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
 
2012-10-15 08:22:30 AM
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
 
2012-10-15 08:57:09 AM

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!"
 
2012-10-15 09:14:21 AM

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.
 
2012-10-15 09:30:19 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 doesn't surprise me, given the average American Idiot.
 
2012-10-15 10:01:46 AM

Cythraul: 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 doesn't surprise me, given the average American Idiot.


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. 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.

But I don't think Obama wants to cut the military. I think it is simply on the table and has to be if you are going to approach balancing the budget like an adult.
 
2012-10-15 10:16:38 AM
Dear God.

Between Ryan and Romney not communicating and getting on the same message, and Obama faceplanting during the debate, I'm not sure what to think.

sammyk: But I don't think Obama wants to cut the military. I think it is simply on the table and has to be if you are going to approach balancing the budget like an adult.


I don't think *anyone* wants to. I saw a breakdown in another Fark thread about military spending. The largest percentages are on personnel and operational readiness. About 60-70%. R&D was something like 5%. I'm guessing that's where all the money is going when we talk about the military-industrial complex (i.e. Raytheon, etc). To make a meaningful impact on debt reduction, you'd have to cut more than just the MI complex. :/
 
2012-10-15 10:16:59 AM
So Romney won't build 15 new naval ships a year, including 3 submarines?
 
2012-10-15 10:17:37 AM

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


pffffffffffchchchchchchch....
 
2012-10-15 10:22:36 AM

sammyk: Cythraul: 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 doesn't surprise me, given the average American Idiot.

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. 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.

But I don't think Obama wants to cut the military. I think it is simply on the table and has to be if you are going to approach balancing the budget like an adult.


If his career in the military isn't the cornerstone of his support for Romney for President, then what he's doing is not idiotic, as I originally suggested, instead it's just irresponsible when choosing the future leader of your country. Someone would have to be a virtual slave to not have enough time to do some research an educate yourself on the philosophies and political record of two Presidential candidates.
 
2012-10-15 10:46:08 AM

sammyk: But I don't think Obama wants to cut the military. I think it is simply on the table and has to be if you are going to approach balancing the budget like an adult.


And therein lies the issue in Washington...
 
2012-10-15 10:46:46 AM

Cythraul: 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 doesn't surprise me, given the average American Idiot.


It's like they live their lives on Holiday.
 
2012-10-15 10:49:31 AM

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.
 
2012-10-15 10:50:03 AM

Cythraul: If his career in the military isn't the cornerstone of his support for Romney for President, then what he's doing is not idiotic, as I originally suggested, instead it's just irresponsible when choosing the future leader of your country. Someone would have to be a virtual slave to not have enough time to do some research an educate yourself on the philosophies and political record of two Presidential candidates.


The problem is that doing some research paints a very different picture than doing a whole lot of research. Romney claimed his plan was balanced, so you check his basis and he has 6 studies that support it, including papers from Princeton economists, top advisers to previous presidencies, and think tanks. Seems legit. Finding out that those studies are based on magic, though, is actual work. Those people depend on investigative journalism to do the heavy lifting of digging through and figuring out those documents, and the media isn't doing their job - in relation to either candidate.

I mean, take a really simple example: the $77k tax cut Romney took on his horse. This is a silly, stupid topic, and it also happens to be factually untrue. Most people don't know that it's untrue, because the media assumed it was and most people just took them at their word. Even people who consider themselves otherwise informed on politics believe he took a $77k tax cut. 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. About taxes on a farking dancing horse. Is it any surprise that people can't figure out the difficult things (like the GOP list of 'jobs bills' that passed the House but were shot down by Democrats in the Senate?

People have to be totally distrustful of everything and do significant amounts of legwork to inform themselves. It's not as easy as just reading a couple different news sources and opinion pieces.
 
2012-10-15 10:51:11 AM
If there's one thing that we need it's moar defense spending.

i1162.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-15 10:52:24 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.


Nothing was as low as Ohio using military personnel to try to phase out Early Voting.
 
2012-10-15 10:52:32 AM
"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.
 
2012-10-15 10:53:04 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


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.
 
