(08-10-2016 02:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 02:28 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 02:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 01:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 01:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  His tax plan makes a lot of sense for ordinary people.

I would be very happy under his plan.

But aren't you opposed to huge deficits? That's what the right has been telling us for years anyway.

That's why I don't like his tax plan.

The sad fact of current American politics is that what SHOULD be getting focus - getting that huge federal monolith spending under control with a more efficient government - gets none.......all the focus is on who will get the free candy and flowers that the federal government will dole out.....

There is huge waste and otherwise fraud in a lot of government programs. The problem is that is costs money to find a lot of it. And in other areas, like defense, nobody really wants to go look for it either.

i agree we waste a ton of money if defense spending. However, when anyone tries to address it, the response is you are anti military, which then kills the issue as "everyone" wants to support the troops.

(08-10-2016 02:56 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 02:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 02:28 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 02:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 01:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But aren't you opposed to huge deficits? That's what the right has been telling us for years anyway.

That's why I don't like his tax plan.

The sad fact of current American politics is that what SHOULD be getting focus - getting that huge federal monolith spending under control with a more efficient government - gets none.......all the focus is on who will get the free candy and flowers that the federal government will dole out.....

There is huge waste and otherwise fraud in a lot of government programs. The problem is that is costs money to find a lot of it. And in other areas, like defense, nobody really wants to go look for it either.

i agree we waste a ton of money if defense spending. However, when anyone tries to address it, the response is you are anti military, which then kills the issue as "everyone" wants to support the troops.

I don't think you or Owl or RWT are anti-military. No, you three really want our military to be a 2nd, no... a 3rd rate military. Mostly to satisfy your feels.

(08-10-2016 01:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 01:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  His tax plan makes a lot of sense for ordinary people.

I would be very happy under his plan.

But aren't you opposed to huge deficits? That's what the right has been telling us for years anyway.

Im for cutting spending significantly

Sent from my VS980 4G using CSNbbs mobile app

(08-10-2016 08:31 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  I don't think you or Owl or RWT are anti-military. No, you three really want our military to be a 2nd, no... a 3rd rate military. Mostly to satisfy your feels.

Don't include me in that. Absolute lie if you do. Sorry if that pisses you off, but that's a fact, Jack.

I've pretty much gone through my military approach in detail on here several times. Exactly what am I talking about doing that will make us a 2nd or 3rd rate military?

Increasing end strength by trading active slots for a larger number of reserve slots? This approach has been used successfully to buy more bang for less bucks by many, including Israel, Switzerland, and Sweden, all of whom punch very much above their weight.
Getting procurement dollars to go further by adopting a high/low mix strategy that includes more proved technology and less gee-whiz gadgetry that doesn't work under pressure? No $13 billion aircraft carrier with catapults and arresting gear that don't work.
Spending more on combat and combat support, and less on non-combat-related fluff? We're not here to be your best buddy, we're here to blow your ass to smithereens if you piss us off.
Never fighting a war that you don't intend to win? Getting equipment busted and lives and limbs lost in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that are fought with no discernible objective makes us weaker, not stronger.
Cutting out what we pay to civilians and consultants? Spend the money on the battlefield, not paying for McMansions in Northern Virginia.

Throwing more money at bad solutions does not make a stronger military, just as throwing more money at a failed education system doesn't help little Johnny read better and do math better.

(08-10-2016 11:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 08:31 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  I don't think you or Owl or RWT are anti-military. No, you three really want our military to be a 2nd, no... a 3rd rate military. Mostly to satisfy your feels.

Don't include me in that. Absolute lie if you do. Sorry if that pisses you off, but that's a fact, Jack.

I've pretty much gone through my military approach in detail on here several times. Exactly what am I talking about doing that will make us a 2nd or 3rd rate military?

