(03-01-2017 12:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  37% is massive. But not to a foolish con. Y'all have a repeat history of claiming a govt organization can weather that and not skip a beat.

Cut your income by 37%. What happens to you?

Funny, I don't recall libs applying the same logic to skyrocketing increases in Obamacare premiums.

(03-01-2017 12:31 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 12:27 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 12:24 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 12:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  37% is massive. But not to a foolish con. Y'all have a repeat history of claiming a govt organization can weather that and not skip a beat.

Cut your income by 37%. What happens to you?

So let me get this straight. You think Benghazi isnt Hillarys fault because republicans cut the state department budget 5 years in the future from when the attack happened?

That is nothing remotely close to what I said so clearly you are either too stupid or too much of a troll to have a real conversation with. So bye.

So explain why then you sid HRC is no longer to blame for Benghazi. What's in today's current budget proposal that makes it no longer her fault 5 years ago?

As best I can follow his ramblings, I think this is his train of thought:

1) a 37% cut to embassy budgets is massive

2) said 37% cut will most surely lead to some poor embassy members being slaughtered by terrorists because there won't be enough money to protect them

3) when said terror attacks happen, board cons will not blame the State Department or Trump because, well, it's Trump

4) board cons blamed HRC (and Obumbler) when she was guilty of failing to respond to the legitimate needs of her State Department employees but because they won't blame Trump, she is now not responsible for those deaths

And since a picture is worth a thousand words, here's what I think of johnny's train of thought:

(03-01-2017 10:24 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:19 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:18 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

Quote:In the current fiscal year, the State Department and USAID got $50.1 billion, a little more than 1 percent of the total federal budget. Officials say a 37-percent cut would likely require reductions in staff, including security contractors at diplomatic missions abroad.

are you kidding me? so after running a campaign about how reckless and guilty of murder HRC was for letting four americans die at a diplomatic outpost and making that a cornerstone of their campaign, republicans now want to cut security for diplomatic outposts?

FFS the GOP literally has no shame.

https://apnews.com/fb7a5f0a55154ae69891936ce24979d8

I think the staff in Barbados can do with a bit less, you?

then you have no right to blame HRC for benghazi.

(03-01-2017 11:03 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 11:01 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  It's a proposed budget. A starting point. I'll wait to see what shakes out during the budget deliberations. Trump might be asking for 37% with expectations of getting 20%.

Zero Hedge has a little bit more of an explination:

Quote:As the WSJ adds, people familiar with the deliberations said the Trump administration is examining the growth in spending by the State Department during the Obama administration, including that caused by the addition of special envoys, though they said that would not cover the proposed cuts. One U.S. official said that the State Department is looking at development assistance to other countries as a significant source for the cuts.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-28...-budget-37

Since 2005 the State Department budget has grown by 92%. I'd say it could be reigned in slightly.

zerohedge really?

(03-01-2017 10:24 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:19 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:18 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

Quote:In the current fiscal year, the State Department and USAID got $50.1 billion, a little more than 1 percent of the total federal budget. Officials say a 37-percent cut would likely require reductions in staff, including security contractors at diplomatic missions abroad.

are you kidding me? so after running a campaign about how reckless and guilty of murder HRC was for letting four americans die at a diplomatic outpost and making that a cornerstone of their campaign, republicans now want to cut security for diplomatic outposts?

FFS the GOP literally has no shame.

https://apnews.com/fb7a5f0a55154ae69891936ce24979d8

I think the staff in Barbados can do with a bit less, you?

then you have no right to blame HRC for benghazi.

Normal countries, like Britain, abandoned their embassies in Libya. Our's was primarily an illegal weapons smuggling operation. One of the reason's Hillary never sent help, not 30 minutes, not 3 hours, NOT 13 HOURS, not the next day. Libyans helped American personal escape and get to the airport. Hillary was happy to see as much evidence get destroyed.

(03-01-2017 03:03 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 12:31 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 12:27 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 12:24 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 12:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  37% is massive. But not to a foolish con. Y'all have a repeat history of claiming a govt organization can weather that and not skip a beat.

Cut your income by 37%. What happens to you?

So let me get this straight. You think Benghazi isnt Hillarys fault because republicans cut the state department budget 5 years in the future from when the attack happened?

That is nothing remotely close to what I said so clearly you are either too stupid or too much of a troll to have a real conversation with. So bye.

So explain why then you sid HRC is no longer to blame for Benghazi. What's in today's current budget proposal that makes it no longer her fault 5 years ago?

