians and contractors at the negotiating phase...everything else is symptomatic after that.

Make a mandate to strengthen regulations on medicare, medicade, and welfare

Agreed, but again, platitudes are nice, the reality that hits when boots are in the mud is a different thing entirely. Read through Obama's HCR-bill and see what you think...you may be surprised with how much you agree with and shocked at what the GOP were fighting to prevent.

Geowil,

How about this go research the 1929 - 1939 Great Depression and President FDR's US Consumerism versus the Sales of War Materials, with his resulting solutions to get the US out of the 1929-1939 Great Depression 1939 before US Entry into WWII 1941.

Geowil - Next lower corporate income tax to 25% and raise capital gains taxes by 12%.

Fail. As if the 25% is better than the current inclusive 6-9 % at other Nations. And like stated before, as the Local, City, States face Budget Shortfalls they increased their Business Taxes, Business Licenses, Business Property Taxes, etc. so add that to the current 35% or your 25%.

Seriously? No...Really?! - Read through Obama's HCR-bill and see what you think...you may be surprised with how much you agree with and shocked at what the GOP were fighting to prevent.

Did you actually read that? If you REALLY did, then I will ask you about the Section of, "Source of New Revenues".

Ask yourself when the US Budget Deficit actually started. Did US Congress Budget for the $1.7 Trillion to $2.1 Trillion (Inflation), NOPE. US Congress could come up with .5 Trillion, so now Budget Cuts to previously Budgeted to make the rest of the money.

Now ask yourself about the Source of New Revenues section that gives the "Insurance Industry" $67 Billion, "Medical Device Industry" $20 Billion, "Pharmaceuticals Industry" $23 Billion of US Taxpayer money. Instead of saying "Industry" like in the HCR, just say Corporations.

Do you even know why President Obama insisted on giving them all that US Taxpayer money including in his THE PRESIDENT’S PROPOSAL February 22, 2010?

Go watch the PBS Documentary "Obama's Deal" as $1 Billion of Unlimited Corporate Campaign Contributions (this was NOT a coincidence, as his Buddy, "Mr.Corporate America" Legal Briefed the US Supreme Court before the Citizens United case was even heard by the US Supreme Court).

I still believe in using things that have been proven to work before, like President FDR's Universal Health Care for All US Citizens (a means of President FDR to stop US Citizens from having to decide Food or Medical Care during the Great Depression, and to place more spending money into the hands of US Citizens and not the "Italian Organized Crime" ("Mussolini Sympathizers") Insurance Corporations).

As this is a close to what the long time advocate of Health Care Reform, Senator Kennedy (RIP) wanted. This was done by removing the Insurance Corporations from the Medical Profession, resulting in a instant decrease in the costs of Medical Treatments by 80% and US Citizens paying $50 (current price, before was 2009 price of $42) for Unlimited Medical Treatments.

Before you even say "US Government" mismanagement of Medicare (US Military TriCare, etc.), President Obama, Face the Nation, September 20, 2009:

Obama: No, the difference is that they're making huge profits on it, Bob. I mean, let's take the Medicare HMO programs that are being run by insurance companies. It's estimated by everybody that they're overcharging by about 14 percent. This amounts to about $177 billion over 10 years. About $17 billion a year, $18 billion a year. That's just going to pad their profits, hasn't been shown to make Medicare recipients any healthier. And in fact because those huge subsidies are going to insurance companies, Medicare recipients are not getting a good deal. Now if we are enforcing what should be the rules around Medicare and making sure the people are getting a bang for the buck, it's not going to be possible for insurance companies to simply pass on those costs to Medicare recipients because ultimately it's Uncle Sam that's paying for those services anyway.

Uncle Sam is the US Taxpayers. So why didn't President Obama's HCR address this? As a Fraud against the US Citizens. He already knew.

Seriously?

