Cost effective? I think not. Aren't them damned illegals all "self deporting" anyway?

It would also be illegal.

Overly dramatic enough, Defense cuts isn't going to destroy America, the F-35 a 5th generation fighter that cost 323 billion dollars just to develop, When most of the world still only has 3rd generation fighters. And most pilots hate the F-35, talk about wasting tax money, we don't need all the military bases that are stationed all over the world. WE have 8-9 Nuclear submarines and that each submarine can destroy the world twice over,by itself. does any of this seem a bit excessive.

I'm a Republican...and these defense cuts need to occur...

Instead of cutting soldiers, they can cut out the F-35 and other projects that are a colossal waste of taxpayer money.

As usual, they dont do anything in terms of the debt, these cuts are part of that failure due to them not finding a solution and in the end, they just will change it and vote to remove the cuts.

Our system is so broken.

@annoyedperson - You are talking out your a$$. There is no way you can say that most pilots hate the F-35 because only a small handful have even flown one. And most of the world is not flying 3rd generation fighters, there and many countries that are flying advanced fighters that are nearly as advanced as our current fighters. As for your comment about our submarines, what has that got to do with the need for advanced aircraft. A submarine launched ballistic missile is a sledgehammer when compared toe an advanced fighter which is more like a scalpel, the two have vastly different uses and purposes.

I think the idea of these across the board cuts is a little ludicrous. This provision was meant as a kind of poison pill to force the two parties to work together to come up with a workable budget plan. Unfortunately neither side appears to be ready to blink. Both are simply sitting there waiting for this to happen so that they can point the finger at each other as the cause to try and score political points. We need to find a way to do away with this ridiculous two party system that has developed in this country and find a way to get things done.

Somewhere along the line, we're going to have to put an end to the "boys and their toys" when it comes to military spending. yesterday, a facebook friend shared a link with me.

http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=4800

This is a list of the contracts signed each day. Yesterday they signed contracts totaling $1,315,624,252. The 10th of May they spent $851 million. To play with the link, change out that "4800" with a smaller number or after 5 eastern, they should have today's. I found it unbelievable what we're spending money on.

Well, I agree with you. I'd rather see our troops remain employed by securing our border with Mexico - and also combating the drug violence and gangs WITHIN our border.

Why are we all such pansies that we refuse to deal with the real problems we face every day?

The middle east will collapse into the tenth century as soon as we pull out. Let's all work together to make them irrelevant so that they can enjoy their journey backwards and take care of the problems we have here first.

Keep the cuts in place. They can figure out many ways to get by with less, just like millions of us have in this recession. Start with pulling out of Afghanistan.

JS the F-35 IS a colossal was of damn money. and i KNOW PILOTS who have flow the F-35 and say its a piece of crap, and most their friends agree with them, AND MOST COUNTRIES that AREN'T ALLIED with us only have 3rd generation fighters. and what is the use of having 8-9 NUCLEAR SUBS that can EACH destroy the world over TWICE. ALSO WE don't need a military base in every country any more. MY POINT IS that A LOT of our defense spending IS A HUGE WASTE OF TAX DOLLARS. SO THERE SHOULDN'T BE a problem in cutting some of it out.

Ah crap i got mad sorry about that.

We're not the "pansies" that refuse to deal with reality. Our elected representatives from the top down are refusing to recognize that we have a major problem. Anyone who makes any attempt to deal with the problem is immediately demonized as being unAmerican or anti-poor or ...(you insert whatever word you want).

If our elected representatives of ALL stripes continue to duck the problem, we can go sit on the beach in Greece or Spain or Italy or...and enjoy ourselves as our country goes down the tube. We seem to have difficulty in reading the lessons that history has provided us in the form of many other civilizations that have collapsed by subsidizing sloth and indigence and penalizing thrift, investment, and saving.

Call me a prophet if you want, but we can either wait and see or get a grip and deal with business now.

How about closing down the some of the hundreds of unnecessary overseas bases and go back to the non-interventionist way of utilizing our military which was pretty much the standard prior to the 20th century?

At that point the military is nowhere near as expensive and thus lay-offs are nowhere near as necessary. Just an idea.

I can't see how downsizing the military in the name of 'fiscal responsibility' is going to end well for us given the resolve and determination of our enemies. I agree that the troops should be retained, and it couldn't hurt to put them to work on the border to keep them sharp in case something escalates elsewhere in the world. One would think the ~67 million + people who are on some form of welfare would be a good place to start making cuts. Its a shame we are going to sacrifice national security to retain "Unemployed/Government Dependent" as a valid career option in a capitalist nation.

All departments in the federal government can afford a "haircut".

Closing bases is the best option. There is no need to have so many bases. We have more military bases then the rest of the world combined. That is based off the 2010 Pentagon Base Structure Report. It listed 4,999 sites in the U.S., it's territories and overseas that it finances.

The US economy has become dependent and controlled by their US Military Industrial Complex. The US exists to create war.

Time to cut the military budget, rebuild America's infrastructure, improve our schools, protect our Borders and put America and Americans first, instead of giving "foreign aid" and helping build others countries.

peteMT

Well, I agree with you. I'd rather see our troops remain employed by securing our border with Mexico - and also combating the drug violence and gangs WITHIN our border.

Why are we all such pansies that we refuse to deal with the real problems we face every day?

The middle east will collapse into the tenth century as soon as we pull out. Let's all work together to make them irrelevant so that they can enjoy their journey backwards and take care of the problems we have here first.

Pete, have you ever heard of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878? It prohibits the military to be used for law enforcement except for what is authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress. And, yes, securing the border and combating drug violence, and gangs is law enforcement.

"In an outreach to conservatives, Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter went to a right-of-center think tank, The American Enterprise Institute, on Wednesday to deliver the message that the Obama administration is determined to avoid the automatic cuts which take effect in January"

1 - So the 'Supercommittee' Democrats and Republicans played a game of 'Chicken' to see which side blinked, and it appears that the Democrats are blinking like crazy.

2 - I find it hard to believe that there is not 5% of fat that can't be cut from the Defense budget.

It would appear that the Republicans will get their defense spending restored AND the spending cuts to 'pork barrel' domestic programs. I always said that Republicans make better 'poker players'. Perhaps it's time for Joe Biden to start calling the Republicans 'terrorists' again.

We need to keep the F-35 and the F-22 so we can get rid of some of the older fighters that cost too much to maintain. the F-35 can take the roll of 4 or 5 different aircraft.

The F-35 reminds me somewhat of that movie The Pentagon Wars. I think it was the Bradley Fighting Vehicle or something in the movie that was supposed to be a new APC: 17 years in development, several billion dollars later they end up with.. well, I'll let you watch the movie. Funny, satirical.. and, sadly, a grain of truth to the way weapons development works in the Pentagon.

i think many are missing the point. it's not just a 5% one time cut. the cuts keep coming and would devastate our military. this problem was created because it is a sin for a republican to compromise. you can't run a goverment like that and thats the problem. our goverment is failing to do it's job because one side says it's our way or no way. you have to work together to come up with a package of cuts and tax increases. you can't cut your way to a balanced budget unless you plan to cut social security checks in half, drop medicade payments so low doctors won't take them, eliminate all regulations because you won't have people tom enforce them

Devastate our military? you can stop drinking the coolaid, you're full.

Clearly you aren't aware of what was on the table to be cut if the super committee couldn't agree on cuts, the deal the republicans chickened out of.

Actually border enforcement and security is one of the constitutional duties of our military. Let them secure the border while the border patrol enforces the law.

Sequestration mandates a cut of $1.2 trillion over the next 10 yrs, not nearly enough to repair our damaged finances, and DoD is worried about 5%? That's a drop in the bucket compared to what's really needed. We should be reducing spending or increasing revenue at least $4 trillion over the same time period. Sequestration is being billed as catastrophic when it's not even adequate.

Hey MD-

cool your jets a little. could it possibly be that by coming home to take care of our own, some of our enemies could settle down a bit? most of the world that are angry with us, are so because of what we have done to them and their way of life. granted, there have been attacks on us and our way of life, but we need to stop trying to police the world and take care of our own issues at home. lets start with our borders and INFRASTRUCTURE. our country is crumbling physically. roads, rails, bridges, tunnels,- all need renovation/ replacement. how many jobs would this create? thus helping on the revenue side of the equation. and it wouldn't be a stretch to classify this as military expenditure as it WILL strengthen our ability to defend ourselves by giving us dependable routes to move whatever is necessary.

if you want to end all the "welfare", step up and hire some of these people who are trying to find work and yet feed their families. i get so tired of those who "demonize" those who have lost their way during this financial downturn. what are these people supposed to do when left with this one option. yes, i do think that an audit of these programs could uncover fraudulent activity, but that is no reason to degrade the entire lot.

GermanGem:

I sooo agree. Although I understand that the Military cannot be constitutionally used for law enforcement, I'd say that anyone claiming that's all they'd be doing on the border is delusional at best.

As long as persons of Syrian, Iranian and other middle eastern descent are crossing the Mexican/US border the job there would far surpass any definition of mere 'law enforcement'.

Considering the US spends as much on its military as the rest of the world combined, I think they should be able to absorb a few cuts - like maybe 50%. Spending as much on the military as half of the entire rest of the world should be good enough. Or how about shrinking the navy to just equal all of the rest of the navies on Earth? That would meand the elimination of a few aircraft carriers in and of itself. The greatest threat of our military is that it's just too pretty not to use, so we go looking for yet another war to start. It's amazing how many Americans are afraid of terrorists who use nothing but a wired shoe. Evidently the amount of money spent on attacking your enemies doesn't really matter compared to results. With a few wires and duct tape, the terrorists are getting us to spend ourselves into poverty. Pretty smart of them.

I can't believe that some of you are stupid enough to want the military to patrol the streets of American cities "to combat drug violence and illegal immigration." Then again, I can. My only question is, shall we change the standard military march to a goose-step before deploying them?

GermanGem

aprox. 90,000 soldiers out of work? what are they going to do?

wouldn't it be more cost effective to put them on the border to stop illegal immigration?

Nope. The price would stay the same. The only difference is that the money would go to the US economy. But, if we have to cut spending in social programs, the military might as well take a damn cut.

And by the way, those 90,000 in troop reduction wouldn't happen all at once. They would stretched out by 10 years or so.