2012-10-15 10:56:58 AM
Romneys plans are all retarded, but it's Obama's fault so vote for Romney and then his plans will suddenly all be really awesome too bad libs
 
2012-10-15 10:57:10 AM

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

i1162.photobucket.com


/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

////Not that it will help them, they're beyond hope; although it will help me keep sane.
 
2012-10-15 10:57:14 AM

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!
 
2012-10-15 10:57:28 AM

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.


encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

'sup biatches?
 
2012-10-15 10:58:13 AM

xanadian: sammyk: But I don't think Obama wants to cut the military. I think it is simply on the table and has to be if you are going to approach balancing the budget like an adult.

I don't think *anyone* wants to. I saw a breakdown in another Fark thread about military spending. The largest percentages are on personnel and operational readiness. About 60-70%. R&D was something like 5%. I'm guessing that's where all the money is going when we talk about the military-industrial complex (i.e. Raytheon, etc). To make a meaningful impact on debt reduction, you'd have to cut more than just the MI complex. :/


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.
 
2012-10-15 11:02:35 AM
"Ryan reveals African ancestry" This campaign will self destruct in five seconds

/FTFY'all
 
2012-10-15 11:04:11 AM
Defense spending:

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. You can also use them against piracy (although to be fair it is a bit overkill to crank up an Aegis cruiser to fry some skinnies in a dinghy). Plus what we learn from the whole SM project likely will carry over to asteroid defense which someday could be rather useful to say the least.

Start laying Flight III Burke hulls to increase shipyard jobs. Then as the Flight IIIs go into service, bring the older Flight ABs and Ticonderoga cruisers in to refit. Also get a stealthier Aegis design out and in service. The non stealth hulls can do things like cruise along the American coast and areas where they'd function more as pure ABM assets. The stealthier ones can function in the western Pacific where they could possibly be doing air defense, SSM swatting, and ABM shoot downs.

You actually get decent bang for your buck in terms of jobs created and uses of the ship. Plus in general having an ABM shield might come in handy one day.
 
2012-10-15 11:06:28 AM

sprawl15: I mean, take a really simple example: the $77k tax cut Romney took on his horse. ... Most people don't know that it's untrue....


You'ld be right. Where was it proven false?
 
2012-10-15 11:06:39 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.


This message sent from my Obamaphone
 
2012-10-15 11:06:43 AM

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.


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. Air refueling is the #1 requirement for power projection, which is the one thing the US does exceptionally well that no other country on the planet can even fake doing. On top of this, the two main planes being offered as replacements around the world (the A330 and 767) are farking awful, haven't been fully developed for boom operations, and can't meet the rigorous requirements of tanking.

We can shift some defensive operations to allies, but that's about it (and we're already doing that, to an extent). The security for the Southern Pacific region recently was (nominally) ceded to Australian authorities to handle instead of US bases, but their tanker issues (booms falling off their airplanes, among other problems) kicked that right back in the US's court.
 
2012-10-15 11:08:31 AM
I am a Unexploded Ordnance Technician by trade, formerly USAF Explosive Ordnance Disposal.

My livelihood is inexorably tied to the military industrial complex, so I am always leery of cuts in defense spending from a personal stand point.

That said, tying defense spending to our GDP is one of the most ridiculous notions that I have heard in the two decades I have spent inside the industry. In fact anyone that is part of the industry could probably list several very specific ways, in their own respective missions, to save money on defense spending without reduction of capabilities.
 
2012-10-15 11:10:59 AM

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.
 
2012-10-15 11:12:34 AM

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

[i1162.photobucket.com image 675x360]


I'm not sure what's more depressing - the fact that we outspend the rest of the world, combined, on defense spending, or that we still consider a handful of beared goat-herders with shoe bombs and box cutters a national threat in spite of it.

"Spend smarter, not harder" does come to mind.
 
2012-10-15 11:12:55 AM
Article is wrong. Romney is counting on the fact that his other policies will cause the GDP to decrease. By tying military spending to GDP, Romney is guaranteeing that in his administration defense spending will go down.
 
2012-10-15 11:12:55 AM

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.
 
2012-10-15 11:13:22 AM

neenerist: sprawl15: I mean, take a really simple example: the $77k tax cut Romney took on his horse. ... Most people don't know that it's untrue....