I do not really have any comments on most of the things you mentioned. Although, like everything else money touches, if there are lgitimate loop holes that are being abused we need to find out how they are abused, remove them temporarily, and then reinsert them to deal with the ways in which they are abused.

For the hardware/value thing. Everything has an intrinsic value to it depending on how often it is used and how much it costs to maintain. In my example of this I threw out some numbers. Let me see if I can explain more clearly though.

Let's say, for the same of this argument, that the US has 30 air craft carriers. Let's say that ten of these are thirteen of these are ten years or older while the rest were build within the last decade.

Let's now say that the newer carriers are able to do the work load of two of the old ones. Next let's state that the older carriers cost between 120,000 and 350,000 yearly for standard maintenance while special repairs can run upwards of 600,000 due to a shortage of parts or special fittings that were custom made.

These older ships are not used as often as the newer ones and some are dry docked ten months out of the year and are only used in drills. Of the older ones six fall into this category.

Now, since they are not used for much except drills and they are costing us at least 160,000 a year to maintain how would that compare to the intrinsic value of the use of that ship? Is the cost of repairing it on a yearly basis worth keeping it in service? How out dated are the internals, are more efficient methods of powering or building available that can make a lighter ship or strength weak points that exist in older designs.

Each of these questions, and tens more, can be assigned a numerical value through a math formula. You can then use this formula to map our which ships are being used cost effectively and which are not and get rid of or decommission those ships saving that money used to maintain them.

Oh and the taxes bit you were talking about. I did not forget about those state and other taxes. The issue is that almost all taxes generated from sales go to the state. This is great for the states but none of that money usually makes it to Washington DC. You have to think of state and federal taxes as two separate beasts non-connected to each other, or at least that is the way I see it. There are some projects that states have no purview to fund, such as energy research or Nasa. These kinds of projects are funded through federal taxes.

The problem with 'starving the beast' is that when you do so all areas of the Government must shrink because they can no loner be funded; that includes every single department and branch. While you accomplish spending cuts by doing so you actually shoot yourself in the foot at the same time because this also displaces jobs, especially those departments that have lead to some of the greatest breakthroughs in our history like Nasa.

There is no good way out of our situation and we have to choose what path we want to take before we do end up like Greece and are forced to take highly damaging cuts that will end up not only hurting the country but actually killing people who are driven into extreme poverty. That will not happen for a while though, I put it at, at least a decade if the economic growth were to stop and reverse this year without any additional policies to try and deal with the deficits and debt.

Anyway the point of all of that text is that people have to accept that we will have to pay more to both the states and the Government. And we have to accept that it is partially our fault, we made this bed by complacently voting in Congress members and politicians over and over again that have just kept the status quo rolling and never nutted up to challenging why oil companies need subsidies, why social security has never been adjusted so that it cannot be raided, why the retirement age has never been raised in accordance with the average lifespan, and why people can withdraw more then they put in. We continually elected officials that voted themselves pay raises that that actively take bribes from corporations that only think about their own situations.

We made this bed and we have to sleep in it; all political parties, all American voters. We have to accept that we have to pay more that we have to elect politicians that will make the hard decisions without taking crap from special interests and lobbyists, and that will not fold because of pressure from their constituencies who may only be wanting to hold on to their current benefits. How many older people about to retire will call up their senators and reps and say "hey raise the retirement age for social security!"? How many on welfare, regular or corporate versions, are going to advocate for reworking those systems? How many oil companies are going to willingly give up their subsidies?

Answer to all, not many if any. How do we then deal with the issue when there are so many people take are only out for theirs and not for the betterment of the country?

@ david-475776

I give you a +1 because I agree with your points on both the revenues pieces of the HCR bill as well as FDR's original proposal and how we need to be more suspicious of the way health insurance companies artificially prop up prices to pad their books.

When I mentioned HCR, I was more focused on the functional aspects, not the means to pay for them specifically...we all know that the sustainability measures that politicians cook up are composed of fairy dust and unicorn farts.