Increasing end strength by trading active slots for a larger number of reserve slots? This approach has been used successfully to buy more bang for less bucks by many, including Israel, Switzerland, and Sweden, all of whom punch very much above their weight.
Getting procurement dollars to go further by adopting a high/low mix strategy that includes more proved technology and less gee-whiz gadgetry that doesn't work under pressure? No $13 billion aircraft carrier with catapults and arresting gear that don't work.
Spending more on combat and combat support, and less on non-combat-related fluff? We're not here to be your best buddy, we're here to blow your ass to smithereens if you piss us off.
Never fighting a war that you don't intend to win? Getting equipment busted and lives and limbs lost in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that are fought with no discernible objective makes us weaker, not stronger.
Cutting out what we pay to civilians and consultants? Spend the money on the battlefield, not paying for McMansions in Northern Virginia.

Throwing more money at bad solutions does not make a stronger military, just as throwing more money at a failed education system doesn't help little Johnny read better and do math better.

yes because all three of those countries are known for their large presence around the globe thanks to their treaty obligations. I can't think of one case from any of those three countries where they are obligated to come to someone else's aid. meanwhile we have major commitments to NATO, Asia, and how to play world police in the middle east.

(08-10-2016 11:50 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  His tax plan would save my family the most money.

Tell your family and friends everywhere.

Trump 2016-20

(08-10-2016 08:31 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 02:56 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 02:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 02:28 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 02:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  That's why I don't like his tax plan.

The sad fact of current American politics is that what SHOULD be getting focus - getting that huge federal monolith spending under control with a more efficient government - gets none.......all the focus is on who will get the free candy and flowers that the federal government will dole out.....

There is huge waste and otherwise fraud in a lot of government programs. The problem is that is costs money to find a lot of it. And in other areas, like defense, nobody really wants to go look for it either.

i agree we waste a ton of money if defense spending. However, when anyone tries to address it, the response is you are anti military, which then kills the issue as "everyone" wants to support the troops.

I don't think you or Owl or RWT are anti-military. No, you three really want our military to be a 2nd, no... a 3rd rate military. Mostly to satisfy your feels.

I see you swallow the propaganda hook line and sinker.

(08-11-2016 12:04 AM)tigertom Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 11:50 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  His tax plan would save my family the most money.

Tell your family and friends everywhere.

Trump 2016-20

and your plumber

(08-11-2016 12:06 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 08:31 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 02:56 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 02:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 02:28 PM)Crebman Wrote:  The sad fact of current American politics is that what SHOULD be getting focus - getting that huge federal monolith spending under control with a more efficient government - gets none.......all the focus is on who will get the free candy and flowers that the federal government will dole out.....

There is huge waste and otherwise fraud in a lot of government programs. The problem is that is costs money to find a lot of it. And in other areas, like defense, nobody really wants to go look for it either.

i agree we waste a ton of money if defense spending. However, when anyone tries to address it, the response is you are anti military, which then kills the issue as "everyone" wants to support the troops.

I don't think you or Owl or RWT are anti-military. No, you three really want our military to be a 2nd, no... a 3rd rate military. Mostly to satisfy your feels.

I see you swallow the propaganda hook line and sinker.

We wouldn't want our air force, the largest air force in the world to be surpassed by the second largest air force in the world (the US Navy).

(08-11-2016 12:03 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 11:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 08:31 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  I don't think you or Owl or RWT are anti-military. No, you three really want our military to be a 2nd, no... a 3rd rate military. Mostly to satisfy your feels.

Don't include me in that. Absolute lie if you do. Sorry if that pisses you off, but that's a fact, Jack.
I've pretty much gone through my military approach in detail on here several times. Exactly what am I talking about doing that will make us a 2nd or 3rd rate military?
Increasing end strength by trading active slots for a larger number of reserve slots? This approach has been used successfully to buy more bang for less bucks by many, including Israel, Switzerland, and Sweden, all of whom punch very much above their weight.
Getting procurement dollars to go further by adopting a high/low mix strategy that includes more proved technology and less gee-whiz gadgetry that doesn't work under pressure? No $13 billion aircraft carrier with catapults and arresting gear that don't work.
Spending more on combat and combat support, and less on non-combat-related fluff? We're not here to be your best buddy, we're here to blow your ass to smithereens if you piss us off.
Never fighting a war that you don't intend to win? Getting equipment busted and lives and limbs lost in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that are fought with no discernible objective makes us weaker, not stronger.
Cutting out what we pay to civilians and consultants? Spend the money on the battlefield, not paying for McMansions in Northern Virginia.
Throwing more money at bad solutions does not make a stronger military, just as throwing more money at a failed education system doesn't help little Johnny read better and do math better.

