If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   "Ryan disavows Romney's defense spending plan" This campaign will self destruct in five seconds   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 178
    More: Interesting, Travis Sharp  
•       •       •

4668 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Oct 2012 at 10:42 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



178 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-15 11:25:09 AM

sammyk: FTFA:Ryan, along with all Republican leaders, have disavowed the defense sequester they voted for, and blamed its looming, across-the-board defense cuts on President Obama.

Sadly that is working with the uninformed voters. I had one of my politically incurious friends tell me over the weekend that Obama wants to cut the military. My friend had the impression that the Obama platform was to cut the military to have more money to spend on welfare.

I told him to be sure and make it to the polls Nov. 7th


That's better than my relative who says he's voting Romney "because he's a Republican." Of course, this person also thinks ballots should only have political parties listed (no candidates) "Because people are too stupid to be trusted to vote for the right person."
 
2012-10-15 11:25:36 AM
Jackson Herring

sammyk: FTFA:Ryan, along with all Republican leaders, have disavowed the defense sequester they voted for, and blamed its looming, across-the-board defense cuts on President Obama.

Sadly that is working with the uninformed voters. I had one of my politically incurious friends tell me over the weekend that Obama wants to cut the military. My friend had the impression that the Obama platform was to cut the military to have more money to spend on welfare.

I told him to be sure and make it to the polls Nov. 7th

My roomate is absolutely certain that Obama literally hates the military, and so even though he hates Romney he's going to vote for him.



Good to hear!
 
2012-10-15 11:26:25 AM
The people who vote for Republicans don't care if they lie. So this is only a problem with those who are "undecided".
 
2012-10-15 11:26:32 AM

sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: sprawl15: There's a couple problems getting in the way of this. Number one is the USAF's stranglehold on the international air refueling scene; they offer refueling at significantly below cost for any other country. If Germany, for example, has a fully amortized tanker with crew and bla bla ready to go, it's cheaper for them to buy from the US than to fly their own sorties.

I'm not really all that concerned if Germany's defense budget isn't subsidized by the US tax payer to the same extent any longer.

That isn't what we're talking about, though. To shift worldwide defense responsibilities away from the US without sacrificing (much) security requires a massive geopolitical shift that simply can't be met by modern technology. Now, you could be fine with that, but it's important to be honest and know the exact effects of things like saying "we should cut defense in specific areas to make Europe do the heavy lifting for NATO" (for example). Well, they can't. They aren't going to be able to for probably more than a decade.


Well let's get that decade started. The fact that change can't be instantaneous is no excuse.
 
2012-10-15 11:27:21 AM

Turbo Cojones: sammyk: hillbillypharmacist: sammyk: My friend had the impression that the Obama platform was to cut the military to have more money to spend on welfare.

"It's what Democrats do!"

It's the only way they can get votes. I for one would not vote for Obama if I didn't get my awesome Obama phone.

OBAMA PHONE? Hell, I've been voting straight Republican since '84 since they told me it was a REAGAN phone!


Reagan Phones were rotary, Obama phones are crappy cell phones made in china for pennies and then sold as TracPhones.

If only McCain won.

www.wired.com
 
2012-10-15 11:27:48 AM

dickfreckle: sammyk: hillbillypharmacist: sammyk: My friend had the impression that the Obama platform was to cut the military to have more money to spend on welfare.

"It's what Democrats do!"

It's the only way they can get votes. I for one would not vote for Obama if I didn't get my awesome Obama phone.

If I hear one more quip about "Obamaphones," I will literally choke a b*tch,

It's another example of how the right's punditry can turn falsehood to fact.


Ah come on. It's a fun way to make fun of hillbillies when they try to say the dems want to cut the military so they can expand welfare.
 
2012-10-15 11:33:07 AM
Wow. The fark filter doesn't like the official Navy designation for aircraft carriers apparently.
 
2012-10-15 11:34:19 AM

sammyk: Sadly that is working with the uninformed voters


That's exactly the problem. SNL parodied it:

Jim Lehrer: Mr. President, Governor Romney has just said that he killed Osama bin Laden. Would you care to respond?