@ Geowil

Good points, but if we're on the subject of intrinsic value when it comes to military hardware like older carriers, etc. Please also take into account the opportunity cost. How much more would it cost us to utilize the newer ships to train green-recruits rather than have those new ships deployed with experienced seamen on missions while using the older, possibly less capable hardware to get the newbies functioning properly.

As for loopholes, agreed...many of my models revolve around changing the manner in which cash and earnings are reported. By doing as such, it takes away a lot of the incentives to abusing certain functions that actually do have a value outside of being a tax-shelter.

Though there are some codes that are just tax-shelters from the word-go...those just need to be repealed.

...we have to accept that it is partially our fault, we made this bed by complacently voting in Congress members and politicians over and over again that have just kept the status quo rolling and never nutted up to challenging why oil companies need subsidies, why social security has never been adjusted so that it cannot be raided, why the retirement age has never been raised in accordance with the average lifespan, and why people can withdraw more then they put in. We continually elected officials that voted themselves pay raises that that actively take bribes from corporations that only think about their own situations.

Completely agreed!

Politicians don't want to make the hard decisions. Hard decisions are unpopular and go against the vested interests of a number of constituencies!

1. If you attack subsidies, you lose support from oil and agriculture
2. If you attack fraud in social support, you lose votes from groups that coddle illegal aliens
3. If you try to rectify funding/functional gaps in SSI or Medicare, you lose the blue-hair vote and insurance companies try to sabotage your ability to function politically
4. If you try to reverse the flow of outsourcing or end horribly-unilateral trade agreements, you lose big corporate donors and lobbyists work against you
5. etc etc etc.

One of my favorite quotes of all time:

Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...

after they've exhausted all other options

--Winston Churchill

Now, how do we deal with the corruption in government and the influences from the lobbyists? There are a number of ways and we've seen them exercised throughout history. Heck, we see them even now in some parts of the world...but that is the extreme case and only should happen when all other options have been tried.

What we need to all do now is to keep a level head, hold all information we're given as suspect until we've had a chance to vet it and lastly, we need to be respectful of our fellow human beings and not be so singularly focused on superstitions and ideologies that we vote the foxes to be in charge of the hen house because they also promised that they would institute some particular policy that fits to a particular ideology/superstition.

If we can get a grass-roots movement of people to hold their politicians accountable for their votes, things would change considerably! However, I have faith that things will turn around in the next few decades. Fewer and fewer people watch TV exclusively to get all of their information. We all see that the MSM has a particular slant and doesn't report accurately in order to boost ratings and sensationalize. I have faith that as more people get news from more sources, they can make more informed decisions and the millions spent on campaign ads will have less sway than actual ideas and their execution

Try reducing the bloated pay of government workers first ! This is Obama pandering to his base.

Jim, I may not use the words "bloated pay", but I would agree that IF government pay is out of line with the private sector then I absolutely agree. We can also crack down on fraud in Medicare, government contracts, etc. With that being said, most Republicans aren't calling to curb pay of government workers, they are calling for massive program shutdowns that will result in massive layoffs. I just don't know why their panties are in a bunch over a bloated defense budget but could care less about just about any other sector.

This is truly a rare moment ..... you and I are close to agreeing on something. Must be a full moon ......

Really? Flat out your statement about your mom getting all her money back in two years is, PURE MANURE. The only way that could happen is she/you are illegal aliens.

jimsepa, just say the magic word PAY-O-LA..... They know which side butters their bread.....

If you really want to know why Congre$$men have $uch warm and fuzzy fealing$ for defen$e contractor$ ju$t think about who really fund$ the congre$$men'$ reelection campaign$. Follow the money.

Haha, Jim, despite the rhetoric, I think people might be surprised that we CAN agree on somethings. Our politicians and special interest media make sure that doesn't happen, though.

But where's the fun in agreeing, huh? Back to the program: Its all Bush's fault.

No matter what Obama does, Republicans will disagree. He could come up with a budget of $1 and create 1Million jobs a day. They'll still obstruct and disagree.