You'ld be right. Where was it proven false?


On his tax returns. It was never 'proven true' to begin with, it was just people taking words with a very specific meaning out of context (like 'declared loss') and running with it.

He declared the $77k as a loss under passive activities, losses which do not impact general taxation. These losses can only be applied as offsets to gains under passive activities - were the horse to win prize money, that could be offset. If there is never any passive activity income to offset, then declaring the losses does absolutely zero for you. He offset $49 (not $49k, just forty nine dollars) in 2010.
 
2012-10-15 11:13:46 AM
Question: It's 2014 and President Romney has managed to somehow tie defense spending to a percentage of the GDP. What prevents China, India or Russia from manipulating their currency in order to detract value from the Dollar, making it a worse investment and leading to the shrinking of our economic GDP and therefore our military? Would doing this not provide an easy target for economic subterfuge in order to create an environment for military conflict over resources?
 
2012-10-15 11:14:06 AM

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

[i1162.photobucket.com image 675x360]

I'm not sure what's more depressing - the fact that we outspend the rest of the world, combined, on defense spending, or that we still consider a handful of beared bearded goat-herders with shoe bombs and box cutters a national threat in spite of it.

"Spend smarter, not harder" does come to mind.


FTFM - goat-herders with trained assault bears would be a bit scarier, but that would smack of hyperbole.
 
2012-10-15 11:14:30 AM

neenerist: sprawl15: I mean, take a really simple example: the $77k tax cut Romney took on his horse. ... Most people don't know that it's untrue....

You'ld be right. Where was it proven false?


He will take a 77k tax deduction on his horse he just hasn't as of yet, that's the "untrue" part of it.
 
2012-10-15 11:16:36 AM

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

[i1162.photobucket.com image 675x360]

I'm not sure what's more depressing - the fact that we outspend the rest of the world, combined, on defense spending, or that we still consider a handful of beared bearded goat-herders with shoe bombs and box cutters a national threat in spite of it.

"Spend smarter, not harder" does come to mind.

FTFM - goat-herders with trained assault bears would be a bit scarier, but that would smack of hyperbole.


We could fight them with genetically-engineered super-salmon.
 
2012-10-15 11:17:26 AM

sprawl15: neenerist: sprawl15: I mean, take a really simple example: the $77k tax cut Romney took on his horse. ... Most people don't know that it's untrue....

You'ld be right. Where was it proven false?

On his tax returns. It was never 'proven true' to begin with, it was just people taking words with a very specific meaning out of context (like 'declared loss') and running with it.

He declared the $77k as a loss under passive activities, losses which do not impact general taxation. These losses can only be applied as offsets to gains under passive activities - were the horse to win prize money, that could be offset. If there is never any passive activity income to offset, then declaring the losses does absolutely zero for you. He offset $49 (not $49k, just forty nine dollars) in 2010.


But we can still make fun of the fruity horse, right?
 
2012-10-15 11:18:15 AM

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.
 
2012-10-15 11:19:27 AM

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.

 
2012-10-15 11:21:05 AM

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.
 
2012-10-15 11:22:19 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


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.
 
2012-10-15 11:23:21 AM

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.
 
2012-10-15 11:24:03 AM
This president spends too much! Vote for me and I will spend even more, but I'll tell you that it's not happening!
 
2012-10-15 11:24:14 AM

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


Why? More than likely, they see absolutely nothing wrong with such a breakdown.
 
2012-10-15 11:24:20 AM

macadamnut: "Ryan reveals African ancestry" This campaign will self destruct in five seconds

/FTFY'all


Trick quesiton. Was it South African ancestry?
 
2012-10-15 11:24:20 AM

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


The second Gerald Ford class aircraft carrier,coont9, will be named the Willard Mitt Romney. Its GPS will be programmed so that any time it is ordered to head to war, it instead sails to the sunny coast of France.
 
2012-10-15 11:24:35 AM
This from the party that high-fived each other after cutting military pay?

Fark your mothers, GOP.
 
2012-10-15 11:24:38 AM

Epoch_Zero: Question: It's 2014 and President Romney has managed to somehow tie defense spending to a percentage of the GDP. What prevents China, India or Russia from manipulating their currency in order to detract value from the Dollar, making it a worse investment and leading to the shrinking of our economic GDP and therefore our military? Would doing this not provide an easy target for economic subterfuge in order to create an environment for military conflict over resources?