yes because all three of those countries are known for their large presence around the globe thanks to their treaty obligations. I can't think of one case from any of those three countries where they are obligated to come to someone else's aid. meanwhile we have major commitments to NATO, Asia, and how to play world police in the middle east.

First, one has nothing to do with the other. You can have a reserve oriented force but still project power worldwide. We were basically a reserve dominated force up through WWII, and correct me if I'm wrong but didn't we have a pretty good won/lost record in wars up until then? I didn't mention, but could have, that the two countries with probably the second and third strongest global presence, Russia and China, also do it that way.

Second, maybe it's not in our best interests to be world police. Maybe we keep the agreements, but restructure them.

What we really need is some sort of national grand strategy, instead of ad hoc reactions to every situation. Because with a strategy, you realize that not every development in every country is a threat to achievement of our strategic objectives.

Have the strongest military force in the world and seldom, if ever, use it because 1) nobody dares pick on you, and 2) you don't go meddling in everybody else's business.

Quote:You can have a reserve oriented force but still project power worldwide. We were basically a reserve dominated force up through WWII

LOL please tell me you are not seriously going there. we won WWII due to our economic strength in an era where no one had the capability to carry out a first strike to neutralize our factories. the days of building up an army after the declaration of war are long gone. any major war post WWII is going to be won/lost on a first strike.

Quote:and correct me if I'm wrong but didn't we have a pretty good won/lost record in wars up until then?

defeated two extremely weak countries (Mexico & spain) and found ourselves exposed in 1812 & 1861 due to the lack of a large standing army.

didn't mention, but could have, that the two countries with probably the second and third strongest global presence, Russia and China, also do it that way.

china has 500K reserve troops to our 850K reserve troops. 2.3 million active to our 1.5 million active. You have a point with russia (barely) but they still have 850K active 2 million reserve.

again, what major treaty commitments does russia have? since when have they been a factor in a region outside their own sphere.

Quote:Second, maybe it's not in our best interests to be world police. Maybe we keep the agreements, but restructure them.

and then what? Japan taiwan and South Korea get into a war with china or north korea? the middle east becomes even more messed up? oil prices skyrocket. russia invades poland, ukraine, and the baltics? religious extremism pops up and we have more 9/11s?

Quote:Have the strongest military force in the world and seldom, if ever, use it because 1) nobody dares pick on you, and 2) you don't go meddling in everybody else's business.

so big stick policy? the president who said that lost one son in WWI and his other son in WWII.

if you think a dormant US means a dormant china/russia then you are delusional. how were we meddling in the affairs of russia prior to their takeover of crimea? what about china and their island building?

Mexico was picked to win the war. In retrospect, they weren't as tough as Santa Anna pumped him up to be. However, we won a lot of battles while being drastically outnumbered.

And Spain was a coming out party. Europe started to respect us.

A standing army in 1861 would have probably seen many deflections to the South, considering how many Southerners serve in the military.

1812 was a disaster. Nice save near the end that taught the British we were here to stay.

Trumps tax message, Hillary's gaffes can't get any AirPlay because Trump keeps stepping on the story. He needs to shut up for a week.

John, you surprise me. Never figured you for a neocon war hawk. Particularly considering the sarcasm in your post #29 above. I'd be really interested in seeing how you reconcile the two posts. Or maybe you're just posting this to be a jerk.

Will respond without repeating the whole post to save space.

First strike? What am I proposing that would reduce our ability to launch or respond to a first strike? Oh yeah, nothing. I'm actually increasing that capability. Did you miss the part about increasing spending for combat and combat support? What I'm reducing is our capability to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan for 15 years in an effort to win their hearts. Because it just makes so much sense to come in shooting and bombing them and expecting that we are going to succeed by making them like us. Those things don't make us safer, they just beget the likes of al-Qaeda and ISIS.