Now what is it that Sally Ann is wiping off her face ? Is it egg or is it — — — — ??

Many do not realize how social security can work. My mother, on the other hand, died of cancer shortly before retirement age. She had drawn a few checks, "retiring" somewhat early, but she never saw a return from her investment.

Her employer made a matching contribution. Some people get more out of SS than they put in. That is not the case for everyone.

Would you rather that your mother not have her SS benefits? Social Security isn't the nation's driver of deficit spending. Medicare and Medicade are what's killing us.

We have spent decades, stealing from the Social Security Surplus. Now that the time is fast approaching for us to have to pay that money back, the disingenuous want to blame SS for extending us the LOANS that kept the rest of the government running.

Really?

nonsense. Your mother must have made minimum wage. I started working in 1970, retired in 2009. For about 2/3 of my working career the maximum amount of SS was deducted from my income every year. I'd have to live to be well over 90 to get even close to getting back my contributions to the system. Take into account inflation, other investment that could have been made with mine and my empoloyer's contributions and I don't even come close to getting "my" money back. The stides on Social Security all show the same thing--lower income earners get their $$$ back and more, medium to high income earners lose $$$ on the deal.

Really, actually you are wrong. You mother did not get paid based on her 2002 benefits. She should have been paid on what her total contributions were. If that didn't happen, then someone screwed up big time. You don't get paid SS on you highest year.

Sally Ann is correct. There is no way anyone gets their money back from Social Security in two years - unless she only worked one year of her adult life. The stupidity of Really's claim is beyond blatant.

Actually, a wife will receive her husbands SS if he dies. So a woman who never worked will receive the higher benefit and could feasibly have never paid in, but receive more immediately.

However, if the problem is dealt with logically no one needs to suffer.

Making SS and Medicare need based will fix SS and Medicare. Anyone worth lets say $3 million at retirement will earn $2.9 million in interest over only ten years of retirement at 7% while never touching the original $3 million. At the same time they are living off SS and Medicare draining the system of $600,000.

This way, the rich retired who don't need the money will protect the poor retired who do at zero cost to the future taxpayers.

a wife will receive HALF of her husband's SS. I should take some out NOW because I might not live long enough to collect much. I'm over the "full benefit" age.

canary

Color me wrong, but half, and doesn't that get added to her benefit, even if she didn't work.

@ Really?: Think about what your mothers contributions, and her employers, could buy from the time She began paying into the fund until She began drawing out. Also there's the matter of "base interest" accruing. In other words, think inflation. Actually, the idea of "social security" flow was quite sound in the beginning, and would be today if the politicians didn't pilfer it, and enough people worked today. Systemic abuses are much more probable and costly through "medical management fraud" than are those of phony disability claims of individuals.

You have not successfully trimmed Medicare fraud by users. Besides, Bill Clinton already gutted the military during his time in the White House. No wonder Iran is thumbing their nose at us ... stretched thin already and cutting even more. Obama won't listen to Pannetta.

I trust the only guy in the room not elected and not under threat of losing his job for doing the right thing instead of the politically wise thing. Go Panetta.

But then I didn't trust Rumsfeld, so...

Our military might is hardly stretched thin. The US Navy and Air Force has far greater capability than any other nation. If Iran is thumbing their nose at us because they think we're stretched thin, they would be in for a very rude surprise if they were stupid enough to challenge us.

21st century patriot,

Good point since Iran got a taste of our mighty ships today when they tried to get in the way of us going through the Straight of Hormuz. Needless to say they didn't stop us. However, it only takes one crazy Iranian or American Captain of a ship to cause a international incident. No amount of a spending counteracts the crazies!

Captain, Launcher, 1 Away!

How about the wasteful spending on failed solar energy companies ? Lending money to them in light of a "going-concern" opinion letter from their CPA's was just plain stupid. But then again, you can't fix stupid can you ? Why .... it might diminish Obama's campaign contributions.. and that would be dreadful !

