The military is the first obvious target for cost cutting, and really only needs to be perhaps 30% its current size.
yes the military that is currently stretched fighting 2 wars should be cut to 1/3 of its size, because in the future we will never have to fight more than 2/3 of a war. I think the US needs to get more funding for its military from the countries that it helps keep in existence ie. Serbia, Taiwan, S Korea etc.
How many f-22s, aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines were required to win the war in Iraq? How many of them are required to keep the peace there? Oh, precisely zero. The US military should focus on infantry, infantry transport, close air support, drones and intelligence accompanied by a small number of carriers.
The real waste is in contractors, not tech. If we could stop farming out jobs (looking at you KBR) and get back to a self supported military the tech costs wouldn't seem that stupid. Plus our silly "projects" tend to create useful shit.
Look at it this way. The military doesn't have to turn a profit, thus they can invest in really silly shit that now and again, does something awesome like spawn the internet. We should retain that. What we should not do is pay contractors whatever they want.
Also subs, are not for war, they are for intel. You're missing a lot of the key roles of some items.
The thinking behind the massive outsourcing is that by contracting you the government saves money on health care, retirement, life insurance and training.
I do not see the savings though. I think that we should be doing all the work
Greg USN on
FFXIV Petra Ironheart Infinity Mog 21 and over Free Company Sargatanas Server. Recruitment currently closed.
The military is the first obvious target for cost cutting, and really only needs to be perhaps 30% its current size.
yes the military that is currently stretched fighting 2 wars should be cut to 1/3 of its size, because in the future we will never have to fight more than 2/3 of a war. I think the US needs to get more funding for its military from the countries that it helps keep in existence ie. Serbia, Taiwan, S Korea etc.
How many f-22s, aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines were required to win the war in Iraq? How many of them are required to keep the peace there? Oh, precisely zero. The US military should focus on infantry, infantry transport, close air support, drones and intelligence accompanied by a small number of carriers.
We use subs quite a bit actually... you do realize that not all of them are used to carry nukes right?
for that matter we used carriers a ton too. Fuck, I was ON one during the war.
Did you pull that entire quote out of your ass?
I'll actually agree with you for once. We should focus most of our money on the Navy, not a small amount. It's the key bit. The army doesn't need to be terribly large, as long as we stop fighting stupid misguided wars of choice.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Note this love affair with Brown and the so called conservative movement is fleeting and on a poor foundation. The guy might block on health-care, but on everything else he's a typical deficit spending neo-con.
He's not really a right-wing conservative from what I've read. And I'm not convinced he'll really block on hcr if offered the right incentives. The things I've been reading today have been along this line where he seems to not like the federal idea because it will compete with what Massachusetts already has+added SO MUCH SPENDING rhetoric. I'm not really convinced he's a lock for the anti-hcr bill vote. I think he could be courted if he felt sure that the Massachusetts plan wouldn't be "dumbed down," as he puts it, by the federal bill.
Note this love affair with Brown and the so called conservative movement is fleeting and on a poor foundation. The guy might block on health-care, but on everything else he's a typical deficit spending neo-con.
He's not really a right-wing conservative from what I've read. And I'm not convinced he'll really block on hcr if offered the right incentives. The things I've been reading today have been along this line where he seems to not like the federal idea because it will compete with what Massachusetts already has+added SO MUCH SPENDING rhetoric. I'm not really convinced he's a lock for the anti-hcr bill vote. I think he could be courted if he felt sure that the Massachusetts plan wouldn't be "dumbed down," as he puts it, by the federal bill.
Well, his choices are:
Vote against -> get horribly crushed beneath a Presidential election turnout in Mass. freight train, unless he gets picked up for VP as a rising star for being a conservative folk hero. The latter would not shock me, at all.