He'll be tough on China!
 
2012-10-15 11:24:59 AM

xanadian: Dear God.

Between Ryan and Romney not communicating and getting on the same message, and Obama faceplanting during the debate, I'm not sure what to think.

sammyk: But I don't think Obama wants to cut the military. I think it is simply on the table and has to be if you are going to approach balancing the budget like an adult.

I don't think *anyone* wants to. I saw a breakdown in another Fark thread about military spending. The largest percentages are on personnel and operational readiness. About 60-70%. R&D was something like 5%. I'm guessing that's where all the money is going when we talk about the military-industrial complex (i.e. Raytheon, etc). To make a meaningful impact on debt reduction, you'd have to cut more than just the MI complex. :/


I want to.
 
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?
 
2012-10-15 12:53:50 PM

sprawl15: Cythraul: If his career in the military isn't the cornerstone of his support for Romney for President, then what he's doing is not idiotic, as I originally suggested, instead it's just irresponsible when choosing the future leader of your country. Someone would have to be a virtual slave to not have enough time to do some research an educate yourself on the philosophies and political record of two Presidential candidates.

The problem is that doing some research paints a very different picture than doing a whole lot of research. Romney claimed his plan was balanced, so you check his basis and he has 6 studies that support it, including papers from Princeton economists, top advisers to previous presidencies, and think tanks. Seems legit. Finding out that those studies are based on magic, though, is actual work. Those people depend on investigative journalism to do the heavy lifting of digging through and figuring out those documents, and the media isn't doing their job - in relation to either candidate.

I mean, take a really simple example: the $77k tax cut Romney took on his horse. This is a silly, stupid topic, and it also happens to be factually untrue. Most people don't know that it's untrue, because the media assumed it was and most people just took them at their word. Even people who consider themselves otherwise informed on politics believe he took a $77k tax cut. 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. About taxes on a farking dancing horse. Is it any surprise that people can't figure out the difficult things (like the GOP list of 'jobs bills' that passed the House but were shot down by Democrats in the Senate?

People have to be totally distrustful of everything and do significant amounts of legwork to inform themselves. It's not as easy as just reading a couple different news sources and opinion pieces.


The problem people have with him is not that he is rich and gets tax deductions. $77,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to how much he is worth. It would be bothersome if he got the money, but whether he did or didn't ISN'T THE ISSUE.

The issue is that HE IS ABLE TO IN THE FIRST PLACE... and even more so that HE WANTS TO BE ABLE TO GET MORE.

We don't care that Obama is rich either. But Obama isn't trying to lower his own taxes or give himself more deductions or anything of the sort.
 
2012-10-15 12:54:07 PM

xanadian: Dear God.

Between Ryan and Romney not communicating and getting on the same message, and Obama faceplanting during the debate, I'm not sure what to think.

sammyk: But I don't think Obama wants to cut the military. I think it is simply on the table and has to be if you are going to approach balancing the budget like an adult.

I don't think *anyone* wants to. I saw a breakdown in another Fark thread about military spending. The largest percentages are on personnel and operational readiness. About 60-70%. R&D was something like 5%. I'm guessing that's where all the money is going when we talk about the military-industrial complex (i.e. Raytheon, etc). To make a meaningful impact on debt reduction, you'd have to cut more than just the MI complex. :/


Readiness is way more expensive when you have guys over in Iraq/Afghanistan . Also those contractors are out there in force as well. Most of the cooking/cleaning/convoys are done by contractors now, all of it "readiness" all of it expensive. 


Personally I agree that we SHOULD keep Defense spending at 4% after we end the wars. We should bring the guys back home and have them build roads and bridges. Putting it under the defense budget keeps it from getting cut, and it keeps the people employed after they come back home. Much is the reason we got the Interstate system we have today, we called it "defense".
 
2012-10-15 01:00:59 PM

Deucednuisance: 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.


It's classified as a passive activity. Passive activity losses can only be applied to offset passive activity gains. If Rafalca won $77k in a dancing horse competition, that could be written off. If they found a duffel bag with $77k in it on the way to the dancing horse competition, that couldn't be written off. He wrote off a total of $49 in gains in 2010 with that $77k.