Jim / I'm not saying there isn't a whole lot more that has to be done, your points are all valid and should be dealt with. It would have better do deal with them first, but the order isn't as important as the completetion......this is necessary also.

I would agree to some extent .... our country must look to trimming all government waste, to combining duplications in bureaucracy, and to careful analysis of expenditures all the way down to much, much smaller levels of waste. This would be kind of like going through the budget ...... line by line ..... looking at everything.

Now tell me, which politician promised he would do that if elected ? I'll give you a hint ... it was very recent.

Departments of Commerce, Energy and the EPA is where we should be cutting the deepest.

Maybe we could eliminate the salaries of a few "CZARS" along the way ! Let 'em out the back door !!

Maybe just maybe we should stop providing aid and assistance to Illegals in our country first. No more welfare, housing subsidies, food stamps or healthcare for free. Warn Mexico if they don't stop the illegal invasion we ( the US ) will put sanctions in place against their government. Why is it easier for our government to neglect and threaten American citizens with increased taxes and fewer jobs than to enforce existing laws regarding immigration. The more illegals that pile on in our country will only serve to destroy our great nation and force all of us to become a third world country . Enough already. Close bases? I for one say close our Mexican border!

Great post WCF ! Expect your post to be collapsed ..... this is a liberal chat room.

So if we eliminated all those departments (say 47 billion), how much would we save? Plus eliminating EPA will probably mean that companies will not try to stop pollution, and that kills. A lot of the DOE budget is nuclear, do you want what happened in Japan to happen here. You may not remember, but this country was a polluted mess until laws were passed and enforced by the EPA. Just look at the news from China, and that was the situation here. If something breaks that keeps the environment cleaner. Plus those department are already taking huge cuts anyway. It just does not amount to much compared to the military.

"Line Item Veto?" Just about every president has asked for that, at least that I know of, since JFK. But EVERY congress has refused the president that power. (And yes, Bush did ask for that power, just as Obama did.) But, Obama does NOT really want that, as it would entail actually working, instead of going on vacation, or campaigning. (Of course, he could send his family on vacation, all around the world, or to bases being closed, so his wife can get her picture taken with the soldiers families, as she charges each military spouse several hundred dollars for each photo op, and give the money to the National Democratic Committee, and the taxpayers will pay for it.)

The US wouldn't have to be giving breaks to US Solar Energy companies like Solyndra now, in an effort to catch up with other countries, if not for the extremely short sighted imbecile, Ronald Reagan. A multi-billionaire Chinese entrepreneur recently thanked Jimmy Carter for subsidizing the early research into solar power that started the industry, and then thanked Ronald Reagan for cancelling that same research so China could take it over and he could become rich.

Planning for the future and being brave enough to try new things used to be an American trait and put us on top. Ron Reagan changed that, and we've been struggling ever since. The change we need now is to recognize Reagan's cowardice, and once again be bold.

And for those of you that think government can't do anything, please stop posting on the internet. It is, after all, something that would not exist without decades of US government investment.

yo frosty - pontificate much?

Conservatives love to blame the entire budget imbalance on a few small items that go to the poor. They never bother to add up the entire cost of those programs. If they did, they would find it was a mere drop in the bucket.

And then they love to add this one on:

"Maybe just maybe we should stop providing aid and assistance to Illegals in our country first. No more welfare, housing subsidies, food stamps or healthcare for free."

This one is just plain BS. Any illegal here cannot get those programs, plus pays sales tax, gas tax, and if they work on a fake SSN they get withholding taken out of their paycheck with no hope of ever getting it back. Illegal immigration may be a problem, but it is not one that adds more than a negligible amount to the federal deficit.

Having the richest among us pay taxes at rates lower than the middle class does increase the federal deficit, and is causing the wealth and income gaps in this country to explode. The only countries with greater gaps are all third-world countries. Pretty soon, all of you conservative posters will have to sneak across the border going south to find work.