The numbers I see for China are about 2.5 million reserves, not 500K. I've seen slightly different numbers for Russia, but generally in the same ball park. The numbers you quote for Russia are pretty close to where I would see us ending up. With a ratio that 1 reserve slot costs about 20% of an active duty slot, the cost of our current force is about 1.67 million FTE's (1.5 million active plus 20% of 850K reserves) whereas I'm proposing about 1.4 million FTE's (1 million active plus 20% of 2 million reserves). Out of our current active duty personnel, we're probably well short of a million who are combat ready; if we used some of the savings to make the remaining forces more ready, we'd probably end up pretty close to the same place as far as 30 day strength, ahead for 60 day strength, and plenty of day 1 strength to deter anybody with any ideas.

Dormant US? Where am I proposing a dormant US? Oh yeah, that's right, I'm not. I agree that Russia and China would be threats to exploit that. So don't give them that. And don't take our eye off the ball to get distracted by regional conflicts between our puppets and their opponents. The very last thing I'm suggesting is that we should disarm, and expect Russia and China to do the same. Because if we do, I will guarantee that they will do the exact opposite. We should arm, and arm to the extent that they can't compete and they know it. Just don't go wasting that power in places that make no sense.

And where did I say we were meddling in the internal affairs of Russia and China? Oh, yeah, nowhere. Because we're not. We're also not tied down as an army of occupation in either one of them. We have been meddling in internal affairs in the Middle East for decades. What has that gotten us besides tied down in the middle of the current hot mess over there? Oh, yeah, 9/11 and terrorist attacks all over. Those are good results, right?

Norman Schwarzkopf said that armies do two things well--kill people and break things. What I'm saying is get better at killing people and breaking things, and get the military out of the business of doing things that don't relate to killing people and breaking things.

Maybe you should consider actually reading and thinking about what I wrote before composing a knee-jerk response.

(08-10-2016 10:59 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 01:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 01:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  His tax plan makes a lot of sense for ordinary people.

I would be very happy under his plan.

But aren't you opposed to huge deficits? That's what the right has been telling us for years anyway.

Im for cutting spending significantly

Sent from my VS980 4G using CSNbbs mobile app

Trump has advocated HUGE spending initiatives AND is advocating these huge tax cuts. Where does the money come from? Trump knows tax cuts sell, but he's not giving you any reasonable explanation of how he'll do that, spend significantly more money on infrastructure, build an unneeded wall, etc... If Trump's tax plan came with any sort of serious plan to actually pay for it I'd take it seriously...without it, it's just political posturing on an issue he knows he can score points.

(08-11-2016 07:50 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 10:59 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 01:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 01:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  His tax plan makes a lot of sense for ordinary people.

I would be very happy under his plan.

But aren't you opposed to huge deficits? That's what the right has been telling us for years anyway.

Im for cutting spending significantly

Sent from my VS980 4G using CSNbbs mobile app

Trump has advocated HUGE spending initiatives AND is advocating these huge tax cuts. Where does the money come from? Trump knows tax cuts sell, but he's not giving you any reasonable explanation of how he'll do that, spend significantly more money on infrastructure, build an unneeded wall, etc... If Trump's tax plan came with any sort of serious plan to actually pay for it I'd take it seriously...without it, it's just political posturing on an issue he knows he can score points.

Entitlement programs, obamacare, military (ie, don't need 100's of bases all over the world), foreign aid... That's where we SHOULD be making significant cuts. Not saying that is what he is proposing to be clear. Hillary is almost guaranteed to grow entitlement programs and foreign aid making my taxes go up. Not interested.

(08-11-2016 08:02 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 07:50 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 10:59 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 01:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 01:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  His tax plan makes a lot of sense for ordinary people.

I would be very happy under his plan.

But aren't you opposed to huge deficits? That's what the right has been telling us for years anyway.