MD1228

I can't see how downsizing the military in the name of 'fiscal responsibility' is going to end well for us given the resolve and determination of our enemies.

Last time I checked, we spent nearly HALF of the world's defense budget, and we have more aircraft and ships than the rest of the world. The defense budget could use a cut. This is my personal defense plan:

1. First, I would order the dismantling of 150 bases, mostly in Europe and the Mediterranean. This would save roughly $417 billion over the next decade.

2. Secondly, I would reduce all contracts with private contractors by 30%.

3. Next, I would reduce defense personnel by 8% gradually via attrition, saving roughly $125 billion.

4. Then, I would order a commission to cut waste in defense activities and contracting by about 50% over 5 years.

5. After that, I would reduce operation and maintenance costs by 10%, achieving roughly $312 billion in savings.

6. Finally, I would cut procurement costs by 7%, saving $106 billion.

Total savings=$960 billion over the next decade.

After achieving such savings, I would seek to reinvest some of the money to other defense projects over the next decade:

1. $30 billion in further cyber-warfare capabilities and systems.

2. $50 billion in additional R&D for unmanned drones and drone launch platforms.

3. $40 billion in funds to increase efficiency in the VA and to combat Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

4. $40 billion in investments to increase energy efficiency in the military.

Finally, I would seek enact a few reforms to strengthen our national defense.

1. Only generals can ask for new weapons systems.

2. Contracts with private security forces must be less than 11% of all service contracts.

3. Gross peacetime defense outlays capped at 6.8% of GDP starting in 2014.

4. Reinstate the draft; all people are eligible for service between the ages of 17 and 45 except government employees, nurses, and doctors. No restrictions on race, religion, ethnicity, or income status.

One would think the ~67 million + people who are on some form of welfare would be a good place to start making cuts. Its a shame we are going to sacrifice national security to retain "Unemployed/Government Dependent" as a valid career option in a capitalist nation.

One would also think that the top 5% in America could afford to pay a few more in higher taxes, that the defense contractors could face some reductions, and that the rest of America expect to see their taxes raised. But, I personally hope that the politicians don't screw up anything and do nothing, so that our deficits will be reduced to $500 billion in 2013, taxes will be much higher (and thus income inequality will decline), and we will have room to spend our economy back to health without the incessant bitching of the so-called "deficit hawks," who by the way never seemed to be concerned about the debt in deficit when Bush was charging everything on the US Treasury credit card.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

shandril:

I'm confused...are you really reading the comments? I've only seen one(I repeat ONE) comment advocating using the military for controlling crime and illegal immigrants within the borders. The rest who have mentioned drug trafficking or illegal immigration have done so within the context of manning the border, which is by no means outside a constitutionally correct deployment.

Defense Cuts? Umm are we not talking about Offense Cuts?

You can label me a Progressive Libertarian Liberal Conservative. Or whatever floats your boat. :)~

And in other news today, a report from the IRS shows over 35000 people in the US making $2million or more paid no income taxes in 2009 - a new high. Yep, just can't tax those job creators or they'll relocate all those jobs elsewhere.

Guess we'll have to cut those SS checks to Grandma and tell her to pull her own teeth out cause our country has a spending problem and not a revenue problem.

How much would it cost to give every hillbilly a weapon? I think that would be a more cost efficient defense than one the "Military Brain Drains" can come up with and it would be a lot more effective than some city boys who are too girly to actually shoot something other than their toes.

Ahhhhh yes, out spews the political war machine's fear mongering and begging for continued handouts... right on time! But then again, according to the "right" THAT isn't wasteful spending at all, just gotta keep squeezing it from the lowly middle class/poor for continued profits for your pals! Call it a 1% survival of the fittest "death panel" if you will... guaranteed to exterminate millions of mere rabble through simple attrition of the wealthy and powerful.

Hmm, Obama to avoid the automatic spending cuts to the defense department in January? Seriously, all I try and do when I think about this is just to sit back, relax, and think about what Mitt Romney told Obama in an ABC interview on April 16: "Start packing."

What makes you guys want to give this guy another four years, I mean really? You see the house burning already, but you won't go get some water to try and put it out. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has a top brigade of professional firefighters, all mounted strong on the tops of massive fire trucks, all of them, just waiting to hose out the fire!

I can understand that this nation needs and must have a strong military..it would be good however to have audits done on military contracts to ensure honesty among business and those in high office ..especially congress..of whom many have stock in said military companies,,therefore a huge conflict of interest has to be there on every contract. It would be great to know that all funds spent on our military is being spent wisely..but considering that most all businesses today are more for high profits than hinesty in their workplace...audits would have to be a must.

The other side to this is the cost of Bio-engineering our food these days. GMO's TE's, GE foods could potentially be the target! And the cost to research and alter a foods DNA in the seed is also quite costly!

So as we consider military cuts, possibly our unemployed veterans could help to observe and protect bio-engineering facilities.

What a con job on society to believe we have to give up our constitutional rights, social benefits, pensions, education and vast amounts of personal wealth that belongs to the American people to give the Pentagon half a trillion dollars per year to participate in this sharade of military dominance in the name of protecting us. The military industrial complex is laughing at us as they get rich and deprive you and your children a decent life.

Those that haven't served overseas probably don't know that our so-called allies CHARGE US to have a base in their country to defend their country. We waste hundreds of billions every year paying our allies to defend their territory. It is time we stopped being the world's cop and started looking out for the needs of our own people. Millions without insurance, millions without jobs, millions living on the streets in hunger. This madness needs to end and not by paying other countries that should be defending themselves

Well, doesn't everybody know that you can't rule the world unless it is by force of military? @!$%# them, I have had enough of that @!$%# for a lifetime. Sometimes, I know it is pathetic, but I wish for one of our bombs to go off in Washington and remove the lying scourge that really plagues the planet.

No, no don't cut the defense budget! When was the last time our "defense" was even in the game? Our offense has been in the game for decades, or should I call them our offensive.

I was told by a submariner it would take two nuke subs,one in Alaska and one in Maine to preety much destroy the planet. To bad the little boys in congress cant make nice.There seems to be a problem with cutting spending.I dont see Obama or Romney cutting spending,theyre corporate puppets.

Write in Ron Paul,who has the support of the military,he would close bases and end wars.our country is broke and we need to stop being the worlds police force.

Its time we slashed our defence budget, especially when it takes most of the pie.

German Gem

The only time the US forces can go on the border or perform military actions within the US borders, is if we are invaded by an army. Illegals don't count. Now, the individual Governors could put their militias (National Guard) on their own Borders unless the Congress or the President doesn't intervene. The states don't have a lot of money to do this AND the President has already stepped in against Arizona defending it's borders with Law Enforcement.

Ivan the contracts are being watched since the 70's with the days of the $600 hammer and the $1000 Toilet seat.

Sounds really bad doesn't it?

I don't remember why the hammer cost $600, but the $1000 Toilet was $1000 because of the specifications demanded by the Pentagon made it so special that it was that difficult to build.

It's been years since there has been a Federal catch on waste. The last catch was done by Haliburton, who caught a sub-contractor cheating and turned them over to the authorities. A lot of good it did Haliburton to do what was expected, they still got heat from congress for it.

DB

I didn't hear about that. Did Haliburton turn them in because it was wrong, or because they didn't get a cut. Haliburton are no saints.

justslapme - Amazing that the right are the ones promoting tax reform. I notice that the IRS says that they did nothing illegal. Tax reform is what is needed, not more "if this, then that" Let's get back to the KISS principle on taxes.

raddave

Pete, have you ever heard of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878? It prohibits the military to be used for law enforcement except for what is authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress. And, yes, securing the border and combating drug violence, and gangs is law enforcement.

Securing the border of the United States against invasion is not law enforcement. Yes, every night when hundreds of illegals run across the border, it is just that..an invasion. We should begin dealing with it like any other country would...with bullets.

If you doubt me, go to Nicaragua with a couple hundred of your friends, then run into Mexico past their southern border patrol and tell me how that works out for ya....

Enough of being the nice, politically correct guys...

DB akron - I once went out on an approvial trip for a private sector test stand. While there, I saw that they had other test equipment being prepared for government use. Their comment was that the requred testing was simple enough, but the required documentation and redundancy added significantly to the equipments cost.

It does not matter which government department is being cut, each one will come up with the same bs to keep their gravy train's axles greased. Cut them all, not by 5%, by 50% for starters.

****************LAUGHING MY ARSE OFF********************

I want the US Military Defense Budget Cut by 50%, throw all those overpaid expensive US Civilians on Unemployment and replace them with below minimum wage US Military Personnel.

"A US Military Defense Budget Cut of 10% will result in a Million (US) Civilians being Unemployed" - President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Penetta. youtube.com

GermanGem - aprox. 90,000 soldiers out of work? what are they going to do?

Like I warned before (now this makes it a "I told you so") they will first be thrown on Unemployment like trash. I warned all of you before and even gave you the numbers with links, and most of you called me a liar, so now here it is again (in this article).

Then since most will be more qualified than most of the current US Workers plus "Veteran's Preference" can you say displace the current US Workers (like before).

GermanGem - wouldn't it be more cost effective to put them on the border to stop illegal immigration?

Pay real close Attention: ILLEGAL ILLEGAL ILLEGAL AND Against President Obama's April 2009 Policy of, "US Military will not be used to secure US Borders" as stated to President of Mexico; restated once again at ("G") meeting at Canada to Canadian Prime Minister, "US Military will not be used to secure US Borders".

You got that GermanGem

annoyedperson - Overly dramatic enough, Defense cuts isn't going to destroy America, the F-35 a 5th generation fighter that cost 323 billion dollars just to develop, When most of the world still only has 3rd generation fighters.

Really what Generation is the Russian Federation PAK-FA.

annoyedperson - we don't need all the military bases that are stationed all over the world.

SHOWS JUST HOW MUCH YOU DO NOT KNOW. Most of the current US Military Installations are Logistics Support Bases to provide things Worldwide within a reasonable amount of time. Also as far as Germany, Italy, Japan as the losers of WWII, their Unconditional Surrender Terms that limit the sizes of their own Militariaries and also the current Status Of Forces Agreements.

annoyedperson WE have 8-9 Nuclear submarines and that each submarine can destroy the world twice over,by itself. does any of this seem a bit excessive.