WCF, illegals are the root of all evil, huh? What a frickin' cop-out. It's easy to blame 'them" for all of our troubles. Before you tout false numbers on the cost of illegals in America, you might want to check out Factcheck.org. I'm not condoning illegals in America, but deflecting the attention for the route cause of our financial problems means we will never solve our financial problems.

Your simple hatred for illegals shouldn't guide our fiscal decision-making process.

You ask where Congress has the power to provide for the Welfare, you don't read very well, do you:

provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

As to the cuts, well you have to start somewhere. Also, cuts to defense are mandated by the inability of the GOP House and GOP Senators to meet the guidelines they required last summer when they created the national debt crisis.

David, interesting you didn't include billions of dollars in corporate welfare to big oil as an example. I guess these give-aways are OK since they are in line with your political belief.

My bad. Add oil company subsidies, Auto Bailouts, TARP, etc.. to the list.

As far as General Welfare does the U.S. not provide defense, Laws, Police and Fire Services, Postal Services, etc. at what point does a person have to take some reponsibilty for themselves?

How about the welfare of the people that work and support themselves and dont rely on the "Government" for anything other than the normal things like roads, postal service etc. which are clearly defined in the Constitution? Dont you think their welfare should be taken into consideration as well?

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/04/local/la-me-welfare-20101004

Reporting from Sacramento — More than $69 million in California welfare money, meant to help the needy pay their rent and clothe their children, has been spent or withdrawn outside the state in recent years, including millions in Las Vegas, hundreds of thousands in Hawaii and thousands on cruise ships sailing from Miami.

State-issued aid cards have been used at hotels, shops, restaurants, ATMs and other places in 49 other states, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam, according to data obtained by The Times from the California Department of Social Services. Las Vegas drew $11.8 million of the cash benefits, far more than any other destination. The money was accessed from January 2007 through May 2010.

How did that add to the general welfare of the United States?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/17/senator-questions-benefits-to-adult-baby/?page=all

A key senator has asked the Social Security Administration to investigate how people who live their lives role-playing as “adult babies” are able to get taxpayer-funded disability payments — after one of them was featured on a recent reality TV episode wearing diapers, feeding from a bottle and using an adult-sized crib he built.

Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican and the Senate’s top waste-watcher, asked the agency’s inspector general to look into 30-year-old Stanley Thornton Jr. and his roommate, Sandra Dias, who acts as his “mother,” saying it’s not clear why they are collecting Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits instead of working.

“Given that Mr. Thornton is able to determine what is appropriate attire and actions in public, drive himself to complete errands, design and custom-make baby furniture to support a 350-pound adult and run an Internet support group, it is possible that he has been improperly collecting disability benefits for a period of time,” Mr. Coburn wrote in a letter Monday to Inspector General Patrick P. O'Carroll Jr.

How is this helping the general welfare of the United States?

Deductions for research and exploration costs are not corporate welfare. Cute terminology, but simply a COST of doing business. Many liberals include this as "corporate welfare" improperly.

We do research and explore ways to make our company more profitable and it's called the cost of running a business. Again, it's not what you know it's who you blow.

Monica ? Monica ?? Is that you ???????

1st sentence David. to lay and collect taxes. How about those oaths. Most of Congress can't perform their duties since they have pledged never to add revenue. Taxes can never go up, even if we run 2 wars on a credit card. We can't afford the excessive defense spending. And the jobs lost. We don't count reducing the number of teachers, police and firefighters, it was in the name of budget reduction. And so is cutting the defense spending. We already own enough weapons to annihilate the whole planet.

Well - This one will backfire on the economy, unemployment going up!

I was just reading that President Obama plans to dump $800 million dollars in US taxpayers funds into"Arab Spring" nations, continue the same level of aid to Egypt, even though it is being swept by radical Muslim Brotherhood agents, and spend billions more in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, Where the US was told to remove its troops. With our national debt at $15 million dollars and counting, unemployment over 8% the President demonstrates that he is Not serious about making serious cuts.