As best I can follow his ramblings, I think this is his train of thought:

1) a 37% cut to embassy budgets is massive

2) said 37% cut will most surely lead to some poor embassy members being slaughtered by terrorists because there won't be enough money to protect them

3) when said terror attacks happen, board cons will not blame the State Department or Trump because, well, it's Trump

4) board cons blamed HRC (and Obumbler) when she was guilty of failing to respond to the legitimate needs of her State Department employees but because they won't blame Trump, she is now not responsible for those deaths

And since a picture is worth a thousand words, here's what I think of johnny's train of thought:

I am guessing you make the assumption that 100% of embassies will remain open. With phones, smartphones, email, and the internet, embassies are obsolete.

(03-01-2017 11:21 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 11:15 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I don't think cutting costs yet maintaining security for the most dangerous spots are mutually exclusive. A 37% cut doesn't mean that it's across the board.

then how do you fund temporary diplomatic outposts that are almost never used for a level of assualt that is worse than the worst case scenario on a 37% cut?

Some answers to this seems obvious...
I suspect Miko was suggesting you cut security for our Embassy in the UK or Australia, but not in Iran. Another option is to cut the diplomatic staff in Australia or the UK by 50% while increasing the security staff in Iran by 13%.

How about you not put up a temporary diplomatic outpost that is rarely used?

Depending on your purpose, you could use a ship moored offshore for US citizens and a domestic office for locals staffed by locals and let them protect themselves... OR if it's in a military zone, you put it in the middle of the military base. There is also always 'Skype'.

This is a perfect example of the US using the State Department and Embassies as a photo-op of diplomacy as opposed to actually engaging in diplomacy. That's fine in Paris or London, but perhaps the middle of a war zone or hotbed of anti-American activity, throwing up a temporary embassy is nothing more than a massive bulls eye.

(03-01-2017 03:26 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 03:03 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 12:31 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 12:27 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 12:24 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So let me get this straight. You think Benghazi isnt Hillarys fault because republicans cut the state department budget 5 years in the future from when the attack happened?

That is nothing remotely close to what I said so clearly you are either too stupid or too much of a troll to have a real conversation with. So bye.

So explain why then you sid HRC is no longer to blame for Benghazi. What's in today's current budget proposal that makes it no longer her fault 5 years ago?

As best I can follow his ramblings, I think this is his train of thought:

1) a 37% cut to embassy budgets is massive

2) said 37% cut will most surely lead to some poor embassy members being slaughtered by terrorists because there won't be enough money to protect them

3) when said terror attacks happen, board cons will not blame the State Department or Trump because, well, it's Trump

4) board cons blamed HRC (and Obumbler) when she was guilty of failing to respond to the legitimate needs of her State Department employees but because they won't blame Trump, she is now not responsible for those deaths

And since a picture is worth a thousand words, here's what I think of johnny's train of thought:

I am guessing you make the assumption that 100% of embassies will remain open. With phones, smartphones, email, and the internet, embassies are obsolete.

I made no assumptions other than I think the sky is not falling on embassy security because Trump wants to cut the budget. I do disagree that embassies are obsolete. I mean, where else do we house our spys?

(03-01-2017 10:44 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:42 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:39 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:27 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:19 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  I think the staff in Barbados can do with a bit less, you?

Yep, cuts will more than likely come through attrition and not filing unneeded or redundant posts, etc.

so would cutting security costs for a temporary diplomatic outpost that is located on the opposite side of a massive country from where the capitol is and empty 99% of the time count as an "unneeded" and "redundant" post?

IMO, cuts will more than likely come from attrition. That's usually how these things play out. Other "cuts" may merely be a reallocation of resources, which is a good thing. Putting folks where they are needed is the correct thing to do.

and that's fine. but you can't support this while at the same time blame the dems for benghazi.

*Sigh*

Again, to point out the obvious to everyone except you, it's "including security contractors...abroad". That doesn't mean eliminating them everywhere, nothing of the sort. It means, likely, that like what Tech suggests some areas can most likely trim a spot here and there with little to no additional risk, Benghazi would NOT be one of them.

What's really funny is that after 8 years of blaming Bush, here the democrats are bringing up Benghazi again... and I'm sure in a few months, they'll be accusing 'the right' of harping on Hillary and using this thread as an example.

(03-01-2017 03:32 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:44 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:42 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:39 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:27 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Yep, cuts will more than likely come through attrition and not filing unneeded or redundant posts, etc.

so would cutting security costs for a temporary diplomatic outpost that is located on the opposite side of a massive country from where the capitol is and empty 99% of the time count as an "unneeded" and "redundant" post?

IMO, cuts will more than likely come from attrition. That's usually how these things play out. Other "cuts" may merely be a reallocation of resources, which is a good thing. Putting folks where they are needed is the correct thing to do.

and that's fine. but you can't support this while at the same time blame the dems for benghazi.