For someone that NEVER worked in the Nuclear (Weapons) Field your post indicates that YOU KNOW NOTHING.

itgranny - This is a list of the contracts signed each day.

Like I said before in other Newsvine Topics, how about letting the US Military throw the almost 100 Million Overpaid Expensive US Civilians employed by or contracted with the US Military on Unemployment. The US Military Personnel do not get all that money.

scot7209 - How about closing down the some of the hundreds of unnecessary overseas bases and go back to the non-interventionist way of utilizing our military which was pretty much the standard prior to the 20th century?

How about this you go scream at the US Politicians that you Hired (Elected) and tell them to get the US out of the United Nations, no more UN Mission Nation Building Iraq, UN Mission Nation Building Afghanistan, UN Police Action Korea (aka Korean War), UN Police Action Vietnam (aka Vietnam War), UN Mission Nation Building Somalia, etc..

With 17 trillion handed out in just 2 short years to investment banking, tell me why a trillion to the military impacts our bottom line. This is the problem with the average citizen. You have no idea what a trillion means. When 17 go to a non- or dys- functional part of America, that only hurts the blue collar sector, why do we look to cut social or military programs. In fact Americans benefit from both. During that period where 17 trillion was handed over to the banks, 4.5 trillion went directly overseas.

Cut all U.S. taxpayer aid to Pakistan and Mexico for a start.

Nobody wants to cut anything. Only way i could see is to freeze everything across the board. Or make increases to everything just 1%, nothing exempt. Anything one tries to cut somebody yells "people will die if you cut that".

Our entitlements and interest on the debt eats up 70% of the money we take in. SEVENTY PERCENT! Somebody better grow some nads and get our massive debt and spending under control or we will be greece in the not too distatnt future. People that think it would suck to cut some programs now, wait until 100% of our revenues go to entitlements and interest and the poorest will get cut off from everything and be devistated. It's VERY easy to see it coming.

Defense spending should be cut right back to where it was before the illegal war that the Bush administration used as a reason to more than double the DOD annual budget from 382billion a year to more than 775billion a year. 5% is a joke.

Well, maybe it's time we re-examined posse comitatus. Which I'm fully aware of.

We've got problems that our elected officials won't deal with. Problems that half of Americans seem to turn a blind eye to.

I'd rather have our military doing something to directly help the people IN THIS COUNTRY by securing the border to Mexico than seeing their lives and billions of dollars squandered on people that would see us dead.

Wouldn't you?

Absolutely Pete. I'd much rather see those defense dollars spent right back into our own economy where it's needed.

Oh fer Chrissake! Let's be real!

In 2000, when Bush was elected, the Defense budget was $260B. Now, in 2012, the Defense budget is $680B!!

The Budget Control Act will cut $55B from the Defense budget. That still leaves them a budget of $625B!! And that's not enough? Does anyone want to talk about pigs lining up at the public trough? Our economy is in tough shape. Every other program faces cuts, why can't the military make do with less?

Now, let's do a little math... Sequestration will reduce next year's budget by $55B. Planned cuts take it down $487B over 10 years - that's $48.7B next year. So the reduction next year would be ~$99B.

The planned cuts Panetta is looking at are 72,000 from the army in 5 years and 20,000 Marines in 5 years. Assuming that's linear, 92,000 / 5 = 18,400 soldiers gone next year for $99B in cuts. Are you f'ing kidding me? It takes $99B / 18,400 = $5.4M per soldier to keep a standing army???

There is something seriously wrong with the Defense Department's math! This is political blackmail at its worst!

*****************STILL LAUGHING MY ARSE OFF***************

MD1228 - I can't see how downsizing the military in the name of 'fiscal responsibility' is going to end well for us given the resolve and determination of our enemies.

Did not work too well after World War I; part of the Cause of the 1929-1939 Great Depression; the "Peacetime" US Military caught with their Pants completely off sailing around in 1911-1917 Battlerams during the 1940s, World War I Helmets, Bolt Action Rifles, etc. prior to World War II; according to the Investigations, Findings and Recommendations of the US Congressional 9/11 Committee President Clinton's Gutting of the US Intelligence Agencies and his Cut to the Bone Reduction In Forces (RIFs) of the US Military left the US wide open to the 9/11 2001 Attacks.

MtMike-571674 - The US economy has become dependent and controlled by their US Military Industrial Complex.

You are a product of the US Military Defense Industrial Complex, as created by President FDR to get the US out of the Great Depression, as he realized that US Consumerism would never get the US out of the Great Depression but the Sales of "War Materials" to France, Great Britain, Russia, etc. would and did 1939 before US Entry into World War II 1941.

Massachusetts Anarchist - Considering the US spends as much on its military as the rest of the world combined,

This was explained to you before what do I have to do draw pictures for you (how's this: me 8====>o you). The Chinese and Russian Federation and many other Nations get every Chinese Yuan's, Russian Ruble's, etc. worth as they still take Civilians out and execute them for Contract Fraud, Contract Disputes, etc.; while the US must to keep the US Civilians from taking the US Military to Court and tying up the Contract for Decades reward the US Civilians for Contract Disputes, Contract Defaults, etc..

Massachusetts Anarchist - Or how about shrinking the navy to just equal all of the rest of the navies on Earth?

Before or after the Fact that the Chinese PLAN are cranking out a modern 21st Century Blue Water Navy as fast as they can to protect the current Chinese assets that were lost by the US and US Allies to the Chinese and Russian Federation due to President Obama's March 2009 Policy.

Massachusetts Anarchist - That would meand the elimination of a few aircraft carriers in and of itself.

Uh huh, just like President Obama as Commander In Chief demanded of Secretary of Defense Gates, April 2009, the Elimination of one USN Aircraft Carrier Strike Group. In 2012 President Obama backpeddled like a muther f**ker after the hundred thousand US Labor Union Workers that maintain the USN Aircraft Carrier Strike Group threatened to drive down from Virginia to Strike on the steps of the Whitehouse. Of course the US Labor Union Workers are not too smart as after CVN-65 USS Enterprise completes it's last mission it will be decommissioned, striped and scraped, so still instead of 11 USN CVNs there will still be only 10 like stated in President Obama's April 2009 US Military Defense Budget Cuts.

Massachusetts Anarchist - It's amazing how many Americans are afraid of terrorists who use nothing but a wired shoe.

Ok, so let's mention the President Obama Libya Failure that Resulted in the Fundamentalist Islamic Jihadists in obtaining 20,000 Shoulder Launched SA-7 Anti Aircraft Missiles to shoot down US Commercial Aircraft. Or all those 21st Century Modern Weapons being sold to the Fundamentalist Islamic Shia Republic of Iran by the Chinese and Russian Federation, with Fundamentalist Islamic Shia Republic of Iran then giving these to the Fundamentalist Islamic Jihadists Worldwide (according to SOS Clinton's US Department of State).

Freshieee,

*****************************ROTFLMAO********************************

Ha, ha, ha, how about this Freshieee you go calculate the numbers of US Civilians by each State that will become Unemployed by your not so well thought out "Solution".

DB Akron - Ivan the contracts are being watched since the 70's with the days of the $600 hammer and the $1000 Toilet seat.

So the prices went up again, the last time you posted the prices were less. Loss of your credibility DB Akron.

DB Akron - I don't remember why the hammer cost $600, but the $1000 Toilet was $1000 because of the specifications demanded by the Pentagon made it so special that it was that difficult to build.

More like you do not know. The Hammer was made of a material alloy that would not spark when used with working on Munitions (High Explosives). The Toilet Seat was for USAF Transport Aircraft so that even if the USAF Aircraft went inverted to avoid being shot down (loss of many lives and a multi million USD Aircraft) everyone would not have a sh!tty day (or night).

AND THE REASON FOR THE HIGH PRICES: US Code, "US Military Must Buy Only US Products, Goods, and Services" (there are rare US Congressional Exemptions), as Made In US, requiring the US Military to pay those "Fair and Living Wages" instead of being able to go to Walmart, the Chinese or Russian Militarises and buying identical items (actually superior as automated with laser measurements manufacturered; instead of manually made and assembled by US Labor Union Members.).

john-737278 - Haliburton are no saints.

Neither are the hundreds of thousands of US Civilians of the other over 3,000 US Civilian Contractors. The reason that Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater (Xe) became a Political Football was due to the Fact that they hired lots of US Military Veterans where in the other US Civilian Contractors cheaped out and did not. So these US Civilian Contractors that cheaped out had Employees that did not have Experience in Combat providing Support to US Military Personnel, not to mention also not already having Required Security Clearances. So without all of the Minimum Contract Requirements they did not get the US Military Contracts, and then started to complain (Lobby, Bribe) their US Congressional Representatives.

I would start sling a bunch of names around about the Contractors hired by the US Department of State; but, I have to work with them sometimes (where and who is spending the Billions per year of US Taxpayer Money, and not accessable by the Afghans nor the US Military).

Joe-755363 - Securing the border of the United States against invasion is not law enforcement. Yes, every night when hundreds of illegals run across the border, it is just that..an invasion.

Nope against President Obama's April 2009 Policy.

Joe-755363 - We should begin dealing with it like any other country would...with bullets.

Nope not going to happen, August 2009 President Obama wants to Legalize the over 23 Million Illegal Aliens at the US as stated to the Associated Press at Guadalajara, Mexico:

And immigration remained a sore spot. While Obama has said he'd like to start crafting an overhaul that legalizes millions of Mexican immigrants, there's little chance of Congress acting this year, since even top administration priorities like health care and climate policy are moving slowly amid heated partisan debate.

President Obama already told all of you what he intended in August 2009 as to why it was NOT a surprise when he came out with his Policy to circumvent US Congress and US Immigration Laws that, "Only Criminal Undocumented Workers will be Deported".

mikela - Defense spending should be cut right back to where it was before the illegal war that the Bush administration used as a reason to more than double the DOD annual budget from 382billion a year to more than 775billion a year. 5% is a joke.

How old are you mikela. Adults are here on Newsvine "Get Smarter Here" to discuss Facts not sling emotive non-factual uneducated opinions that belong on your personal blog or Faceslap (Facebook).