Im for cutting spending significantly

Sent from my VS980 4G using CSNbbs mobile app

Trump has advocated HUGE spending initiatives AND is advocating these huge tax cuts. Where does the money come from? Trump knows tax cuts sell, but he's not giving you any reasonable explanation of how he'll do that, spend significantly more money on infrastructure, build an unneeded wall, etc... If Trump's tax plan came with any sort of serious plan to actually pay for it I'd take it seriously...without it, it's just political posturing on an issue he knows he can score points.

Entitlement programs, obamacare, military (ie, don't need 100's of bases all over the world), foreign aid... That's where we SHOULD be making significant cuts. Not saying that is what he is proposing to be clear. Hillary is almost guaranteed to grow entitlement programs and foreign aid making my taxes go up. Not interested.

Yeah, all the money we need is already there. Folks that keep asking "where" look at only one side of the issue.

(08-11-2016 07:50 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 10:59 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 01:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 01:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  His tax plan makes a lot of sense for ordinary people.

I would be very happy under his plan.

But aren't you opposed to huge deficits? That's what the right has been telling us for years anyway.

Im for cutting spending significantly

Sent from my VS980 4G using CSNbbs mobile app

Trump has advocated HUGE spending initiatives AND is advocating these huge tax cuts. Where does the money come from? Trump knows tax cuts sell, but he's not giving you any reasonable explanation of how he'll do that, spend significantly more money on infrastructure, build an unneeded wall, etc... If Trump's tax plan came with any sort of serious plan to actually pay for it I'd take it seriously...without it, it's just political posturing on an issue he knows he can score points.

Not that I disagree but did you ask the same questions as Obama ran up the national debt? I find it amusing that when a republican puts forth a proposal dems ask how he will pay for it. Especially tax cuts. Suggest a tax cut and dems always are about how to pay for allowing taxpayers to keep more of their money. Propose free healthcare, free college, free phones, etc... and it's fine debt be damned but never ever propose that a taxpayer keep more of what he earned.

(08-11-2016 08:03 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 08:02 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-11-2016 07:50 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 10:59 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(08-10-2016 01:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But aren't you opposed to huge deficits? That's what the right has been telling us for years anyway.

Im for cutting spending significantly

Sent from my VS980 4G using CSNbbs mobile app

Trump has advocated HUGE spending initiatives AND is advocating these huge tax cuts. Where does the money come from? Trump knows tax cuts sell, but he's not giving you any reasonable explanation of how he'll do that, spend significantly more money on infrastructure, build an unneeded wall, etc... If Trump's tax plan came with any sort of serious plan to actually pay for it I'd take it seriously...without it, it's just political posturing on an issue he knows he can score points.

Entitlement programs, obamacare, military (ie, don't need 100's of bases all over the world), foreign aid... That's where we SHOULD be making significant cuts. Not saying that is what he is proposing to be clear. Hillary is almost guaranteed to grow entitlement programs and foreign aid making my taxes go up. Not interested.

Yeah, all the money we need is already there. Folks that keep asking "where" look at only one side of the issue.

We don't need to be nation building. Personally I wouldn't give one red cent to another nation, especially those which aren't very close allies, unless there was an offsetting benefit for us. I'd scale back the welfare state to only supporting the disabled and elderly. I'd bring troop home and strengthen our military presence here. As of Oct 2015 we had 150,000 troops stationed world-wide... WHY????

(08-11-2016 08:05 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  Not that I disagree but did you ask the same questions as Obama ran up the national debt? I find it amusing that when a republican puts forth a proposal dems ask how he will pay for it. Especially tax cuts. Suggest a tax cut and dems always are about how to pay for allowing taxpayers to keep more of their money. Propose free healthcare, free college, free phones, etc... and it's fine debt be damned but never ever propose that a taxpayer keep more of what he earned.

Cut taxes and broaden the tax base, give the middle class a tax break.

1. Repeal Obamacare
2. Raise Social Security retirement age and cap for high earners
3. Cut defense and foreign aid
4. Close tax loopholes

All of that can be done in the first four years. Higher taxes are fine when there's a booming economy, but that's not been the case in a LONG time.