*Sigh*

Again, to point out the obvious to everyoneexcept you, it's "including security contractors...abroad". That doesn't mean eliminating them everywhere, nothing of the sort. It means, likely, that like what Tech suggests some areas can most likely trim a spot here and there with little to no additional risk, Benghazi would NOT be one of them.

Exactly.

I imagine we would feel very comfortable with making the cuts in security in places like Ottowa, London, Canberra, Tokyo, etc. rather than making cuts in Islamabad, Baghdad, etc.

(03-01-2017 12:15 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:53 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:50 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:44 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:42 AM)VA49er Wrote:  IMO, cuts will more than likely come from attrition. That's usually how these things play out. Other "cuts" may merely be a reallocation of resources, which is a good thing. Putting folks where they are needed is the correct thing to do.

and that's fine. but you can't support this while at the same time blame the dems for benghazi.

Sure one can. If the resources had been correctly allocated previously the attack may have been prevented. This is all conjecture though since we don't actually know how the cuts will be made.

oh give me a f***ing break. securing a rarely used location for an attack more severe than a typical worst case scenario is under no circumstances something that is probable with a massive funding cut.

Define massive and please don't say 37%. I just went through this "cut x%" stuff with my employer. We hit the target without letting anyone go. It was all done though attrition and not filling vacant positions. Same thing will more than likely happen with the State Dept. Suggestion one will equal the other just isn't the case, especially when dealing with govt math.

And there's already a federal hiring freeze, across the board.

EXCEPT, of course, NATIONAL SECURITY, public safety and military. The career poolboy at the Embassy in Barbados can go, hire the local kid for 10 bucks an hour.

That's why we have telephones. We don't need diplomats on the ground in every hell hole or 3rd world country. As Ham said and I agree 100% use Skype or some other electronic means.

(03-01-2017 12:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  37% is massive. But not to a foolish con. Y'all have a repeat history of claiming a govt organization can weather that and not skip a beat.

Cut your income by 37%. What happens to you?

Taxpayers keep more of their own money and make rational decisions with it?

That sounds about right.

(03-01-2017 12:27 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Send me to Costa Rica as a security guard and I'll do the job for free. Honest. I can fire an M-16 with the best of them and I'm old so I can be a hero too and not be worried about dying.

(03-01-2017 03:41 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 03:32 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:44 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:42 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:39 AM)john01992 Wrote:  so would cutting security costs for a temporary diplomatic outpost that is located on the opposite side of a massive country from where the capitol is and empty 99% of the time count as an "unneeded" and "redundant" post?

IMO, cuts will more than likely come from attrition. That's usually how these things play out. Other "cuts" may merely be a reallocation of resources, which is a good thing. Putting folks where they are needed is the correct thing to do.

and that's fine. but you can't support this while at the same time blame the dems for benghazi.

*Sigh*

Again, to point out the obvious to everyoneexcept you, it's "including security contractors...abroad". That doesn't mean eliminating them everywhere, nothing of the sort. It means, likely, that like what Tech suggests some areas can most likely trim a spot here and there with little to no additional risk, Benghazi would NOT be one of them.

Exactly.

I imagine we would feel very comfortable with making the cuts in security in places like Ottowa, London, Canberra, Tokyo, etc. rather than making cuts in Islamabad, Baghdad, etc.

And what if someone gets killed in London?

(03-01-2017 03:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  And what if someone gets killed in London?

What if?

(03-01-2017 03:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 03:41 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 03:32 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:44 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 10:42 AM)VA49er Wrote:  IMO, cuts will more than likely come from attrition. That's usually how these things play out. Other "cuts" may merely be a reallocation of resources, which is a good thing. Putting folks where they are needed is the correct thing to do.

and that's fine. but you can't support this while at the same time blame the dems for benghazi.

*Sigh*

Again, to point out the obvious to everyoneexcept you, it's "including security contractors...abroad". That doesn't mean eliminating them everywhere, nothing of the sort. It means, likely, that like what Tech suggests some areas can most likely trim a spot here and there with little to no additional risk, Benghazi would NOT be one of them.

Exactly.

I imagine we would feel very comfortable with making the cuts in security in places like Ottowa, London, Canberra, Tokyo, etc. rather than making cuts in Islamabad, Baghdad, etc.

And what if someone gets killed in London?

blame it on a youtube video?

killed in london? you can get killed walking across the street. John, these places are not hotbeds for terrorists like Libya, Yemen, and those others. C'mon, you're grasping at straws.

(03-01-2017 04:00 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  killed in london? you can get killed walking across the street. John, these places are not hotbeds for terrorists like Libya, Yemen, and those others. C'mon, you're grasping at straws.

What. According to some on here Europe is being raped and pillaged by Muslims? So which is it.

But how do you miss the original point though? No one expected 4 Americans to die in Benghazi. Certainly not by a milita attack of all things.