Facts:

Definition of Illegal: against law: contravening a specific law, especially a criminal law

1. Afghanistan after the 9/11 2001 Attacks:

a. US House of Representatives US Law.

b. US Senate US Law.

c. UN Mission Afghanistan (International Law): UN Mission Nation Building

2. Iraq:

a. US House of Representatives US Law: H.R.4655 "Iraqis Liberation Act of 1998", later becomes US Military Operation Iraqis Freedom. President Clinton's Justification as listed in Section 2 "Findings" of US Law, Weapons of Mass Destruction.

b. US Senate US Law: 2002 Iraqi War Resolution that allowed us to attack Fundamentalist Islamic Al Quada, Fundamentalist Islamic Jihadists that we chased from Afghanistan during http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arxKhJIjIiY on the Old Silk Road into Fundamentalist Islamic Kurdistanis Controlled Northern Iraq as 2002 Operation Hotel California.

c. UN Mission Iraq (International Law): UN Mission Nation Building.

President Clinton and President Bush covered their arses with US and International Laws, and abided by the US Law Restricting the US President's War Powers, 1973 War Powers Resolution; unlike President Obama that did not even notify US Congress of the Attacks of Libya and President Obama's use of Billions USDs of US Taxpayer money as Discretionary Spending to pay for the Fuel, Bombs, Personnel used by NATO at Libya.

We do need to bring our troops home and post them on the border to repel alien invaders. To those who say "its illegal" for the military to do their damn jobs, no it is NOT illegal for the military to be used to defend our nation from foreign invasion. IT IS THEIR DAMN JOB to defend us against foreign invasion.

It isn't the military's job to occupy 790 bases in 130 countries playing cop to the world. It isn't our job as taxpayers to cough up billions of dollars to pay people who hate us to let us defend them. Screw them! We've got our own problems here at home. We're being overrun by 3rd world garbage right here. We need our military to set up mine fields, razor wire, machinegun emplacements with overlapping fields of fire, and artillery fire bases ranged to blow to pieces anything that tries to creep, crawl, or fly across our border. They need to create a dead zone that would require a buzzard to pack a lunch to cross.

david-475776

52 child. And yes, the war was illegal. It was misrepresented and based entirely on lies in order to get support. And it did get very little support and brought this nation to it's knees.

And there were absolutely no Al Quaeda nor Taliban in Iraq period until your criminal President opened the door for them to gain entry into Iraq.

As far as you actually believing that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were upstanding citizens and covered by International Laws...

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld convicted of war crimes by international Tribunal

They're only protected by the U.S. in so long as they never leave the country.

President Obama had every right in the world to act accordingly with NATO. I'm sure if he had actually did anything illegal, you comservatives would have already had him impeached.

Convicted in what court, Kuala Lumpur? Yea that would hold a lot of sway. Muslim judges, in a Muslim country, what did you think was going to be the outcome?

President Bush and VP Chaney have both left the country, they are still walking around.

As for the lies to get support, well:

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

and that is just a few. Notice that most of them are prior to 9/11.

Congress should have thought of that before they allowed the trigger to be pulled. Let the small percentage of the military complex and as well the social programs take the hit. Who's fault is it? They'll just have to figure something out wont they...

And Obama does - how about anyone in Congress? They can't even agree on a budget because they are so full of themselves. What a mess! What does Obama think we can do - Borrow more money from the Chinese?

Neither party is right in this case. Both parties (or, as I prefer to say, the Republicrat party) have been in collusion for far too long in order to divvy up the spoils, but they have become so expert and focused on mining the rich vein of public funds that they have completely abandoned anything resembling stewardship of our resources. At the end of the process, our once-rich natural resources will have been thoroughly depleted, our youth will be even less well educated than they are now (I know...but it is possible), and the average US citizen will be left to ponder the throbbing pain in the collective rectal orifice, and wonder "wha' happened?"

We already have the power to destroy all life on our planet 10 times over. U.S. military spending is 7 times that of China(our nearest competitor in defense spending) and approximately 50% of all of the world combined. We have approximately 900 military bases in over 125 nations (though some of them are minimal). That does not include the destroyers, submarines and aircraft carriers scattered through-out the seas of the world.

A 5% cut would limit our power to destroy life on Earth only 9.5 times. We can't have that! Our enemies would see us as sissies. Give up that S.S. check now, Granny. Hey, you scrawny little puke of a kid, put down that free lunch immediately. We gotta have more nukes!

David, from your post it seems that you recognize that the problem exists on both sides of the aisle. Yet you just want to blame the right because you "prefer"? How droll...

3.5 years ago Obama had as much experience with the military as Romney has. The right and left are fully embedded by defense lobbyist contractors...so don't give me the right BS. They do not have the security of us at heart only their pocketbooks people.

ALL agencies need cuts but that will cause unemployment of those lazy do nothings that are counting on the huge pensions so what do you want..left? right? Defense is sure as hell not the only agency that is out of control with waste and fraud.

Sure see a lot of geniuses on here about the F35, subs etc that know everything because they "know" someone...geez. Aircraft, equipment and technologies go out of date....computers...remember those little things that change so fast????????????????????????

A balanced budget amendment would only cause the collapse of our economy.

Romney cant do it. Read his proposal, the capital gains tax cut will cost 600 billion in 2 years. He cant make any promise to do this without hitting defense, or taxes, or GOP favored spending plain and simple. Despite what FOX tells you, its not black people on welfare that are the reason for the debt. Lets see with Romney

No withdraw in Afghanistan or Iraq

No increase in revenue

No medicare cuts

Increased defense spending

Capital Gains cuts at 300 billion per year.

What part of this has he fooled you all on again?

Umm, yeah... an austerity program is going to really help the economy right about now. Why are conservatives so clueless when it comes to real science or economics? You can pass a balanced budget amendment, but GDP will probably contract about 20% in the first year. Not to mention not a single conservative has come up with some sort of plan on HOW to balance the budget. Oh wait - I remember: we'll LOWER taxes which will somehow magically give us MORE money. We have libraries for a reason. You guys should find some Economics 101 books and start there.

Ron Paul 2012

They are clueless, I think maybe we got slingshotted after WWII because the rest of the industrialized world was smoldering. I am starting to think it was never our place to be number 1. Half the country thinks like these idiots. Everything is some bumpers sticker solution, and there is good and evil and Romney is good, he was evil 3 months ago, now he is good, why? They dont know, Obama spends too much, hey pretty easy. He is a liberal spender, lets elect a conservative non-spender, who raises 45 million in 1 month why? HMMMMMM how is he going to pay that back? Obama submits a 4 trillion dollar spending cut package (sure some is fluff), they say NOOOOOOOO, block it, and call him a spender. WHAT? Idiots.

Why are conservatives so clueless when it comes to real science or economics?

Why are liberals so clueless when it comes to real science or economics or fiscal realities?

Keep spending what you don't have...great concept there. Borrow to spur growth. Yah that works. Until you run out of the money. Notice how all of Obamas green energy jobs/companies are failing left and right? They work while they have stimulus money. They fail when it runs out.

Austerity works.

The problem is not allowing it to actually work and run it's course

Austerity will bring about price corrections across the spectrum, from homes, to salaries, to jobs, to cost of goods, etc. Yep your salary will probably go down, but so will everything else...it's all relative.

What doesn't work is continuing to borrow.

Look, stimulus only works for a bit. That's why it's called that. Just like energy drinks, it's a boost, but in the end, you need to rest and catch up on sleep. You can't keep chugging energy drinks..you know what happens.

The US needs to rest and go to sleep and stop spending and learn to live within it's means. Of course it's going to f--king hurt and suck for everyone.

Stuff and non-sense. Romney would spend even MORE than Obama. If you think that Mitt Robot will cut back on spending, you're completely deluded. The Republicans are all for cutting spending until they take power. Then it's spend baby spend. The reality is that we don't need to spend $700+ billion/year on 'defence'. Most of the military budget goes to boondoggle weapons programs cooked up by the Congress.

James, why are conservatives the clueless ones? They cut revenue and not spending, then when the bill comes due, they oppose any raise in taxes that would offset the spending costs. Austerity, as shown in 1937, will only cause the country to fall back into recession.

Romney hasn't proposed a single idea that would reduce spending in Washington. He has mentioned combining a few federal departments, but I can't imagine that would outweigh the cost of his plans to expand the military (which is already bigger than the next 20 countries' militaries combined, by the way).

If you want real fiscal responsibility, you'll need to vote for Gary Johnson on the Libertarian ticket.

Romney will do what he does best if elected:

enrich his 'investors'.

So who do you think that is? The American people, or his frat brothers in the military industrial complex?

Great idea let Romney send the rest of the jobs to China and turn the US into a police state so he can run the debt higher while giving his super rich friends bigger tax cuts than they already get.....

In case you can't tell Elliot that is called sarcasm....

Obama has been enriching his buddies at great expense to the American taxpayer ... stealing the hard earned money and giving to the states and people who will tow the line on the wrecking of America .. you're in the dark ... the dems and Obama have already caused such harm we will suffer to correct his mistakes

Rad, revenue increased after the "Bush tax cuts"

Liberals should figure out that there are other ways to increase revenue besides raising tax cuts and slowing growth.

Romney nor Obama will spend less. That's why we need a conservative Congress. Vote out all the big spenders in the House and Senate, and vote in those who will stand up to whichever administration is in the White House.

James the only "science" conservatives know is "creation science" which is plain nonsense... as for Austerity try telling that to the EU and see how badly they beat the whale snot out of you...

Also if you look at the Hoover administration VS the FDR administration results you will find that during Hoover's austerity measures we fell further into the great depression. Under FDR the GDP went up 1200% in one year because he increased taxes to 91% and the rich spent money to get tax credits...

Bush was at fault for destroying the economy with "clueless Republican economics" and you would have us return to his policies under Romney...

“Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results.”
― Albert Einstein

And another that applies to you and the rest of your friends personally...

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein

elliot-3020456

Liberals should figure out that there are other ways to increase revenue besides raising tax cuts and slowing growth.

and conservatives should figure out that giving a tax cut to the wealthy and paying Corporations to move their jobs overseas is not GOING to increase growth either.

I still say, cut out all fat (social, corporate, and military spending) immediately. Stop the lobbyists from buying any member of congress, and let's start using the money on things we really need.. like improving our infrastructure, updating the power grid, etc.etc.

elliot-3020456

Rad, revenue increased after the "Bush tax cuts"

Liberals should figure out that there are other ways to increase revenue besides raising tax cuts and slowing growth.