So, potentially in the future he could apply that declared loss to passive activity gains from his dancing horses, but that's a far cry from the original claim.

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


You didn't read my response upthread that already answered your question, while preemptively complaining that I don't treat you like an adult? Gee, I wonder why that could possibly be.
 
2012-10-15 01:01:48 PM
Philip Francis Queeg


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!



Do not worry, my brother - things will be "just dandy" again.
 
2012-10-15 01:03:22 PM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: The problem people have with him is not that he is rich and gets tax deductions. $77,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to how much he is worth. It would be bothersome if he got the money, but whether he did or didn't ISN'T THE ISSUE.

The issue is that HE IS ABLE TO IN THE FIRST PLACE


How is he able to?
 
2012-10-15 01:03:38 PM

Deucednuisance: 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.


well you're going to regret being wrong about literally everything in your post I'd imagine
 
2012-10-15 01:04:49 PM

karnal: Do not worry, my brother - things will be "just dandy" again.


Yep, Obama is on schedule to win with 53% still. That dropped from 61%, but he's still in the lead.
 
2012-10-15 01:05:03 PM

sprawl15: You didn't read my response upthread that already answered your question, while preemptively complaining that I don't treat you like an adult? Gee, I wonder why that could possibly be.


ONE chance, pal. You blew it bigtime. :(
 
2012-10-15 01:05:24 PM

Jackson Herring: well you're going to regret being wrong about literally everything in your post I'd imagine


he must still be upset about the spiders
 
2012-10-15 01:06:07 PM

HST's Dead Carcass: karnal: Do not worry, my brother - things will be "just dandy" again.

Yep, Obama is on schedule to win with 53% still. That dropped from 61%, but he's still in the lead.


And it's heading back up. At least a little bit.
 
2012-10-15 01:06:22 PM

karnal: Philip Francis Queeg


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!


Do not worry, my brother - things will be "just dandy" again.


And... that's what you want? A return to Republican policies that got us into this disaster?

Sorry if I'm misinterpreting, I've lost count of layers of sarcasm.
 
2012-10-15 01:08:13 PM

karnal: Philip Francis Queeg


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!


Do not worry, my brother - things will be "just dandy" again.


Yep, when the Romney/Ryan budget gets passed we will return to the glory days of October 2008.
 
2012-10-15 01:10:34 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: karnal: Philip Francis Queeg


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!


Do not worry, my brother - things will be "just dandy" again.

Yep, when the Romney/Ryan budget gets passed we will return to the glory days of October 2008.


That was a good time to be a Phillies fan.
 
2012-10-15 01:12:26 PM
Apparently we found the 2 percent of the deal that Boehner didn't want.
 
2012-10-15 01:16:01 PM
Hickory-smoked


karnal: Philip Francis Queeg


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!


Do not worry, my brother - things will be "just dandy" again.

And... that's what you want? A return to Republican policies that got us into this disaster?

Sorry if I'm misinterpreting, I've lost count of layers of sarcasm.



You've swallowed their lies hook, line, and sinker, haven't you?
 
2012-10-15 01:17:41 PM

sprawl15: You didn't read my response upthread that already answered your question, while preemptively complaining that I don't treat you like an adult? Gee, I wonder why that could possibly be.


Sometimes, on Fark, people respond to the outrageous before reading the entire thread, Mr. Stickler-for-the-facts.

Don't play cute and act like you've never seen it happen before.

Besides, some of us are also at work and can only read in short bursts before having to look productive.

And my complaint was not proactively that you would fail to treat me as an adult, it was that you so frequently behave like a child.

So there.
 
2012-10-15 01:17:49 PM

karnal: You've swallowed their lies hook, line, and sinker, haven't you?


Explain how Romey is

A) Different

B) What his economy plan to end the recession

/that's what I thought
//Even HE doesn't know the answers
///He needs an audience to pander to in order to speak what 'he believes'
 
2012-10-15 01:19:31 PM

Jackson Herring: well you're going to regret being wrong about literally everything in your post I'd imagine


Not as much as I regret your special relationship with a certain mousy Jewess, damn your eyes!
 