Vote for -> Lose a primary to a teabagger
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The military is the first obvious target for cost cutting, and really only needs to be perhaps 30% its current size.
yes the military that is currently stretched fighting 2 wars should be cut to 1/3 of its size, because in the future we will never have to fight more than 2/3 of a war. I think the US needs to get more funding for its military from the countries that it helps keep in existence ie. Serbia, Taiwan, S Korea etc.
How many f-22s, aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines were required to win the war in Iraq? How many of them are required to keep the peace there? Oh, precisely zero. The US military should focus on infantry, infantry transport, close air support, drones and intelligence accompanied by a small number of carriers.
We use subs quite a bit actually... you do realize that not all of them are used to carry nukes right?
for that matter we used carriers a ton too. Fuck, I was ON one during the war.
Did you pull that entire quote out of your ass?
I'll actually agree with you for once. We should focus most of our money on the Navy, not a small amount. It's the key bit. The army doesn't need to be terribly large, as long as we stop fighting stupid misguided wars of choice.
We need to be careful though... We are making some 'interesting' program choices in the navy as well. I can't talk about them personally (conflict of interest and what not) but they are public knowledge. On of our biggest downfalls is current culture is rejecting so called 'legacy' systems in favor of hightech low manning solutions. While I am all for advancing technology the Navy is moving too fast (sorry i really can't get more into it).
The sad part is most of the legacy systems do a great job and incremental advancements would be a lot better IMO. No one can touch the aegis system which is considered legacy. Do we really need $1B destroyers and $12B Carriers when the current systems provide total theater dominance? Probably not.
edit:
WRT the army. While there is lots of room for debate about the need for the Iraq war, I don't agree that Afghanistan was a war of choice. The way it was executed is debatable, but one can simply not take action after a spectacularly horrific attack/opening move like 9/11. If we acted sooner on intel, more covert means could have been used to naturalize the threat though.
Greg USN on
FFXIV Petra Ironheart Infinity Mog 21 and over Free Company Sargatanas Server. Recruitment currently closed.
Note this love affair with Brown and the so called conservative movement is fleeting and on a poor foundation. The guy might block on health-care, but on everything else he's a typical deficit spending neo-con.
He's not really a right-wing conservative from what I've read. And I'm not convinced he'll really block on hcr if offered the right incentives. The things I've been reading today have been along this line where he seems to not like the federal idea because it will compete with what Massachusetts already has+added SO MUCH SPENDING rhetoric. I'm not really convinced he's a lock for the anti-hcr bill vote. I think he could be courted if he felt sure that the Massachusetts plan wouldn't be "dumbed down," as he puts it, by the federal bill.
Well, his choices are:
Vote against -> get horribly crushed beneath a Presidential election turnout in Mass. freight train, unless he gets picked up for VP as a rising star for being a conservative folk hero. The latter would not shock me, at all.
Vote for -> Lose a primary to a teabagger
Assuming that could happen when he's up for re-election. He seems to be playing to local constituents with his "fed hcr will compete with what we have that I like" line. And when it really comes down to it, I can't imagine hie local constituents voting for a true right-wing candidate. I mean really. This is the Mitt Romney state--Romney's not exactly oh-so-on-the-right. If he tests the wind (which he should considering a major part of his win was that he was campaigning against air in the most pivotal part of the race), I think he could be swayed. I could be wrong, but I think there's a shot given that his position against federal hcr is a late and related entirely to state protection adoption.
So is this it? Game Over? If Democrats can't pass anything now at their strongest, when can they?
An excellent question. One which is causing quite a lot of consternation among liberals.
That's the problem right there.
Like it or not, America is a center/center-right country. If you try to govern from the left, when the vast majority of americans do not want hard left policies, you will fail. It's also wrong to be assuming democrat = liberal when there are a *lot* of moderate and conservative democrats who don't like certain things rammed down their throats either, especially in the hamfisted way Reid/Pelosi have been acting.
Bill Clinton found this out the hard way, but was smart enough to run to the center and actually did a lot of good.