President Barack Obama: Uhhh, no. You two go ahead.


Romney flat out lied in the debate and I think Obama sat back thinking to himself the American public will see through his lies and see him as a liar. How could they not, these werent tiny little white lies, these were flat out opposite of truth, actually verifiable lies. Obama thought Romney was digging his own ditch. Turned out the uninformed public heard Romney saying stuff like "I cover preexisting conditions" and thought "hey, this guy isn't as crazy derp right as Obama has been saying all along!"

Why this is a shock to anyone is beyond me. It's how Reagan was elected.
 
2012-10-15 11:34:40 AM
They just need to go out there and say "Look, we have no plans. We just hate Democrats."
 
2012-10-15 11:34:41 AM

Jackson Herring: Wow. The fark filter doesn't like the official Navy designation for aircraft carriers apparently.


I thought you were just calling Romney a coont. I'm OK with that.
 
2012-10-15 11:38:20 AM

ha-ha-guy: Aegis destroyers, cruisers, future development of the SM family (SM-6 improvements, etc), alternative power methods for the cruisers (nuclear navy part ii perhaps), etc. They're farking useful in that they can shoot down missiles, malfunctioning satellites (or hostile sats if we go to war), medium to large sized space debris, etc.


The usefulness of these things is vastly, stupidly overrated.

Apart from the ICBMs carried by nuclear subs, there are no military missiles in the world that can possibly reach more than a handful of satellites, if any. The SM-6 has a max altitude of ~35km. Low earth orbit starts at ~160km. Even an ICBM tops out at ~200km max altitude.

Second, it is absolutely ridiculous to blow up satellites / space junk under any circumstance. All you do it create MORE debris with MORE energy.

Third, even if you had a rocket powerful enough to intercept a comet/asteroid on collision course with Earth, it would very likely do dick-all to try blowing it up. Even if you ignore the absurd amount of energy it would take to break up a threateningly large object, you'd just end up making a handful of smaller objects with the same total combined mass and therefore the same total combined impact energy, achieving basically nothing.

Shooting down missiles is also something that has a very poor track record, not to mention there aren't many credible threats - certainly not enough to warrant expanding our fleets.

Let's stop building sh*t we don't need, mmkay?
=Smidge=
 
2012-10-15 11:40:12 AM

Jackson Herring: The second Gerald Ford class aircraft carrier,coont9,


HEHEHE
 
2012-10-15 11:42:20 AM

sprawl15: Headso: He will take a 77k tax deduction on his horse he just hasn't as of yet, that's the "untrue" part of it.

I should have wished for a lottery ticket:

sprawl15: And when you point it out, people will defend to the death the idea that a possible cut in the future is the same thing.


If he is unable to make any more money from it or fold it into some other business that needs a deduction, yeah right, he will just be in the same boat as every middle class person I have ever know who owned a horse.
 
2012-10-15 11:46:07 AM

Because People in power are Stupid: The people who vote for Republicans don't care if they lie. So this is only a problem with those who are "undecided".


Agree. Most Republicans that I know don't seem to be bothered at all by inconsistencies. Most of them mouth off about the "freeloaders", then cheat on their own taxes and get every single one of the same tax breaks that they complain about. Amoral to the core, but they don't see themselves that way.. They are voting because of single imagined issues or because the President is Near; no facts can change that. The Romney/Ryan "plan" is just there to fill the gaps because they have to say that they have something, the fact that it can't actually work and there are no details does not bother their core voters.
 
2012-10-15 11:48:13 AM

indylaw: Some days I wonder if we wouldn't be better off with a king.


How about a duke? A really kick arse duke?!
 
2012-10-15 11:48:42 AM

Carn: Whiskey Pete: If there's one thing that we need it's moar defense spending.

[i1162.photobucket.com image 675x360]

This is what drives me crazy about people who won't even consider defense spending because "it'll make us weak!". We could cut our spending in half and still spend almost as much as the next five countries combines (and far more than the rest of the world). It's just a stupid argument. We spend too much on defense, especially considering our economic problems.


Also, considering that we have oceans to our East and West and--of all the countries in the world--Canada to our North.
 