2012-10-15 01:19:39 PM

Deucednuisance: So there.


look what an adult you are
 
2012-10-15 01:20:13 PM

karnal: You've swallowed their lies hook, line, and sinker, haven't you?


imageshack.us

I'm sorry, you were saying?
 
2012-10-15 01:22:33 PM

Jackson Herring: well you're going to regret being wrong about literally everything in your post I'd imagine


Waitaminit!

I said that deductions from income are not "tax cuts"!

Are you telling me that that is incorrect?

Hah! Therefore I am not wrong about "literally everything" which makes me technically correct!

Which is the best kind of correct....
 
2012-10-15 01:24:13 PM

Jackson Herring: look what an adult you are


Sorry about your humor impairment.

(Could it have been any broader? Jeeze, what's a guy gotta do to get a laugh in this joint?)
 
2012-10-15 01:24:33 PM

Deucednuisance: Jackson Herring: well you're going to regret being wrong about literally everything in your post I'd imagine

Waitaminit!

I said that deductions from income are not "tax cuts"!

Are you telling me that that is incorrect?

Hah! Therefore I am not wrong about "literally everything" which makes me technically correct!

Which is the best kind of correct....


Now, this is a debate style I can embrace!
 
2012-10-15 01:27:31 PM
HST's Dead Carcass

karnal: You've swallowed their lies hook, line, and sinker, haven't you?

Explain how Romey is

A) Different

B) What his economy plan to end the recession

/that's what I thought
//Even HE doesn't know the answers
///He needs an audience to pander to in order to speak what 'he believes'



He would make the Bush tax cuts permanent

Then Romney wants to cut tax rates further, both for businesses and the middle class

And a doubling of U.S. exports by ending Obama's moratorium on new trade agreements.
Remove Obama's blockade of the oil pipeline from Canada that would have created 20,000 jobs and ending offshore limits on oil and gas exploration to boost energy supplies and flatten gas prices. 

And what is Obama going to do? More of the same? Double his efforts from the last four years? Tripling? Quadrupling? In the words of the late, great Billy Preston: "Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'"
 
2012-10-15 01:27:47 PM

Deucednuisance: what's a guy gotta do to get a laugh in this joint


not pick on my broseph stalin? my turbro? my beef broth?
 
2012-10-15 01:28:46 PM

Deucednuisance: Don't play cute and act like you've never seen it happen before.


From the sound of your complaining, I've apparently seen it from you a couple of times.
 
2012-10-15 01:31:12 PM

karnal: And a doubling of U.S. exports by ending Obama's moratorium on new trade agreements.


What moratorium? He's signed 3 in the past four years. Do you know what a moratorium is?

imageshack.us

Hint: it's not an increase year-over-year.
 
2012-10-15 01:32:13 PM

cameroncrazy1984: What moratorium? He's signed 3 in the past four years. Do you know what a moratorium is?

[imageshack.us image 320x137]

Hint: it's not an increase year-over-year.


I think this will be the thread where he finally recants his trolling. Keep it up!
 
2012-10-15 01:32:25 PM

karnal: Remove Obama's blockade of the oil pipeline from Canada that would have created 20,000 jobs


Six thousand temporary jobs. Common mistake.
 
2012-10-15 01:33:14 PM

sprawl15: cameroncrazy1984: What moratorium? He's signed 3 in the past four years. Do you know what a moratorium is?

[imageshack.us image 320x137]

Hint: it's not an increase year-over-year.

I think this will be the thread where he finally recants his trolling. Keep it up!


It's not for him. Do you think he's the only one who reads responses to him?
 
2012-10-15 01:34:53 PM
There is no such thing as trolling, only people who don't agree with you
 
2012-10-15 01:35:23 PM

cameroncrazy1984: It's not for him. Do you think he's the only one who reads responses to him?


So you're trying to persuade...Grandpa Internet? Some lonely wanderer who set his crook by the door of this thread for a spell and is interested in seeing what you have to say about trolls?
 