Actually, it did not increase and added $2 trillion to the national debt. Conservatives need to stop listening to false talking points and learn the truth.

Romney would outsource our military to the lowest overseas bidder. US Army, brought to you by cheap chinese labor....

Translation. Replace tax code to benefit the 1% rich.

JonSmith93903

Romney would outsource our military to the lowest overseas bidder. US Army, brought to you by cheap chinese labor....

We are already doing it in Afghanistan. We provide security while China and the rest of the world swoop in and buy up longterm contracts for minerals and rare metals.

Rad, you blithering idiot, look it up and see the revenue levels.

Here I will help you. Notice that the outlays are higher than the receipts while the receipts increased. That means that it was spending that added to the debt, not tax cuts.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

The debt may have gone up but not because of the lower tax rates. That is due to spending increases that outpaced revenue.

How can you tell such a lie and expect people to believe your @!$%#? Go wash your mouth out with a shotgun, I'm done with you.

Elliot, you forgot one thing, we went into a recession in 2001, and you see for the first four years, revenue was DOWN. It did not increase because of the tax cuts, but because the economy was improving. However, if the cuts were never in place, then the revenue increases would have kept pace with the outlays, which they did not. When they tax cuts were passed, the republiCONS used the reconciliation process to avoid a filibuster of them. Because they increased the debt, after 10 years, the tax cuts could only be for 10 years. The bitter truth is those tax cuts added $2 trillion to the National Debt. AND, if you notice the Estimates for this year and beyond go up, based on the tax cuts expiring.

It did not increase because of the tax cuts, but because the economy was improving

And there you have the argument behind cutting taxes. I'm glad you agree.

However, if the cuts were never in place, then the revenue increases would have kept pace with the outlays

Now you are getting economic theory. Many would and have argued that at a point in the tax curve you can raise rates and end up with less revenue. Look up the Laffer curve.

The US needs to rest and go to sleep and stop spending and learn to live within it's means. Of course it's going to f--king hurt and suck for everyone.

The US also needs to rest, go to sleep, and start making everybody pay higher taxes (only fair to help the economy). Of course it's going to f--king hurt and suck for everyone. Never mind that that is happening in Europe and that we have plans to cut the deficit WITHOUT hurting the economy.

elliot-3020456

It did not increase because of the tax cuts, but because the economy was improving

And there you have the argument behind cutting taxes. I'm glad you agree.

Not necessarily. According to the Tax Policy Center (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=1001457), the Bush tax cuts did little to help the economy. In fact, in some cases, it has hampered the attempts made by small businesses to get capital via increased government borrowing.

However, if the cuts were never in place, then the revenue increases would have kept pace with the outlays

Now you are getting economic theory. Many would and have argued that at a point in the tax curve you can raise rates and end up with less revenue. Look up the Laffer curve.

Technically, according to that same Laffer curve, there is a point on the Laffer curve in which cutting taxes will reduce revenues. In my opinion, the Laffer curve (which even a Keynesian like me can believe in) is slanted to the right, giving a large margin where taxes can be raised. We are, in my opinion, a bit too far on the left, beneath the optimal tax rate for gathering revenues. I say repeal the Bush tax cuts, increase the top two tax rates to 45% and 39.6% respectively, place the corporate tax at 25% with a minimum rate of 22.5%, and raise the capital gains tax to 25% with a single refundable tax credit for investments made for startups and other growing businesses.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

And what happened to revenues after the tax cuts? They went up.

Indicating that we were on the right side of the bell curve where raising taxes would have decreased revenue.

elliot-3020456

And what happened to revenues after the tax cuts? They went up.

Indicating that we were on the right side of the bell curve where raising taxes would have decreased revenue.

Dude, did you even read the website??? The tax cuts DID NOT help the economy. But the economy recovered nonetheless. If tax cuts don't work in a bad economy, why the hell would they work in a good one when taxpayers would just store the money in a bank instead of consumer more to grow the economy even more??? And how come did the CBO estimate the cost of the Bush tax cuts at over $3 trillion over the next decade??? We are obviously not on the right side of the bell curve; I say raise taxes back to Clinton rates and raise them a bit more on the wealthy. That would definitely help our fiscal outlook. And by the way, elliot, how would we know that we are on the right side of the bell curve??? That would only be by raising taxes and see if revenues drop after the recession. Sorry mate, but the truth sides with liberals on tax policy.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

No, elliot, he doesn't agree with you. You're trying to claim that reducing taxes increased revenue. He's claiming that it wasn't reducing taxes but an improving economy that increased revenue. You're claiming that it was the lower taxes that improved the economy. It's actually quite difficult to demonstrate that reducing taxes improves an economy because there are many variables involved with an improving economy. We also have examples of an economy going into trouble despite having low taxes. Bush tax cuts were still in place during the most recent crash. So, it's not as simple as seeing a situation where an economy improved and taxes were lowered and now saying the economy improves when lowering taxes. On the flip side, it's not as straightforward as saying taxes were low and a crash happened therefor lower taxes caused the problem. It's a far more complicated beast.

The major problem with both parties as well as the general population is that they don't actually study econ and those in power can easily trick voters into thinking the economy of arguably the most powerful nation on the planet is simplified to 1 or 2 variables....

Raddave

Elliot, you forgot one thing, we went into a recession in 2001, and you see for the first four years, revenue was DOWN. It did not increase because of the tax cuts, but because the economy was improving. However, if the cuts were never in place, then the revenue increases would have kept pace with the outlays, which they did not.

You don't start getting jobs until businesses decide to expand. Right now the majority of businesses don't have a lot of excess capital to play with. They have huge concerns about a 1.5% average growth in GDP (slow revenue increase) the rising cost of benefits (ACA has accelerated the cost instead of slowing it), rising cost in energy (volatile), and other regulations (the Obama EPA has no problem laying down new rules over congressional objections), so they are sitting what they have, invested where they have it. They will not going to expand until revenues increase significantly enough without the fed or something else making the cost exceed what revenue increases they can expect.

When the ACA goes down in June, expect a bump of some businesses that do have sufficient Captial to occur within 2 months. Then it will take 12 - 16 months for those who don't have sufficient Capital MINIMUM for those that need regulation or tax relief to build sufficient Capital to expand.

I have some work right now, because some small specialty companies have enough business available, enough capital available, and a high enough profitability on their specialized business that they can expand, but we have to have the construction costs to come in at the budgeted amount or it won't happen.

I know several other business fields where Owners aren't paying their bills (health insurance company for one), are scratching hard (including not taking a paycheck or paychecks) to make the payroll who need regulation and tax relief, just to get in the black again. For those expansion could be several years away.

doggysaywhat, yep outliers sure can change things. Probably also explains why recessions are cyclical in nature and no one has the definitive means to predict their occurrence other than very broadly. However, no one can deny that having more discretionary income doesn't boost an economy as it is invested in whatever, the caveat being that over time the tax cut can no longer be viewed as increasing discretionary income.

Just a side note... Years ago, issac azimov wrote the foundation series of science fiction where the great hari seldon could accurately predict socio-economic events mathematically. Sure could use that type of math today.

Bunch of misguided souls on here who think "austerity" is a program. It's not. Austerity is simply what happens when you run out of money. Only idiots (e.g. the Paul Krugman's of the world) honestly think you can avoid austerity by simply printing more money. Ultimately, all that does is devalue the dollar and raise prices - sort of an indiscriminant tax on everyone, rich, middle-class and poor. (e.g. Have you been following food prices lately?) Is it no surprise that the dollar has lost 90% of it's value since the Fed was created?

Yes American, I would agree that having discretionary income is usually a good thing. However, there are situations where such discretionary income is better left in the hands of those that will spend it and better left as additional tax revenue. It really depends on what the goal is. You also run into a situation where a tax cut is spent discretionary income or saved discretionary income. In an economic downturn, you want to increase overall spending so increasing spent discretionary income is a useful tool. If the goal, on the other hand, is to significantly reduce deficits then you must also consider the total cost of a tax cut. I actually prefer targeted tax cuts as opposed to across the board. Those are often better directed at a particular area for a lower cost.

On the flip side however, you don't want to have taxes to the point where it significantly reduces the flow of a particular product or entrance into a new commodity for a business. Ideally, the tax is set at such a point where the demand is still high enough such that profit is made in the area which encourages investment despite the tax. Various areas can be taxed at higher rates and not actually affect entrance into such areas. Other areas need to be taxed at a lower rate to encourage entrance.

For example, a business entering into an new tech field without much guarantee of profit would be a good example of a tax incentive. It mitigates the possible loss. However, safe investments can be taxed at a higher rate due to the lack of risk.

These reasons are also why politicians and the general public should leave such decisions to experts in the field as they have actually studied this area. They're usually better at determining what types and when tax breaks/increases are the best route to improve an economy or pay down debt. When politicians become involved, it becomes a question of what's best for the particular state or state representative due to the effect of lobbyist.

Romney hasn't proposed a single idea that would reduce spending in Washington. He has mentioned combining a few federal departments, but I can't imagine that would outweigh the cost of his plans to expand the military (which is already bigger than the next 20 countries' militaries combined, by the way).

There's a simple reason for this. If one is wanting to create negative PR for the opposing candidate, (aka negative campaigning), then getting into too many details, and putting one's self on the line (aka comming up with a plan, vs critisizing) isn't what they would want to do. Kerry also did much the same when, in regards to the Iraq war, Kerry suggested "I would do things differet/bettr" as suggestion for why people should have voted for him, vs Bush. However the details wrt how he would do things different was kind of lacking. I don't think he wanted to go on the line, actually proposing something...

I really don't think either party would want to get into too many specifics, especially as suggesting any particular cut could also alienate certain voting blocks, and cost them in the elections. Remaining non-specific, tryng to only say "positive things" that might appeal to the voter (except when it comes to making the other guy look bad), and leaving the specifics that might be unpopular is a way they can get votes without having to have their own feet held to the fire. Keep in mind also that Romney is the same guy who can be pro-life when he's speaking to one group of people, and then become pro-choice when another group of potential voters is there. Quite conveniently IMO... It's kinda how politicians tend to roll....