2012-10-15 11:51:38 AM

Headso: If he is unable to make any more money from it or fold it into some other business that needs a deduction, yeah right, he will just be in the same boat as every middle class person I have ever know who owned a horse.


imageshack.us
 
2012-10-15 11:53:27 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: I think we should cut the number of personnel


JOBS!!11! Why do you hate America?

/yes, we're gonna have to if we want to balance our budget
 
2012-10-15 11:53:32 AM
"Just say what the voters want to hear, we already got the money from the 1%, and they know we're lying to Middle America to get in office."
 
2012-10-15 11:54:31 AM
Maybe we could save some money by firing our military and hiring a South Korean All-Girl Force?

farm4.static.flickr.com

"First the periscope was raised, then she was torpedoed back
aft!"
 
2012-10-15 11:57:12 AM

ha-ha-guy: Philip Francis Queeg: I do. I think we should cut the number of personnel and scale back our operational readiness to a more reasonable standard. I think we need to shift some of the defense burden to our allies.

Shift more of it onto the Guard. The standing military should only be full time employment for people we want to go career. Fewer people who need complex technical skills and thus are paid at a rate that encourages them to spend 20+ years on active duty. Things that are phasing out, like say armored calvary, can be scaled back. We can keep one giant armored corps on active duty at Fort Hood and pass out the rest of the Bradleys, Abrams, etc to Guard units. They can drive the armored vehicles around for their one weekend a month and go down to Hood for OPFOR drills for their two weeks a year part. The guys at Hood would be busy since every two weeks they'd get a new OPFOR to drill against.

At least Obama scaled us back to one major war in one theater. Now we just need to cut out some of the older stuff. Tanks for example are likely on their way out as a primary offense weapon due to the fact they're just one big juicy target for a predator. So we'll need to rethink how many tanks the Army needs. Same with a lot of other jobs that don't involving flying, drone piloting, missile defense, or other tasks that will be the bread and butter of the next war.


Can't see that working. The outlays for keeping armor for a Guard unit would be steep, in addition to the difficulties maintaing gunnery proficiency for the guard units. Armor units need some highly specialized training areas, not to mention the time for mantainance. Won't be able to take care of that during a weekend drill. Not to mention most areas wouldn't like the idea of armor moving down the city streets.
 
2012-10-15 12:00:07 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com
WEAKNESS INVITES AGGRESSION
 
2012-10-15 12:00:43 PM
Has anyone pointed out that pegging defense spending to 4% of GDP means that even if you got the outrageous growth that Romney wants to make his 5 trillion decade gap to work without new taxes, it still doesn't work because defense spending would have grown over a trillion more? When I do the math, things still don't work out because of this spending tie.

/I'll point it out once I figure these internets out
 
2012-10-15 12:03:33 PM
That's truthiness in action.
 
2012-10-15 12:03:44 PM

karnal: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 320x318]
WEAKNESS INVITES AGGRESSION


the worst terror attack ever occurred under a republican ;-)
 
2012-10-15 12:03:55 PM
HST's Dead Carcass

"Just say what the voters want to hear, we already got the money from the 1%, and they know we're lying to Middle America to get in office."


Obama's Campaign is full of lies - from I deserve four more years in the White House so we can fix the huge mess I inherited to My policies stopped another Depression.
 
2012-10-15 12:06:29 PM

Smidge204: Second, it is absolutely ridiculous to blow up satellites / space junk under any circumstance. All you do it create MORE debris with MORE energy.


Incorrect. When sats are being brought back to Earth there are concerns as to if their power source will burn up in the atmosphere. The power source itself is often something unpleasant and inside a shield container, so the concern is the container shields the power source from burn up and you end up with a mess of hydrazine or the like. See the USS Lake Erie's shootdown in 2008 as an example. They put the sat on path for atmospheric burnout and then nailed it with a SM to make sure the fuel tank cracked high up and everything burned up. As more and more of our old sats are pulled out of service there will be an increased demand for this kind of service. Plenty of RTG sats. They also had cruisers on duty in case any big pieces of Mir didn't burn up and hit NZ or Australia.