Hell no we know how much you rednecks love your guns.

Edward, if you can return to the womb you can get that 70's dollar. The problem is what is being pointed out. No one wants to give up anyting of importance. Either raise the taxes and tighten up spend or cut back at the most wasteful point and dance to the music. Soundslike most can't dance. Dancing is far easier than you returning to the womb!

Gateway

Once we begin manufacturing our own products again, and hiring our own people. We will be on the right track.

Employees in this Country are only making $1.00 and hour starting out, compared to 40 years ago, think about it? We are fast becoming a poverty nation.

That has been a reality since the late 70's. But not enough people were falling out from the bottom. Now the middle class is falling from out of the bottom of the bucket and it isnt funny. Next twenty years the so call rich will be gone and the wealth wont find a friend among their peers over seas.

Very good point ! We, as a nation, must embrace manufacturing with open arms !

I am not sure how the EPA will accept that.

They are not mutually exclusive ideas.

@homesick...If we do as you suggest, rather than going after the few "ripoff contractors", then you'll really have something to be "homesick" about when some idiot like Iran or Al Quieda decides to smuggle in a few "dirty" nukes across our unprotected borders and set them off in some populated areas...then you'll wish we had a stronger military...so watch what you wish for!

so old - what is STOPPING THEM NOW? Literally TONS of DRUGS flood the US and a low yield backpack nuke is about the size of an airline carry-on bag and weighs some 45 pounds.

It isn't that tough to figure out. My son and I work for a smalll supplier (revenue under $6m annually) to a large defense contractor and my husband works for the large defense contractor. My small company < 30 employees support other local and not so local small companies by subcontracting - some of those subs only have 3-6 employees. So the defense contractor loses business, my company loses business, and all the other small companies lose business. We all buy food, clothing, furniture etc., we pay cable bills, go out to dinner etc. you get my drift. The companies buy supplies, pay for health insurance, contribute to 401k's, hire accountants, attorneys and we all pay taxes. My family has already been thru one layoff in the auto industry and we took all the necessary steps to recover from that including downsizing our home, eliminating all debt and being very,. very cautious about spending. Another layoff and we are in trouble since we are in our late 50's and would not find other jobs easily.

Takes one to know one.

Sally Ann,

Since you are in to such "in-depth" analysis as evidenced by comment #20.1, perhaps you can name some specific "loopholes".... I mean give us good, clear descriptions to prove you know what you are talking about. Tell us exactly which "loopholes" need to be fixed.

Come on Sally, you know you have done some teabagging.

Well here's one for a start. Romney as CEO of Bain made a large income for managing it but got taxed on his salary at a 15 percent rate - saving him and costing the treasury millions of dollars. This was reported in Business Week.

GE paid almost no taxes due to loopholes - for a number of years. Many corporations have an incentive to keep jobs and profits abroad. They should have all those loopholes eliminated and reduce the corporate tax rate to 28 percent - revenue neutral - and lower than the 35 percent corporate tax rate of Germany - the world's second largest exporter after China.

Correction - our corporate tax rate is theoretically 35 percent and some corporations with domestic business only pay close to that. Internaitonal companies with loopholes they have purchased from Congress pay much less - many in the low 20's or GE much less than that in recent years - some say zero - I have seen other estimates of about 8 percent.

Germany's corporate tax rate was lowered to just under 30 percent in 2008. If our corporate tax rate were 28 percent with no loopholes, that would be revenue neutral and stop one set of incentives for American companies to move jobs and profits abroad.