DB Akon, a bit problem here is that there are companies that do have a lot of capital, but they don't have the incentives to create the jobs here, vs over seas.... Part of the problem is lack of sales (because the consumers don't have the disposable income to actually buy more), part of it the whole race to the bottom preference for "cheap labor", and part of it is that technology has also made many jobs obsolete, so the businesses simply don't NEED as many employees anymore.

Honestly, I don't think what we're looking at is a cyclical down turn in the economy, and perhaps is more structural in nature. Then we can add the melt down from 2008, many having arguably got addicted to the near 0% interest rates and all the printing of "funny money" by the Fed, then further add that as of now the smaller and mid-sized companies seem to be the real job creators in the US (in terms of number of jobs created), rather then the big multi-nationals.... Treaties such as NAFTA, and the whole move to globalization arguably has added a lot to this as well.

Now this isn't to say that Obama hasn't added anythiing; though and this said I don't think giving Wal-Street everything it wants, while ignoring other interests in society is exactly the answer either (which would include a fair tax code, for everyone, and not just a few); but among them I would put thinking that trade agreements with China or the like would be an answer to creating jobs here at home. If one increases trade, that does NOT necessarily give the company more reason to create jobs HERE AT HOME. It would give them reason to create more jobs, but closer to the market they'd be selling in. If one increases exports to China, the logical conclusion would be that US based multi-nationals will open up a plant in China, and employ more Chinese, not American workers to work at those plants....

It's also similar to how Toyota and other Japanese car firms have plants in the US, building their cars here, when Americans are buying them. They'd rather produce closer to the point they're selling it at, rather then bother to ship the car over-seas, after manufacturing it, to then sell it there. But against some of his detractors, I would also have to say that I don't think supply side economics is the entire answer. The demand side of the economy is also not unimportant, and if one wants to sell, the prospective customers need to be able to buy. In a business transaction, BOTH PARTIES are needed to make the transaction happen. If supply and demand can't meet, there really isn't reason for much to happen. Now if people had bought, even when they didn't have the means, it would be because people have convinced themselves to buy on credit, regardless of their ability to pay. If we were to take credit, and debt out of the equation, ignoring the demand side altogether, could not work.... The other thing is, if it's the smaller companies that are hiering more, and yet also the smaller companies that are struggling more, then perhaps some attention to what would help eutepneurship (sp?) an what would help the small businesses (and not just the big guys), would also be warranted....

James-546195-1049965

Why are conservatives so clueless when it comes to real science or economics?

Why are liberals so clueless when it comes to real science or economics or fiscal realities?

You think the republicans aren't going to keep spending, James? Where have you been since 2000? Spending is IN the picture. The only part that is an option is to borrow and spend or to tax and spend. So far the liberals are about equal taxation from what I can see and the conservatives want to make the middle class into the third world so they can spend without borrowing quiet as much...Until they need more cash for new bomb tech and another war.

Obama is now in his 4th year of office and the U.S. still does not have a budget !

The circus is in the White House where realistic budget proposals are only a laughing matter.

4 years and no budget??? wow, 4 more and he'll match the previous "President"!

Chris Obama is only wanting to cut what should not be cut .. our defense ... do away with his increase in government jobs the second he took office and he is slobbering to make more of these jobs well huh ... vote buying positions .. foolish

4 years without a budget? Gosh, I do believe that's the house's job...the currently REPUBLICAN house's job. You're blaming Obama, yet the slackers are those in the house.

Love how liberals have memorized their talking points. Too bad they are so misinformed.

How many budget proposals has Reid sat on? How did Pelosi manage to avoid passing a congressionally mandated budget? Fact of the matter is the Democrats have not passed anything resembling a budget in four years!!! The senate is full of democrats BTW, it is their job to pass a budget, not kick the can or demogogue and tell lies.

Now, Bush did indeed have a budget(s), unlike Obama, the king of deficit spending. Bush racked up deficits of 410 billion per year, Obama's record is 1.413 TRILLION per year. Oh, yeah, your hero Obama is spending 1.003 trillion more than Bush per year, but, hey, bet you still want to blame Bush for all of Obama's ineptitude.

Note the source here:

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-debt

jim-1455434

Obama is now in his 4th year of office and the U.S. still does not have a budget !

The circus is in the White House where realistic budget proposals are only a laughing matter.

that is a lie, budgets have been passed every year since Obama has been President. But, it is Congress that passes them, not the President.

mygirl1. I think you missed this part of the article that you posted.

In fairness, however, Obama can't rightly be held accountable for the 2009 budget, which he didn't sign (although he did sign a $410 billion pork-laden omnibus spending bill for that year, which is nevertheless tallied in Bush's column). Rather, Obama's record to date should really be based on actual and projected spending in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 (plus the $265 billion portion of the economic "stimulus" package, which he initiated and signed, that was spent in 2009 (Table S-10), while Bush's should be based on 2002-09 (with the exception of that same $265 billion, which was in no way part of the 2009 budgetary process).

And, FY 2009 was that year that reached $1.4 trillion. Massive fail on your part. Also, just because the article was on NPR, does not mean it is liberal or even objective. It was written by Jeffrey Anderson, who is the director of the Benjamin Rush Society. A group that is opposed to "Obamacare."

Apparently, most of you don't know that it isn't the President's job to put together a budget....that fun job belongs to the House, which is currently in the hands of the Republicans. Maybe you'd better put the blame where the blame actually belongs.

As an Army veteran, I agree that we do need to make SOME cuts in defense spending, but I think that we have to make these cuts wisely. For example, we probably could do without the F-35 right now....upgrade the jets that we currently have....we can always make the F-35 once our feet are back on the ground. As for military bases overseas; many of them are placed in strategic areas as a landing/take-off zone for our aircraft in case of insurgencies. However, many of the smaller ones could be closed. Bringing home thousands of soldiers and putting them out on the streets with no jobs won't help the economy....in fact, it'll hurt it even more. There are people now who are either not working or working jobs that pay less than they were making before.....putting more people on the streets, especially our brave men and women, is not the answer to fixing our economic woes.

What people don't understand, especially Republicans, is that without adding revenue (raising taxes), we can't pay our bills. Any family will tell you....with no extra money coming in, bills don't get paid. You can cut and cut and cut; however, it will get to a point where cutting is not going to work any longer. I believe I read somewhere that 60-80% of the American public are agreeable to a small raise in taxes if it meant putting our economy back in shape. Why the Republicans proceed to block ANY suggestion of raising taxes is ludicrous. And, giving tax breaks to the wealthy and large corporations will not make jobs. We've been doing that for many years now, and it hasn't worked yet....why do they think it they continue that it'll work?

What is understandable is that when consumers do not have money to spend...they don't purchase products; and when they don't purchase products, that means that manufacturers have to cut back on production, which means putting more people out on the street. It costs the states a lot of money to pay for unemployment....trust me! Even though we have money taken out of our checks for unemployment insurance, it has been spent many times over with so many people out of jobs. The Republicans want to cut unemployment....but how is that supposed to help? Again, with no money, people can't pay their mortgages (or even their rent) and have to live on the streets....which means more crime, more problems for our police forces, etc.

The whole thing is a big circle jerk, and no one seems to understand the situation or want to do anything to solve it. All the Republicans want to do is block everything that has been suggested to help get us out of the doldrums we're in....catering to Grover Norquist, who isn't even an elected person and who has NO business getting involved with government. As far as I'm concerned, any politician that signs Norquist's paper should be thrown out of his/her job for treason. They take an oath to do the bidding of their constituents, who hired them in the first place and pay their salaries, but they refuse to do so and listen to one man. This is treason and goes against all that they've sworn to do when they take the oath of office.

All in all, I'm pretty pissed off.....I can't understand why so many people can't see what is being done to the lower and middle class in the name of big business! Our government is no longer "OUR" government....it belongs to the corporations that bribe our politicians to do their bidding. This isn't Democracy anymore....it's become Corpocracy! And, it's pretty darn sad!!

Steve West-1303645 -

You got this one wrong big time. Check out the sites below, if you have the courage (but you won't, because you don't).

25 months of private sector job growth, while government jobs have gone down, and the increase of government spending has slowed more under Obama then GWB. Yes, it has increased (which it is supposed to do during a recession), but at a much slower pace then with the previous administration.

I swear, you repubs will hold onto any lie you're told as long as it supports your distorted view of reality. And if the truth dares to conflict with your view, then it (in your mind) becomes the "lie". In your world, 'truthiness' becomes a variable. It can be bent like a pretzel into any shape that is convenient for you at the time.

Obama - President, Leader of this Great Nation, really didn't lead anywhere.

If a balanced budget amendment had been in place in 1942, we would have been unable to fight in WWII. We need to maintain a certain amount of flexibility in our system. Rather than hamstring our elected officials, we need to do a better job of electing. There is no mystery about the bunch of lying, thieving, cheating ba$tards we have running our states and the federal govt. The better question is why Americans haven't taken to the streets to collapse our "elected officials" and the SCOTUS. Until we take the money out of the electoral system, it will only get worse. And we need to power of voter recall on any elected official as well as the ability for citizens to initiate referendums on their own when their gutless "leaders" refuse to do what's best for the country. Why is it that an honest person would shun trying to fix the problem?

It owuld also be a good thing to start putting some of our elected theives in prisons. Blago needs some company.

I am a conservative. I don't consider myself a republican, though I lean that way more than I do democrat. I find it hard to believe there isn't at least 5% we could cut out of defense spending. I support our guys 100%, but even the soldiers I speak to could figure out 5% waste in about 10 minutes time.

As for raising taxes on the rich. Go ahead and do it...you will dissappointed. That will not work to generate revenue and will likely backfire. If you raise capital gains taxes history has shown less tax revenue comes in. England raised income taxes on the rich and was surprised that less revenue came in. Those pesky rich people are smart....they buy things like muni bonds or other instruments that are income tax free. They take their money off-shore. People who propose this as a solution don't understand the first thing about economics. Bad idea. Politically popular but won't work in reality. Typical liberal idea.

Raise corporate income taxes?...even dumber....the rest of the world is lowering corporate tax rates and the U.S. already has some of the highest corporate rates in the world. Talk about exporting our jobs...this is sure way to do it. Raising taxes on the rich is dumb and this is dumber! Those who support this must not have ever taken an econ class in their lives.