For that matter every time a shuttle launches, the Air Force provided range safety. If the shuttle went off course, the USAF had orders to fry the sucker with a SAM. That was seen as better than the shuttle possibly crash landing into Madrid or somewhere of that nature. As we boost more and stuff into space, Aegis cruisers can provide range safety. Better to turn it into lots of little pieces in the upper atmosphere than to have one big piece land in a city.

Third, even if you had a rocket powerful enough to intercept a comet/asteroid on collision course with Earth, it would very likely do dick-all to try blowing it up. Even if you ignore the absurd amount of energy it would take to break up a threateningly large object, you'd just end up making a handful of smaller objects with the same total combined mass and therefore the same total combined impact energy, achieving basically nothing.

Or you intercept it from very far out, and knock it off course. Tens or hundreds of impacts each perhaps moving the rock a very small amount off course would generate a miss if they occurred far enough out. Using lazy math the average distance from Earth to Mars is 54.6 million km. If you catch the asteroid on impact course that far out, you don't need much of a course alteration to cause the asteroid to miss Earth with plenty of room to spare. One possible option on the table for asteroid defense is basically a missile battery that spams missiles as the asteroid so it is nudged. Lasers, particle weapons, and the like are also out there.

Shooting down missiles is also something that has a very poor track record, not to mention there aren't many credible threats - certainly not enough to warrant expanding our fleets.

The Japanese and American Aegis tests would disagree with you. As would the Patriot Block IIs deployed to Iraq for the second go round. The Israelis also have done some interesting close in work with taking out shoulder launched missiles and rockets.

As for credible threats, China's keeps buying more SSMs like they are candy and their idea of Stage I of any conflict is to simply flood the ROK, Japan, and Taiwan with SSMs. The Aegis ships serve as an excellent deterrence threat. Especially as the domestic Chinese economy slows down and China looks to start shiat abroad (the Senkakus) to distract people from internal issues. Nationalism is one of the top tools of the CCP and since they can't play as many economic cards these days they look to play more nationalism ones. There is a valid desire to field more Aegis hulls in the Pacific and even some honest work for them elsewhere.
 
2012-10-15 12:06:44 PM

sammyk: I'm not talking about your average moron. This guy is very intelligent. He's just part of that demographic that is too busy with work and life to have time to follow politics the way farkers that frequent this tab do.


I've been saying this for years. Too many Americans are just too damn busy with the stresses of everyday life (especially during a difficult economy) to be able to follow politics as much as they should to make properly informed decisions.

And this is where journalists really screwed the pooch. They waste time on bullsh*t stories (Hell, TIME had an article on Ryan's workout routine, IIRC), and leave people more confused than they were before. It's a f*cking joke.
 
2012-10-15 12:09:09 PM

karnal: HST's Dead Carcass

"Just say what the voters want to hear, we already got the money from the 1%, and they know we're lying to Middle America to get in office."

Obama's Campaign is full of lies - from I deserve four more years in the White House so we can fix the huge mess I inherited to My policies stopped another Depression.


Yes, things were just dandy till Obama and his socialism!
 
2012-10-15 12:09:15 PM

El Morro: sammyk: I'm not talking about your average moron. This guy is very intelligent. He's just part of that demographic that is too busy with work and life to have time to follow politics the way farkers that frequent this tab do.

I've been saying this for years. Too many Americans are just too damn busy with the stresses of everyday life (especially during a difficult economy) to be able to follow politics as much as they should to make properly informed decisions.

And this is where journalists really screwed the pooch. They waste time on bullsh*t stories (Hell, TIME had an article on Ryan's workout routine, IIRC), and leave people more confused than they were before. It's a f*cking joke.


You would think as a society, we would have a shared, vested interest in making informed political decisions.
 
2012-10-15 12:09:24 PM

lennavan: sammyk: Sadly that is working with the uninformed voters

That's exactly the problem. SNL parodied it:

Jim Lehrer: Mr. President, Governor Romney has just said that he killed Osama bin Laden. Would you care to respond?

President Barack Obama: Uhhh, no. You two go ahead.