Another error is misinterpreting the 2008 elections; it wasn't a mandate for the left, but a rejection of Republican incompetence and the acceptance of Obama who ran as a centrist, post-racial/political guy...then who appeared to go hard left leaving many moderates, independants, and conservative democrats feeling had or, mayby, even lied to.
So is this it? Game Over? If Democrats can't pass anything now at their strongest, when can they?
An excellent question. One which is causing quite a lot of consternation among liberals.
That's the problem right there.
Like it or not, America is a center/center-right country. If you try to govern from the left, when the vast majority of americans do not want hard left policies, you will fail. It's also wrong to be assuming democrat = liberal when there are a *lot* of moderate and conservative democrats who don't like certain things rammed down their throats either, especially in the hamfisted way Reid/Pelosi have been acting.
Bill Clinton found this out the hard way, but was smart enough to run to the center and actually did a lot of good.
Something like 70% of America supported a public option. Public opinion has virtually nothing to do with the way that healthcare reform has gone.
A center right country with mysteriously center left policy preferences when they're asked.
Yet they reject Obamacare by a strong majority.
But they supported the public option by a huge majority. Which implies that the problem most people have with this bill is not "it's too far left", but something else entirely.
A center right country with mysteriously center left policy preferences when they're asked.
Yet they reject Obamacare by a strong majority.
But they supported the public option by a huge majority. Which implies that the problem most people have with this bill is not "it's too far left", but something else entirely.
A center right country with mysteriously center left policy preferences when they're asked.
Yet they reject Obamacare by a strong majority.
But they supported the public option by a huge majority. Which implies that the problem most people have with this bill is not "it's too far left", but something else entirely.
So you're admitting that it's flawed?
This forum wants single payer, so hell yes.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The health care reform being offered is the center option.
I kinda see it as the pandering to insurance and pharmaceutical interests option.
That is exactly what "centrist" and "moderate" mean in this country. Which stands to reason, sincethe status quo of the nation is rule by corporations.
Hachface on
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
A center right country with mysteriously center left policy preferences when they're asked.
snip
Are you dense? englightenedbum's original point was that people support progressive legislation when asked about specifics, despite their political self-identification.
Hachface on
0
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
They dont know what those words mean, since polls on actual policy would contradict that.
A center right country with mysteriously center left policy preferences when they're asked.
Funny thing, that question. When people self-identify as conservative/moderate/liberal, the majority choose conservative. When you ask them about their stances on specific issues, the majority prefer the liberal options. Which just means people are fucking morons, and don't know what the parties actually stand for, and instead choose to just root for their "team."
A center right country with mysteriously center left policy preferences when they're asked.
You know that doesn't contradict what he was saying, right? People self identify more as moderates or conservatives, but when you get down to asking positions on actual policy details the country is much more center left than center right.
A center right country with mysteriously center left policy preferences when they're asked.
Yet they reject Obamacare by a strong majority.
But they supported the public option by a huge majority. Which implies that the problem most people have with this bill is not "it's too far left", but something else entirely.
So you're admitting that it's flawed?
This forum wants single payer, so hell yes.
So the rest of us need to shut the hell up and do what we're told because "this forum" decreed that "it" wants a single payer system? o_O
And is this a confirmation/opinion that there's little debate in "debate an discourse" with it basically being a progressive echo chamber/ideological circle jerk?
And is this a confirmation/opinion that there's little debate in "debate an discourse" with it basically being a progressive echo chamber/ideological circle jerk?
Ah, there we go. The "lolechochamber." The last refuge of the conservative that can't back up his side of the argument.
Bionic Monkey on
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
A center right country with mysteriously center left policy preferences when they're asked.
Yet they reject Obamacare by a strong majority.
But they supported the public option by a huge majority. Which implies that the problem most people have with this bill is not "it's too far left", but something else entirely.
So you're admitting that it's flawed?