The only responsible thing to do is make somewhat gradual cuts to spending. That combined with economic growth will bring us out of this. Obamacare needs to be scrapped. We have no idea how much it will actually cost, by all accounts the initial estimates are way off as it will actually cost much more. How much more I don't think anyone really knows.

Republicans want to cut entitlement spending. To me this is a no-brainer. If we can't afford to pay for them, which we clearly can not, then we need to cut them. Unemployment wasn't designed to go on forever. No one should get more weeks than they were orginally promised. That may sound cruel, but it was designed as a temporary income stream to get people by until they can find the next job. I realize these times are tough and jobs are hard to come by, but perpetually extending it is plain stupid. All kinds of corporate welfare should be stopped...that includes subsidies for oil, wind, solar, etc. We can not afford any of this. Sorry to these businesses, but you will need to function without taxpayer money.

I would argue democrats in congress created this mess with fannie and freddie, which goes back years and years, but there is plenty enough blame to go around. Greedy bankers, republicans, democrats, Presidents, average Americans buying houses they could not afford. All can be blamed, but at the end of the day spending has to be reigned in. If we do that the business world will gain confidence and be willing to invest for growth. Obama has created a climate that businesses just don't trust what is going on and they are sitting on their dough, which quite frankly, is smart business. Romney doesn't exactly excite me, but Obama is a socialist. One single thing has made the U.S. great and that is capitalism. We have lost that right now and if we continue to go down the socialist road we will be Greece in 20 years. Most of Europe is in tougher economic shape than we are because socialism doesn't work. It sounds good on paper but it doesn't work in reality. Capitalism works if we let it do its thing. It isn't perfect but it is better than any alternative. Everyone - from the poor to the rich - benefit from capitalism. It doesn't care if you are black or white, man or woman.

As Winston Churhill once said, "Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

I believe I read somewhere that 60-80% of the American public are agreeable to a small raise in taxes if it meant putting our economy back in shape.

Damn. Does that mean their taxes??? If it does, than I'm one of 'em.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

Obama is now in his 4th year of office and the U.S. still does not have a budget !

Obama has submitted a budget each year as require. All of them were turned down nearly unanimously each year.

The last Budget passed was Fiscal 2009. Bush vetoed it because it was significantly more spending than he submitted. Fiscal 2009 (started October 1, 2008) was sent to Obama Jan 21, 2009 and HE signed it. It is the only budget he has signed, and then he blames all the spending in it on Bush.

For 2010 & 2011, neither the democrat run House or democrat run Senate passed a budget. After the Republicans were sworn in on January 3, 2011 put together a budget, passed it and sent it to the Senate where Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid Tabled It. Ditto for Fiscal years 2012 and 2013.

The Democrats haven't proposed a budget for 2012 or 2012 either.

The problem isn't the Republicans, it's the Democrats.

People are Crazy.

Haven't you noticed the increased violence against Americans abroad? That is usually a pretty good indication, that we are a shade low. These people only attack us if they think we won't retaliate whether we simply don't have the gonads to do it or the ability.

Well, IMO - the whole government needs an over-haul. So, with so many out of work, let's try this - cut out all the politicians who will then survive on the same system that they severely cut, and the one they expect the rest of us to live on . Medicare - Social Security fixed. All that money spend on Government employees will now go into Medicare and Social Security fund. Next - put the businessman to work! You need a businessman in the White House, etc., to balance this mess the politicians made. Put the lawyers back into the court room, where they belong. They are NOT businessmen. So, when their unemployment benefits run out, they can do what the rest of the unemployed do, suffer. They can then spend the time filling applications and HOPE they get the job. The fix is simple - put American people back to work. In doing so the budget will be cut. All the dead weight sucking the life out of taxpayers money will be alleviated. Every one who works hard know that if we ran our households, like the government does, we would be homeless on the streets. YOU can't waste your paycheck and then realize that you can't pay your bills. But the government does. Their answer - MORE TAXES. Just say NO more! Oh, and perhaps less vacations and the use of Air Force One for the 1st Family.

Fubot you are incorrect but you are mouthing the words of Obama and his campaign rhetoric. His spending has not gone down, but leaving out selected items it would appear that way...only in appearance. He is well known for that trick esp during an all out stance to get re-elected to finish his agenda and it ain't fixing the economy otherwise we would be moving and we are not, we are stagnant.

Didi and Itgranny, lets review shall we... In 2011 the republican controlled house had to generate a FY 2011 budget that in reality should have been passed by oct 2010 by the democrat controlled house and senate in 2010.

Next the house did pass and forward a budget plan for FY 2012 and one for FY 2013. Neither of which did senate leader Reid or obama pursue for the most rudimentary discussion or even reconciliation as provided by the US constitution. The house is required be the ones to originate revenue bills, but a budget bill only says how money will be spent and that the senate has the constitutional right to offer amendments to anything coming out of the house or vice a versa. ie the house submits their plan, the senate can submit their own version and reconciliation occurs for final approval, veto or ignoring by the potus. Anything that a potus submits is just a courtesy wish list for expenditures.

Seems that the roadblock lies in the senate and obama is afraid to prod senate leader reid. In other words, it is not the houses job to continually pass budgets untill the senate agrees with it.

BTW didi, when a family can't generate the income to sustain their desired lifestyle do they keep on spending beyond their revenue/credit lines or do they try to bring expenditures closer to revenue? Even in a time of crises don't they reallocate their expenditures to meet the crises?

When a family of progressives can't meet their budget, they borrow more money, max out the credit cards, spend said monies on gratutious incidentals and then demand that they be given more money from the government. Obama is merely the frontman, it is Jarrett that controls things.

Darius,

Great post. We can start by de-funding Star Wars (now called Ballistic Missile Defense). We've poured 3 to 4 billion dollars a year into this boondoggle since the early 1980's, when Edward Teller convinced Ronnie Ray-Gun that it would defend us against a missile attack from the Soviets. In fact, Teller's real motivation was to ensure a never ending flow of funds for his Lawrence Livermore Lab. Leading scientists (e.g., Hans Bethe) pointed out from the beginning that the Soviets could easily defeat Star Wars by putting decoy warheads in their ICBMs. After 30 years and more than 90 billion dollars, Star Wars still doesn't work. Let's put it out to pasture along with a number of other boondoggle projects that Congress has funded as corporate welfare projects for defense contractors in their states.

One we have the best heathcare in the world. Any person can to to an ER and not pay for anything. Most Hospitals were built by Religious organizations. We had a very good system until the Government stepped in. Can you name one thing the Federal governemt does well? The Medical system should be privite, if a doctor is bad the privite sector will get rid of him. You can't say that about a bad teacher. Government like Unions do not allow the consumer of the goods to fire bad employees. The Federal Governent is susposed to have and fund a military force (read the Constitution) it is one of it's jobs, unlike Social programs which are not. How did humans survive before Social Security???? Soon 2 workers will have to contrubute over $600 each, each month to pay for one Recieptant. (boy is that going to go over well). Other countries that are not friendlys like China are building up (adding aircraft carriers, stealth technoligy) were we have stopped. Just like the late 1930s. US Military should have the best and latest to deture anyone from thinking about attacking us. For the last 25 years our enemies no longer fear us,, we have become a joke,

Pretty sure the DOD can get by with less just as medicaid and public assistance or discretionary programs can as well.

The real problem lies with the attitude of cut that program, but not mine. If Americans didn't specifically fund a program like medicare or SS retirement let all government agencies and programs have equal cuts across the board.

If the politicians screwed the pooch on medicare and SS retirement funding then reform the programs to make them sustainable. The right has offerred up one solution, why can't obama and company offer up an alternative? That's right, there is an election coming up and obama says that he deserves to be re-elected. Hmmm, the house is willing to take the heat for their idea in an election year but the senate and obama isn't?

Dan, your post is not true at all. I live in California and there is no law saying you can't call them illegal.

No raddave, you Californians are more focused on "important" things such as legislating the content of a Happy Meal !

Is California bankrupt ? Are they paying their financial obligations or are they passing out IOU's ??

Raddave corrected you on one point, I'll correct you on another.

I can't speak to the number of available 'free meals" in California, or wherever you are, but here in AZ I am not aware of 3 free meals a day for ANYBODY except prisoners and trust me Sheriff Joe Duncel(Arpaio) would cut those if he could. Further, I believe meals set up on a NEEDS basis though I admit I don't follow the issue closely enough to know if there might be a few places that offer 3 free meals a day. What I would question, if it exists, is whether these meals might be both Federal and State run rather than a requirement of Federal law. It sounds like you may be speaking about California only. If that's the case perhaps you should refine your comments with an "in California..." notation.

Additionally, regarding your skepticism on "self-deporting", I'd suggest you take a look at the compiled statistics regarding illegals. There was a report out just a month or so ago that showed that illegals coming into this country had slowed to a trickle while illegals leaving this country seemed to have risen. Some is attributable to deportations and some, according to the report, is attributable to "self-deporting" simply because the lack of jobs (mainly in construction). I'll check later and see if I still have the link to the report. However, I suspect you already know about the report since you seem to be especially concerned that "illegals" getting help they don't "deserve". Thankfully, I was raised to believe you help those in need REGARDLESS of the particular circumstances involved. My mother read her Bible and KNEW what it said so she didn't listen to the faux believers who simply spout pablum they heard from any old preacher with an agenda. Read your Bible and understand what it says please.

Jim, no one is "legislating the contents of Happy Meals." McDonalds voluntarily reduced the size of them, everywhere, not just in California. California is actually "less broke" than Texas and actually gives more money to the Federal Government, than it receives.

Gotta have someone to hate, eh, Dan? Exactly which school is it that provides three meals a day?

That Obama plan to destroy the economy is working.We had neighbors go back to mexico.Self deportation!

jim-1455434

No raddave, you Californians are more focused on "important" things such as legislating the content of a Happy Meal !

Is California bankrupt ? Are they paying their financial obligations or are they passing out IOU's ??

Well, Jim. The citizens of CA have about as much control over the politicians as you do. Laws are enacted and rarely, to never, put before the citizens. Why? Because they knew they will never get the junk passed! The same way it is done in WA DC, and the high level courts, and everywhere else in the USA. So, don't generalize, and blame the citizens. Instead, put the blame where it belongs. Go ask them your question. Perhaps we will send some your welfare recipients back your way.

so we can only cover 2 oceans? one on each coast? liberals are stupid. id you want one carrier you really need three. one on patrol, one in drydock and one at dock as backup reserve. and prior to ww2 we had several mini carriers like lhd's today but prop planes could use it like a regular carrier. we only had 5 800 ft essex class carriers. do everyone a favor and read more non fiction.