Romney flat out lied in the debate and I think Obama sat back thinking to himself the American public will see through his lies and see him as a liar. How could they not, these werent tiny little white lies, these were flat out opposite of truth, actually verifiable lies. Obama thought Romney was digging his own ditch. Turned out the uninformed public heard Romney saying stuff like "I cover preexisting conditions" and thought "hey, this guy isn't as crazy derp right as Obama has been saying all along!"

Why this is a shock to anyone is beyond me. It's how Reagan was elected.


The truth doesn't matter at this point. I had foxnews on in the background this morning. They are very busy blaming Obama for the price of gas babbling about denied drilling permits and the keystone pipeline. Now we know its BS. We've discussed it over and over on fark. We are exporting gasoline and have a glut of natural gas. But it does not matter and there is nothing the Obama campaign can do about it. They can put all the numbers they want on the web and have people tell the truth on TV. The republicans will just accuse them of cooking the numbers and point to the price of gas. The uninformed voter will buy it hook line and sinker.
 
2012-10-15 12:12:20 PM

Jackson Herring: sammyk: FTFA:Ryan, along with all Republican leaders, have disavowed the defense sequester they voted for, and blamed its looming, across-the-board defense cuts on President Obama.

Sadly that is working with the uninformed voters. I had one of my politically incurious friends tell me over the weekend that Obama wants to cut the military. My friend had the impression that the Obama platform was to cut the military to have more money to spend on welfare.

I told him to be sure and make it to the polls Nov. 7th

My roomate is absolutely certain that Obama literally hates the military, and so even though he hates Romney he's going to vote for him.


He remains unswayed by the dozens of examples of the GOP actually hating on the military?
 
2012-10-15 12:14:05 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: indylaw: Some days I wonder if we wouldn't be better off with a king.

How about a duke? A really kick arse duke?!


We'll all live in TUBES!
 
2012-10-15 12:15:24 PM

Smidge204: Second, it is absolutely ridiculous to blow up satellites / space junk under any circumstance.


Ridiculous under all circumstances? Yes, I'm sure "blow up the enemy intelligence satellites" would be looked on as ridiculous if we went to war with a country that had satellites.
 
2012-10-15 12:15:39 PM

I'm an Egyptian!: Can't see that working. The outlays for keeping armor for a Guard unit would be steep, in addition to the difficulties maintaing gunnery proficiency for the guard units. Armor units need some highly specialized training areas, not to mention the time for mantainance. Won't be able to take care of that during a weekend drill. Not to mention most areas wouldn't like the idea of armor moving down the city streets.


There are plenty of Guard armor units already and the Guard has openings for Abrams crew, MLRS crew, Avenger Air Defense, and 155mm gun (SP and Towed).

As for drill areas, that is why you fly the people to the equipment. Even today most places with armored cavalry tend to have armored vehicles for visitors on hand. When I was doing my Guard time I was in an artillery unit and to fire an artillery piece I showed up Friday night with my gear, got on a C-130 (or sometimes just got tossed on a civilian flight and a bus met us at the airport), had my ass flown six states over to base with a range and fired one of the guns on hand there. Our guns pretty much hung out in the warehouse and only ever pulled out for inspection/maintenance.

/the best part was the dude flying the C-130 was Air Guard and doing his monthly training, that's always reassuring when you're lifting off in a Michigan snow storm
//at least he flew a jet for his day job so we knew he was current on flight time
 
2012-10-15 12:16:09 PM
I have been seriously thinking about this.I would propose closing all permanent Overseas Army bases not including the DMZ. Finance and non close support logistics would become DD civilian positions. All Army positions below he rank of E-5 should be considered reserve positions unless they are in critical positions. Critical positions would include Special Operations and vehicle and aircraft maintenance. I would continue the upgrade of the Navy. By keeping a professional Cadre and rapid response troops in an active status, we should save money on training and salary while adding a high preparedness level.
 
2012-10-15 12:16:55 PM

Mentat: So Romney won't build 15 new naval ships a year, including 3 submarines?


Anybody that really believes that is dumb enough to vote for Romney.
 
2012-10-15 12:18:05 PM

qorkfiend: Smidge204: Second, it is absolutely ridiculous to blow up satellites / space junk under any circumstance.