This forum wants single payer, so hell yes.
So the rest of us need to shut the hell up and do what we're told because "this forum" decreed that "it" wants a single payer system? o_O
And is this a confirmation/opinion that there's little debate in "debate an discourse" with it basically being a progressive echo chamber/ideological circle jerk?
You either have poor reading comprehension or are serially dishonest. All enlightenedbum said was that, by the liberal consensus of the PA forum, "Obamacare" -- by which I assume you mean the Senate healthcare bill -- is flawed. Stop being a drama queen.
A center right country with mysteriously center left policy preferences when they're asked.
Yet they reject Obamacare by a strong majority.
But they supported the public option by a huge majority. Which implies that the problem most people have with this bill is not "it's too far left", but something else entirely.
So you're admitting that it's flawed?
This forum wants single payer, so hell yes.
So the rest of us need to shut the hell up and do what we're told because "this forum" decreed that "it" wants a single payer system? o_O
And is this a confirmation/opinion that there's little debate in "debate an discourse" with it basically being a progressive echo chamber/ideological circle jerk?
What the fuck is with all the non-sequitoritis that has been going around lately? How in the hell did you jump to the conclusion you came to in this post? You asked if we thought it was flawed, people said yes because they didn't think it was left enough, and then you go whining about not getting a pony?
And is this a confirmation/opinion that there's little debate in "debate an discourse" with it basically being a progressive echo chamber/ideological circle jerk?
I resigned myself to this a long time ago...what took you so long?
Today is the de facto election for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. Polls opened for the Democratic and Republican nominations for Senate this morning at 7am this morning and will be open until 8pm EST.
.
It's not Ted Kennedy's seat; it's not some sort of feudal fief held by Divine Right; the people decide who fills it. As Brown himself said “With all due respect, it’s not the Kennedy’s seat, it’s not the Democrats’ seat, it’s the people’s seat.”
widowson on
-I owe nothing to Women's Lib.
Margaret Thatcher
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Today is the de facto election for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. Polls opened for the Democratic and Republican nominations for Senate this morning at 7am this morning and will be open until 8pm EST.
.
It's not Ted Kennedy's seat; it's not some sort of feudal fief held by Divine Right; the people decide who fills it. As Brown himself said “With all due respect, it’s not the Kennedy’s seat, it’s not the Democrats’ seat, it’s the people’s seat.”
So when I call that women who bore me my mother, do I mean that I own her?
If I am my teacher's student, do I belong to my teacher?
"Ted Kennedy's seat" in this sense just means "the seat occupied by Ted Kennedy." You would have not objected to someone saying that Roland Burris took Barack Obama's seat.
Today is the de facto election for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. Polls opened for the Democratic and Republican nominations for Senate this morning at 7am this morning and will be open until 8pm EST.
.
It's not Ted Kennedy's seat; it's not some sort of feudal fief held by Divine Right; the people decide who fills it. As Brown himself said “With all due respect, it’s not the Kennedy’s seat, it’s not the Democrats’ seat, it’s the people’s seat.”
Man really? This is what you bitch about?
Newsflash: HE DIED! It was his seat he won for a term and he died before that term was up, so calling it his seat should be extremely uncontroversial.
For example, if McCain or Byrd or whoever either died or was so incapacitated that they had to step down, there would be nothing controversial about calling a special election in the interim being for that senator's seat.
Today is the de facto election for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. Polls opened for the Democratic and Republican nominations for Senate this morning at 7am this morning and will be open until 8pm EST.
.
It's not Ted Kennedy's seat; it's not some sort of feudal fief held by Divine Right; the people decide who fills it. As Brown himself said “With all due respect, it’s not the Kennedy’s seat, it’s not the Democrats’ seat, it’s the people’s seat.”
A few people have responded to your assertion that this is a "center right" country by pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Are you going to address it or just complain about bias?