Before World War 2 the United States had USS Langley (De militarized to an Aux Carrier transporting airplanes to military bases Langley is Ex USS Jupiter which was a coal delivery ship) CV 1 USS Lexington CV2 and USS Saratoga CV 3 built on Battlecruiser hulls. Then we had USS Ranger CV 4 which was the first carrier of the USA Built from the keel up. Then USS Yorktown CV 5 USS Enterprise CV 6 and USS Hornet CV 7 and the last Carrier built before World War 2 started for USA USS Wasp CV 8 Wasp was built to take up remainder tonnage from Washington 2 Navy Treaties. By the Time World War 2 ended USS Lexington, Hornet, Yorktown and Wasp were sunk and We had 24 Essex class carriers built.

I believe I read plenty of Non-Fiction. Enough to know that its the George War in Iraq and the War in Afghanistan that has destroyed our economy, Not Social Security and Medicare. But then, Neo-cons will never believe this.

The United States is NOT the policeman of the world. its time for us to hang up that badge and reduce our military to 50 billion a year and no more. And yes, its time to mothball the expensive Nimitz carriers leaving 2 active and 2 reserve. And its time to cancel USS Gerald R. Ford and USS John F. Kennedy, boondoggles if there ever were one.

And thats my opinion.

Well don't worry - Clooney will have another fundraiser for Obama. Come on you don't think Obama hasn't got his hands in some rich super pac's pocket? It's all so dishonest and disgusting it's hard to vote for either - oh yeah I'm going Ron Paul.

Ill write in Ron Paul,the other two are almost clones when it comes to voting records.

Everyone wants us out of wars and to close military bases,so why dosent he get more support?i dont see any of his ideas as wacky,people just dont want to do what is needed to keep the country from collapsing.

Ron Paul is a member of the "New Right". Republicans, Liberterians, Tea Partyers are all the "New Right". They just use people for the voting base. Good strategy, eh? 3 against 1. Study up on wikipedia - Paul Weyrich and you will understand that it doesn't matter which one wins. We lost - Democratic Republic of America is Done and over with. They say we'll just have to get used to it. Maybe we already have.

most sane response on here!

It is a little unclear, but I assume you are referring to yourself as "a Muslim that was born in Kenya"

Chris lots of numbers, what in the past 3 plus years have you seen that makes you think that the democrats have an answer for the economy. Take away the voodoo math that is being used for unemployment and you will see that there is nearly 17-20% of Americans that can't find a job. The 17 million million (17 trillion dollars) in debt has not been addressed and they have not once passed a budget. They have invested in failed companies, are killing the healthcare system, they have not protected the borders, wasted trillion of the stimulus dollars, killed Americans without due process, waste hard earned tax dollars on vacations and conventions for the annointed ones, laughed at the constitution and infringed upon the rights of every American. They are the butt of jokes about what not to do. You know, what would a democrat do and then do the opposite.

Yeah, four more years of this crap and there won't be anything to save.

Common Obama is doing what he can,the printers are going full bore and he isnt afraid to create insane debt or get loans from china.

Because his evil twin who wants to spend (and has publicly stated it) more than the pentagon is asking for, is our alternative.

As far as the appointment as "world's sheriff" the pentagon did not self proclaim. President Bush in 1991 made the appointment with his "new world order" speech.

He lied...Bush was an Awarded Member of the "New Right". The world will soon come to know Romney and . the 2000+ Republican Politicians are NOT Republicans. They use the names: Repulican, Liberterian, Tea Partyers for a voting base. They are the followers of Paul Weyrich whose ideology to defeat the Democratic Republic and replace it with his Theocracy. They follow his handbook to the letter. Easy reading is Wikipedia: Paul Weyrich. They have been infiltrating our system through the White Evangelical Christian Church for 40 yrs.. Recruiting/grooming candidates for office = Weyrich's FCF (Free Congress Fdn). Writing our Laws = ALEC (Am. Legislative Exchange Council), Media = America's Voice. Look, it's OVER - The Democratic Republic of America is Done & Over with. The "New Right" has the $$, guns, police, prisons, judiciary, 21 States and the LAWS they wrote and pushed down our throats. Do yourself a favor and read the information and you will totally understand what they have done, why, when, and what is in store for our future. Once Romney is "crowned"...they have the military!!

janis, what does that make Liberials, Democrats? Followers of Satan? Get a life. Concertives, just want the Country to Follow the Constitution. and not adding all these social programs that are better left to chirches and the privite sector. Government is not a good picker of jobs, and spending money. The stimulas has spent more then $500,000 for each job it created. It would have been better just to give people $25,000 and ended it there. The money would have been better spent. Heck they could have just given every citizen the money ($8 trillion divided by 240 Million workers.). The left want everyone on food stamps, waiting in lines for medical care, waiting for the windmills to charge your vehicle, food, and driving government approved cars, homes and jobs. We will be told by the liberal press that everone is loving their new government controled society. While the democrats in congress spend and go on trips to waist more money to buy the voters for the next election. The problem is, soon it will be over when another country take over the US and the people will cry out, what happened? Why didn't the world love us, why didn't the Government protect us, even though we did't have a military.

I thought you were talking about the most bloated, waseful, and fraud-ridden part of government which is Social Security and Medicare. Of which will soon take all the money of the government to pay for. At least the Constitution makes a case for the Military Spending (manitory) where SS and MC are not constitutional.

cheeze, You thought wrong! What Americans want to cut in big government are entitlement programs!

Yeah, poolman1, Americans want to cut all that money we spend on life so we can afford to spend a few trillion on death. I don't get it either.

Ryan, Do you believe medicare would protect you in the event of another terrorist attack? I would say that the U.S. Military is all about protecting life! P.S. Scott Walker will be re elected!

Yeah, I bet we prevented a lot of terrorist attacks by slaughtering Iraqi, Afghan and Libyan civilians. That didn't make anybody hate us.

P.S. The reason there are terrorist attacks is because we've been marching soldiers through the Middle East since World War II. Our military hasn't protected one damn person from guys who shove bombs in their underwear.

P.P.S. Polls are too close for you to be playing prophet about the recall. Why don't you wait until Tuesday to be a smug punk about it?

poolman,

No, Medicare won't protect us from another terrorist attack. However, the FBI (Treasury Dept.), CIA (Executive Agency), and Homeland Security (actual cabinet department) will. None of these fall under the Department of Defense.

Also, the local police departments (state run), firefighters (state run), BAFTA (Justice Dept.), DEA (Justice Dept.) and Coast Guard (Treasury Dept.).

Any why can't we cut Defense?

One more time....

Social Security, Disability, Medicare, and medicaid are NOT ENTITLEMENTS!!!!!

People pay into them.

Our military was as big as ever and spending as much as ever when we last were attacked by terrorists (ten years ago).

Maybe money doesn't stop terrorist attacks? Or, to put it another way, maybe terrorist attacks and the resulting wars make some people money? Our problems are bigger than a small cut to a budget. Our problems have to do with who runs our government and how they operate.

AND to second MAGNUM's comment - How can something paid by money taken out of my paychecks automatically be an entitlement? Stop taking the money of my checks and I will never use the programs. Why don't the foc news guys start pushing for that option (and I am a conservative by the way, not a liberal).

Who, You couldn't be more wrong! Your 1st black perez(mr clittown) dismantled the military to make his economic numbers look better. When Bush was elected, he was left with a depleted military and lack of home security (due to you demonrats) and that is why we were attacked on 9/11! But you demonrats don't give a @!$%# about all those people who died on 9/11, you just love to scream about defunding the military so you can spend more money on entitlement programs!Magnum, do a little math, the money you have put into entitlement programs does not even come close to what it extracted from these programs by slackers who cvan't handle their own money like you! Ryan, Scott Walker is up by 12 points in Wisconsin and that is according to your own beloved MSLSD! You libiots are just so full of @!$%#! I blame your parents mostly for smoking pot and expecting the gubmint to raise you so they can smoke more pot! DUDE! LOL

But that rule doesnt apply to people who use foodstamps to buy milk at wal-mart?

But you know, I never hear this argument from the right wing, most of whom claim to be fiscally conservative, when they're talking about cutting programs they don't like. Yes, there is a multiplier effect, but it is far greater when you cut almost anything but defense, which employs far fewer people per dollar spent than programs to aid the poor or protect the environment, to name two examples. So if painful cuts have to be made (and I'm not convinced that they do), better to cut the wasteful and so far protected Pentagon.

Cutting back on the military and government in general will affect the broader economy. But if the American public has decided to back away from big government, big military, and superpower status, then so be it.

America is an on-going experiment in governance by collective decision. Hopefully, things will work out if the large budget cuts take affect.

I like Ron Pauls thinking on these subjects,i dont want to control the world or kill people on the other side of the planet.

even IF they were to come to their senses this evening and start bring ALL our troops home, along with ALL their hardware and paraphernalia, and close down ALL non-essential bases which would be EVERY base on foreign soil, bar none and knock off ALL hand outs and aid packages to ALL regimes which have proved themselves to be non-friendly to the U.S. government and it's people, we cannot legally use these troops to patrol our own borders, for some reason that is illegal, so therefore the unemployment rate would multiply phenomenally, and there is still no surplus of money it is ALL well hidden, or worse yet has already been squandered either way the money is gone so when you say we should use the money on infrastructure or education, that's not going to happen it's just less we have to print or borrow...

What? You mean help our poor instead of bomb them in other countries?

More like create a freakin police state.NDAA and increased power to the president.Obamas hit list. scary!

vote Ron Paul if you value your freedom.

Ron Paul has good Ideas but we need to reduce the military in a smart way, the only reason we are safe is because of our defense, we live in a care free world and we can thank our defense, reduce yes reduce safty no! How about cutting every fed worker 10% buy out 25-30 year employees and hire half back! Cut dept of ed 600 billion which would leave 200 billion they don't do much. Downsize all agencies and clean house. The states have had to reduce time for the great monster to purge itself gates was right but we need an overall plan and it won't come from vote happy obu I mean President Obama!