Ridiculous under all circumstances? Yes, I'm sure "blow up the enemy intelligence satellites" would be looked on as ridiculous if we went to war with a country that had satellites.


Also the only really good way to do drone warfare these days is to run it via sat uplink. The comm and GPS sats are going to be prime targets as well.

/also having a SM capable of shooting down a Chinese missile that is trying to shoot down one of our sats
//then they fire a missile at that missile and we reply in kind and *head explodes*
 
2012-10-15 12:21:32 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: indylaw: Some days I wonder if we wouldn't be better off with a king emperor.

It is with great reluctance that I have agreed to this calling. I love democracy. I love the republic. Once this crisis has abated, I will lay down the powers you have given me! And as my first act with this new authority, I will create a grand army of the Republic to counter the increasing threats of the Separatists Islamists.

The Jedi liberal progressive rebellion has been foiled and the remaining Jedi liberals will be hunted down and defeated. The attempt on my life has left me scarred and deformed. But, I assure you, my resolve has never been stronger. In order to ensure our security and continuing stability, the republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic American Empire for a safe and secure society.


I mean, think about all the jobs that were created when the Emperor constructed not one, but two Death Stars. Good, high paying jobs.

And talk about projecting strength - who does Obama have that can choke a biatch from 1000 light years away, with his midichlorians mind?

Democracy was a neat experiment, but like Deism, classical music and reading, perhaps it's just another Enlightenment-era meme that has jumped the shark.
 
2012-10-15 12:28:05 PM

sammyk: FTFA:Ryan, along with all Republican leaders, have disavowed the defense sequester they voted for, and blamed its looming, across-the-board defense cuts on President Obama.

Sadly that is working with the uninformed voters. I had one of my politically incurious friends tell me over the weekend that Obama wants to cut the military. My friend had the impression that the Obama platform was to cut the military to have more money to spend on welfare.

I told him to be sure and make it to the polls Nov. 7th


What! We don't want someone that misinformed to vo......oh.....iswydt....
 
2012-10-15 12:31:18 PM

Chelsea Clinton Is Carrot Top's Lost Twin: /Step 1: right click

//Step 2: select "Save image as....."

///Save image for when I receive the typical "Fw:Fw:Fw:Fw:Fw:Fw:" emails from my foxnews watching relatives


i like this one better. yum pie (chart)

seniorsforademocraticsociety.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-10-15 12:32:20 PM

Citrate1007: "So we're saying don't cut the military by a trillion dollars," Ryan said. "Not increase it by a trillion, don't cut it by a trillion dollars."

#1 Blatant lie, the GOP wants to increase the DoD budget that has been set high enough to fight 2 ongoing wars even throughout peacetime.
#2 Cut the DoD budget by a trillion dollars or shut the fark up about the deficit, the cost of Obamacare, or any claim that the GOP gives a rats ass about fiscal responsibility.


Romneys exact words, I believe, were "we're going to increase military spending to 4% of gdp."
 
2012-10-15 12:38:36 PM

ha-ha-guy: Philip Francis Queeg: I do. I think we should cut the number of personnel and scale back our operational readiness to a more reasonable standard. I think we need to shift some of the defense burden to our allies.

Shift more of it onto the Guard. The standing military should only be full time employment for people we want to go career. Fewer people who need complex technical skills and thus are paid at a rate that encourages them to spend 20+ years on active duty. Things that are phasing out, like say armored calvary, can be scaled back. We can keep one giant armored corps on active duty at Fort Hood and pass out the rest of the Bradleys, Abrams, etc to Guard units. They can drive the armored vehicles around for their one weekend a month and go down to Hood for OPFOR drills for their two weeks a year part. The guys at Hood would be busy since every two weeks they'd get a new OPFOR to drill against.

At least Obama scaled us back to one major war in one theater. Now we just need to cut out some of the older stuff. Tanks for example are likely on their way out as a primary offense weapon due to the fact they're just one big juicy target for a predator. So we'll need to rethink how many tanks the Army needs. Same with a lot of other jobs that don't involving flying, drone piloting, missile defense, or other tasks that will be the bread and butter of the next war.