Edit: People identifying as "conservative" has considerably more to do with branding than with policy. The only thing that gallup poll proves is that Republicans are really good at demonizing their enemies and democrats are terrible at it.
Today is the de facto election for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. Polls opened for the Democratic and Republican nominations for Senate this morning at 7am this morning and will be open until 8pm EST.
.
It's not Ted Kennedy's seat; it's not some sort of feudal fief held by Divine Right; the people decide who fills it. As Brown himself said “With all due respect, it’s not the Kennedy’s seat, it’s not the Democrats’ seat, it’s the people’s seat.”
A few people have responded to your assertion that this is a "center right" country by pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Are you going to address it or just complain about bias?
Posts
The thinking behind the massive outsourcing is that by contracting you the government saves money on health care, retirement, life insurance and training.
I do not see the savings though. I think that we should be doing all the work
Infinity Mog 21 and over Free Company Sargatanas Server. Recruitment currently closed.
I'll actually agree with you for once. We should focus most of our money on the Navy, not a small amount. It's the key bit. The army doesn't need to be terribly large, as long as we stop fighting stupid misguided wars of choice.
He's not really a right-wing conservative from what I've read. And I'm not convinced he'll really block on hcr if offered the right incentives. The things I've been reading today have been along this line where he seems to not like the federal idea because it will compete with what Massachusetts already has+added SO MUCH SPENDING rhetoric. I'm not really convinced he's a lock for the anti-hcr bill vote. I think he could be courted if he felt sure that the Massachusetts plan wouldn't be "dumbed down," as he puts it, by the federal bill.
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
Well, his choices are:
Vote against -> get horribly crushed beneath a Presidential election turnout in Mass. freight train, unless he gets picked up for VP as a rising star for being a conservative folk hero. The latter would not shock me, at all.
Vote for -> Lose a primary to a teabagger
We need to be careful though... We are making some 'interesting' program choices in the navy as well. I can't talk about them personally (conflict of interest and what not) but they are public knowledge. On of our biggest downfalls is current culture is rejecting so called 'legacy' systems in favor of hightech low manning solutions. While I am all for advancing technology the Navy is moving too fast (sorry i really can't get more into it).
The sad part is most of the legacy systems do a great job and incremental advancements would be a lot better IMO. No one can touch the aegis system which is considered legacy. Do we really need $1B destroyers and $12B Carriers when the current systems provide total theater dominance? Probably not.
edit:
WRT the army. While there is lots of room for debate about the need for the Iraq war, I don't agree that Afghanistan was a war of choice. The way it was executed is debatable, but one can simply not take action after a spectacularly horrific attack/opening move like 9/11. If we acted sooner on intel, more covert means could have been used to naturalize the threat though.
Infinity Mog 21 and over Free Company Sargatanas Server. Recruitment currently closed.
Assuming that could happen when he's up for re-election. He seems to be playing to local constituents with his "fed hcr will compete with what we have that I like" line. And when it really comes down to it, I can't imagine hie local constituents voting for a true right-wing candidate. I mean really. This is the Mitt Romney state--Romney's not exactly oh-so-on-the-right. If he tests the wind (which he should considering a major part of his win was that he was campaigning against air in the most pivotal part of the race), I think he could be swayed. I could be wrong, but I think there's a shot given that his position against federal hcr is a late and related entirely to state protection adoption.
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
That's the problem right there.
Like it or not, America is a center/center-right country. If you try to govern from the left, when the vast majority of americans do not want hard left policies, you will fail. It's also wrong to be assuming democrat = liberal when there are a *lot* of moderate and conservative democrats who don't like certain things rammed down their throats either, especially in the hamfisted way Reid/Pelosi have been acting.
Bill Clinton found this out the hard way, but was smart enough to run to the center and actually did a lot of good.