I would rather support the HIGHLY INTELLIGENT purported "dumb ass" of Obama the stupid fuc king IDIOTS the rethugs ARE TOUTING (PARTICULARLY SANTORUM AND GRIN GRINCH) Paul is a non-starter and Romney should be called "Metro" (as in "Metronome") instead if Mitt - Flip, Flop, Flip, Flop (caters to whatever his audience wishes)

jim-1455434

Why are you asking this woman for specific examples? This isn't a court of law and even if it was, you CERTAINLY are not the judge. Let me ask you this, how could it be that there are DOZENS of unsubstantiated, unsupported claims by conservatives on this site, yet this is the only person that you are asking for examples. Because,by the way that it reads, it seems like you are picking and chosing whose arguments need to be verified and whose don't-and that COULDN'T be the case because that would make you a super-hypocrite who holds peoples opinions to different levels of scrutiny based on whether or not or not you agree with those same opinions. And that couldn't be the case, an objective guy like you, a hypocrite? No way......

@ trort, Come on Sally, you know you have done some teabagging.

Better Teabagger, than a lolly pop sucker who's stuck and eternally dependent upon the Gov. Tit.... you're gonna need that teabagger to keep your Gov. teet swollen and filled with the good stuff you been sucking on all your life.

Unfortunately, Obama is not a dumbass,... he is however, an AssClown.

@BONES #20.7,

If you will further read her comment #19, in the very first paragraph, you will see her verbage about "loopholes". Now, I understand you may have missed that or perhaps her comments were too deep for you to understand.

As a CPA, I find it both aggravating and humorous to see virtually EVERYONE rattle on about "closing loopholes" .... but virtually no one can define specific "loopholes" to be challenged. I have asked this question many times before, usually getting no response or a political response that is both vague and generalized.

"Loopholes" are special provisions put into law for a specific purpose. An example might by a tax credit of $1,500 that was put into law for converting a home A/C sytem into a high efficiency system. But is that truly a "loophole" ? How about the tax credit for hybrids ?? Is that a "loophole" ???

Again, "closing loopholes" seems to be a generally ACCEPTED concept .... but, without clearcut, defined examples of "loopholes", there is no credibility but only verbage .... hot air from people talking about something they know little or nothing about.

Tax laws are complex.

Unfortunately, Obama is not a dumbass,... he is however, an AssClown.

as are you

problem with that is, well with the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in particular, that the land for decades was not regulated as to what they buried in the ground and so on. With that in mind, it would cost more than the land's potential value to reclaim it and would take years to do so. Not to mention there are many buildings there which are historic landmarks which can NOT be torn down.
Another issue that nobody seems to even give a fig about is that by closing the shipyard here, that's at least 3k jobs GONE. yeah, I see this jobs creation working great now huh?

WHAT are they BUILDING?? We NEED maybe 1 eastcoast yard, 1 gulf yard, 2 west coast yards. The ship yards were built for WWII - hate to tell you folks but that war ended over 65 years ago...

I'm less worried about the profits of the military-industrial complex than I am about the use of federal properties for private enrichment.

Excellent post, oldefarte. I would perhaps add that private enrichment has become the basis of the military-industrial complex, much at the expense of the US Budget and Ameican Taxpayers. But your points remain valid as just as you stated them.

Peace

Some thing mentioned in the article that many don't realize is the impact on trade knowledge that is lost with a BRAC. DO you think all of these experienced trade workers will move to keep a job that is similar or will maintain the proficiency of skills. Sorry but when was the last time any of you realized the skill required to build compartments with complex systems that piece together better than many of your high end manufactured goods. So is this the legacy of craftsmanship you want to leave for our sons and daughters to go to war with?

Yeah, all those workers are slacker scammers, but the people you want to redistribute the money too are squeaky clean hard working people who just can't figure out how to make a living...

No those workers are under paid its the guys at the top that get the bulk of wealth. Think of the automotive industry its the same deal. The tard fat cats at the top get all the cash. To boot the fat at the top of the defense budget get over 80% of the wealth. The workers get dick for nothing in comparison. Defense spending is a whole new level of gross amounts of welfare on a different scale since the money mostly goes to contractors that do not do a thing except lie and buddy it up with there representatives in white house.