As a commander in the Guard, I have to tell you that we are already strapped when it comes to training and mobilization requirements. Just finished developing a 3-year training plan and could barely squeeze in all of our various training requirements, and that's not accounting for all of the other stuff state and the feds will dump on us last minute (suicide prevention stand down? Sure, let me just scrap eight hours out of the one weekend i get this month).

Never mind the fact that many of my Soldiers have as many deployments as their active counterparts...if you really want us to be "active duty lite" you are going to need to fundamentally revamp how we approach our reserve components. As an officer i am basically working full time on top of my civilian job doing planning just to keep up with the present workload, never mind any additional requirements from having to hold even more of the active military's burden.

/sent from my phone on the job site
//time to start hanging drywall again
///Officer conference call when i get home from here
 
2012-10-15 12:40:15 PM

I'm an Egyptian!: ha-ha-guy: Philip Francis Queeg: I do. I think we should cut the number of personnel and scale back our operational readiness to a more reasonable standard. I think we need to shift some of the defense burden to our allies.

Shift more of it onto the Guard. The standing military should only be full time employment for people we want to go career. Fewer people who need complex technical skills and thus are paid at a rate that encourages them to spend 20+ years on active duty. Things that are phasing out, like say armored calvary, can be scaled back. We can keep one giant armored corps on active duty at Fort Hood and pass out the rest of the Bradleys, Abrams, etc to Guard units. They can drive the armored vehicles around for their one weekend a month and go down to Hood for OPFOR drills for their two weeks a year part. The guys at Hood would be busy since every two weeks they'd get a new OPFOR to drill against.

At least Obama scaled us back to one major war in one theater. Now we just need to cut out some of the older stuff. Tanks for example are likely on their way out as a primary offense weapon due to the fact they're just one big juicy target for a predator. So we'll need to rethink how many tanks the Army needs. Same with a lot of other jobs that don't involving flying, drone piloting, missile defense, or other tasks that will be the bread and butter of the next war.

Can't see that working. The outlays for keeping armor for a Guard unit would be steep, in addition to the difficulties maintaing gunnery proficiency for the guard units. Armor units need some highly specialized training areas, not to mention the time for mantainance. Won't be able to take care of that during a weekend drill. Not to mention most areas wouldn't like the idea of armor moving down the city streets.


They already do it at the NTC in the Southwest. They keep a set of OPFOR vehicles for visiting units so transport costs are for personnel only. The guys who used to do OPFOR were damn near elite because they played bad guy as part of their duty. Just rotate regular units against NG units.
 
2012-10-15 12:41:08 PM

sammyk: lennavan: sammyk: Sadly that is working with the uninformed voters

That's exactly the problem. SNL parodied it:

Jim Lehrer: Mr. President, Governor Romney has just said that he killed Osama bin Laden. Would you care to respond?

President Barack Obama: Uhhh, no. You two go ahead.

Romney flat out lied in the debate and I think Obama sat back thinking to himself the American public will see through his lies and see him as a liar. How could they not, these werent tiny little white lies, these were flat out opposite of truth, actually verifiable lies. Obama thought Romney was digging his own ditch. Turned out the uninformed public heard Romney saying stuff like "I cover preexisting conditions" and thought "hey, this guy isn't as crazy derp right as Obama has been saying all along!"

Why this is a shock to anyone is beyond me. It's how Reagan was elected.

The truth doesn't matter at this point. I had foxnews on in the background this morning. They are very busy blaming Obama for the price of gas babbling about denied drilling permits and the keystone pipeline. Now we know its BS. We've discussed it over and over on fark. We are exporting gasoline and have a glut of natural gas. But it does not matter and there is nothing the Obama campaign can do about it. They can put all the numbers they want on the web and have people tell the truth on TV. The republicans will just accuse them of cooking the numbers and point to the price of gas. The uninformed voter will buy it hook line and sinker.