Another error is misinterpreting the 2008 elections; it wasn't a mandate for the left, but a rejection of Republican incompetence and the acceptance of Obama who ran as a centrist, post-racial/political guy...then who appeared to go hard left leaving many moderates, independants, and conservative democrats feeling had or, mayby, even lied to.
Margaret Thatcher
Something like 70% of America supported a public option. Public opinion has virtually nothing to do with the way that healthcare reform has gone.
Yet they reject Obamacare by a strong majority.
Margaret Thatcher
You are aware that a lot of liberals dislike the healthcare bill for not being "leftist" enough, right? Like, a lot.
Except they didn't. They rejected the name.
But they supported the public option by a huge majority. Which implies that the problem most people have with this bill is not "it's too far left", but something else entirely.
So you're admitting that it's flawed?
Margaret Thatcher
This forum wants single payer, so hell yes.
I kinda see it as the pandering to insurance and pharmaceutical interests option.
Very true. They wanted something a lot more leftist.
Margaret Thatcher
That is exactly what "centrist" and "moderate" mean in this country. Which stands to reason, sincethe status quo of the nation is rule by corporations.
Are you dense? englightenedbum's original point was that people support progressive legislation when asked about specifics, despite their political self-identification.
Funny thing, that question. When people self-identify as conservative/moderate/liberal, the majority choose conservative. When you ask them about their stances on specific issues, the majority prefer the liberal options. Which just means people are fucking morons, and don't know what the parties actually stand for, and instead choose to just root for their "team."
You know that doesn't contradict what he was saying, right? People self identify more as moderates or conservatives, but when you get down to asking positions on actual policy details the country is much more center left than center right.
So the rest of us need to shut the hell up and do what we're told because "this forum" decreed that "it" wants a single payer system? o_O
And is this a confirmation/opinion that there's little debate in "debate an discourse" with it basically being a progressive echo chamber/ideological circle jerk?
Margaret Thatcher
Which is not an uncommon opinion. You'll also note we compromised on that position kind of a lot.
Ah, there we go. The "lolechochamber." The last refuge of the conservative that can't back up his side of the argument.
You either have poor reading comprehension or are serially dishonest. All enlightenedbum said was that, by the liberal consensus of the PA forum, "Obamacare" -- by which I assume you mean the Senate healthcare bill -- is flawed. Stop being a drama queen.
What the fuck is with all the non-sequitoritis that has been going around lately? How in the hell did you jump to the conclusion you came to in this post? You asked if we thought it was flawed, people said yes because they didn't think it was left enough, and then you go whining about not getting a pony?
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.
If by "centrist" you mean "terrible" then yes. It sure as hell ain't conservative.
Sure, if you want to use the "no true scotsman" fallacy. Well, I guess you could say it is bipartisan instead. :P
I resigned myself to this a long time ago...what took you so long?
It's not Ted Kennedy's seat; it's not some sort of feudal fief held by Divine Right; the people decide who fills it. As Brown himself said “With all due respect, it’s not the Kennedy’s seat, it’s not the Democrats’ seat, it’s the people’s seat.”
Margaret Thatcher
So when I call that women who bore me my mother, do I mean that I own her?
If I am my teacher's student, do I belong to my teacher?
"Ted Kennedy's seat" in this sense just means "the seat occupied by Ted Kennedy." You would have not objected to someone saying that Roland Burris took Barack Obama's seat.
Man really? This is what you bitch about?
Newsflash: HE DIED! It was his seat he won for a term and he died before that term was up, so calling it his seat should be extremely uncontroversial.
For example, if McCain or Byrd or whoever either died or was so incapacitated that they had to step down, there would be nothing controversial about calling a special election in the interim being for that senator's seat.
A few people have responded to your assertion that this is a "center right" country by pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Are you going to address it or just complain about bias?
Edit: People identifying as "conservative" has considerably more to do with branding than with policy. The only thing that gallup poll proves is that Republicans are really good at demonizing their enemies and democrats are terrible at it.
But... but... echochamber!!!