It gets better, my brother also decided to the exact same thing, but also said Obama has an invested interest in oil and is intentionally lower production to line his own pockets. The only problem I had with that was the fact that oil production is at its highest and the fact that consumption in India and China is what is helping leading to this increase in prices. Why sell your oil where prices are lower and demand is lower, when you can rake in huge profits by selling to other nations and help artificially inflate the prices both overseas and in the US. Its a win-win for them.
 
2012-10-15 12:43:42 PM
How about, instead of spending even more on a military that is already stronger than every other military in the world combined we spend that money on infrastructure here at home. That does two things: it creates jobs and it fixes our failing roads, bridges and other infrastructure.
 
2012-10-15 12:45:33 PM

indylaw: sammyk: FTFA:Ryan, along with all Republican leaders, have disavowed the defense sequester they voted for, and blamed its looming, across-the-board defense cuts on President Obama.

Sadly that is working with the uninformed voters. I had one of my politically incurious friends tell me over the weekend that Obama wants to cut the military. My friend had the impression that the Obama platform was to cut the military to have more money to spend on welfare.

I told him to be sure and make it to the polls Nov. 7th

This is why I hate politics. It's completely cynical - politicians, and particularly those from a certain party, know never to bet against the stupidity of the average voter. How do you combat that? If you resort to facts and figures, you're an out-of-touch egghead. If you point out lies, the media blinks like cattle.

Some days I wonder if we wouldn't be better off with a king.


Evidently, that's exactly what Republicans want. It's their 3rd-in-a-row "nominate some guy who wouldn't be dogcatcher if not for his daddy."
 
2012-10-15 12:48:45 PM

Kafka at the Improv: As a commander in the Guard, I have to tell you that we are already strapped when it comes to training and mobilization requirements. Just finished developing a 3-year training plan and could barely squeeze in all of our various training requirements, and that's not accounting for all of the other stuff state and the feds will dump on us last minute (suicide prevention stand down? Sure, let me just scrap eight hours out of the one weekend i get this month).


My comment was a bit more general. In reality I think the whole Guard system does need a revamp. For example I was active duty, then I was guard, and then I had a wife, kids, and lost all interest in getting federalized and sent off to our latest quagmire in the Middle East. I'd much rather see a system where you had three levels.

1. Active Duty

2. A level where you were perhaps two weekends every six weeks, two 2 week periods a year (or something of that nature). This would be primarily aimed at formerly active duty folks who had skills the military was interested in keeping sharp. Tomorrow for example if we had a major war, armor would play a major role. Twenty years from now as drone tech as improved, I don't think it would matter so much. So you'd push jobs from the active duty level down to here as they became semi important (since odds are we won't have a major land war in twenty years). Attack helicopters might be going this way as well as Reaper drones keep getting better and cheaper.

3. Domestic Guard Level. Basically the deal is you will never be deployed overseas unless Congress declares war. You're trained more as disaster relief supplement for things like floods, fires, hurricanes, etc. I think this level would attract people like myself. Went to college on the GI Bill, did some time in the Guard, but now have a wife and kids. I'd gladly go help out in post Katrina New Orleans for awhile, but I'm not joining the Guard because I don't want to die in Iraq.

So with the three levels it lets you have war fighters and tail in a sense Train level 3 guys for disaster relief and logistics, so as to give Level 2 more time for warfighting.
 
2012-10-15 12:49:41 PM

sprawl15: the $77k tax cut Romney took on his horse. This is a silly, stupid topic, and it also happens to be factually untrue


Normally, I don't give you the time of day, but...

As I understood it it, it wasn't a "tax cut", but a separate business entity that operated at a net loss, so the expenses of the business were a deduction from income. (Which is not a "tax cut".)

Was this the intent of your claim that this is "factually untrue", or is there some other explanation for the story?

I'm giving you this one chance to discuss something like an adult, instead of your usual M.O.

Don't make me regret it.
 
2012-10-15 12:51:02 PM

sammyk: Now he is a contractor for the military so to be fair to him voting for Romney would be a vote in his self interest as Romney has said he wants to increase defense spending.


Tell this guy I want to lend him $50 now if he promises to pay me back $5,000 every year for the next 4 years. Sounds like he'll jump at the chance. I mean, after all... free $50, right?
 
Displayed 50 of 178 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report