2012-10-15 01:36:35 PM

karnal: He would make the Bush tax cuts permanent


This is bad for anyone not in the 1%

karnal: Then Romney wants to cut tax rates further, both for businesses and the middle class


That's not what he was saying a few months ago. Now that he's speaking directly to the middle class, his tune has changed. I guess we should just believe he really means it... this time. Can you say: "Read my lips: No new taxes!"? That's what he's really saying.

karnal: And a doubling of U.S. exports by ending Obama's moratorium on new trade agreements.


It's one thing to say it, it's another to do it. Bush era policies allowed tons of jobs to be moved off shore for tax breaks. Romney himself embraced this and is full instituted into how it works. People say he's a great businessman, but all he's done is offshore thousands of jobs, use the Government for money, then take the government money as a consulting fee and kill the company. If Corporations are people, 'my friend', then Mitt Romney is a mass murderer.

karnal: Remove Obama's blockade of the oil pipeline from Canada that would have created 20,000 jobs and ending offshore limits on oil and gas exploration to boost energy supplies and flatten gas prices.


It's cute you think Obama has anything to do with Gas Prices. I suppose you think Mitt will play hardball with the Saudi's to get our gas prices down. It's cute you think that, as well. It doesn't matter who is in office, they have very little control over the price of oil in the Middle East. It's funny how with the Bush Tax cuts, these oil companies are getting billions of dollars of refunds while our gas prices crawl ever higher. So, you just keep on believing it's Obama's fault, it's cute that you do.

karnal: And what is Obama going to do? More of the same? Double his efforts from the last four years? Tripling? Quadrupling? In the words of the late, great Billy Preston: "Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'"


Let's take Clinton as an example. Many of these arguments were said about him as well, and guess what happened his second term. Wanna wager $10,000 on what happened? If there's a chance that Obama can turn us around from 8 years of Bush like Clinton did from 12 years of Reagan/Bush, then my bet is on him.

I said it in another thread: I won't lose my job if Obama is in office, Romney already said he'll cut funding to Non-Profits when he takes office, and I work for a non-profit, thus, I will lose my job if Romney gets elected.
 
2012-10-15 01:37:20 PM

sprawl15: cameroncrazy1984: It's not for him. Do you think he's the only one who reads responses to him?

So you're trying to persuade...Grandpa Internet? Some lonely wanderer who set his crook by the door of this thread for a spell and is interested in seeing what you have to say about trolls?


I have nothing to say about trolls. I have not personally called him a troll. I simply seek to set the record straight for anyone who might be easily misled.
 
2012-10-15 01:40:02 PM

cameroncrazy1984: I simply seek to set the record straight for anyone who might be easily misled.


imageshack.us
 
2012-10-15 01:40:37 PM
cameroncrazy1984

karnal: And a doubling of U.S. exports by ending Obama's moratorium on new trade agreements.

What moratorium? He's signed 3 in the past four years. Do you know what a moratorium is?



Hint: it's not an increase year-over-year.


Obama's moratorium on offshore drilling was prompted by the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico two years ago... any surged in domestic oil production since are from actions set in motion years before Obama took office....and even if he hasn't tried to "shut down" traditional energy industries, his policies have steered federal money away from oil and coal to alternative energy sources.
 
2012-10-15 01:42:14 PM

karnal: Obama's moratorium on offshore drilling was prompted by the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico two years ago... any surged in domestic oil production since are from actions set in motion years before Obama took office....and even if he hasn't tried to "shut down" traditional energy industries, his policies have steered federal money away from oil and coal to alternative energy sources.


You're absolutely correct in all statements. What's weird is you're saying these things as if they were bad for our country...
 
2012-10-15 01:44:46 PM
HST's Dead Carcass

karnal: He would make the Bush tax cuts permanent

This is bad for anyone not in the 1%

karnal: Then Romney wants to cut tax rates further, both for businesses and the middle class

That's not what he was saying a few months ago. Now that he's speaking directly to the middle class, his tune has changed. I guess we should just believe he really means it... this time. Can you say: "Read my lips: No new taxes!"? That's what he's really saying.

karnal: And a doubling of U.S. exports by ending Obama's moratorium on new trade agreements.

It's one thing to say it, it's another to do it. Bush era policies allowed tons of jobs to be moved off shore for tax breaks. Romney himself embraced this and is full instituted into how it works. People say he's a great businessman, but all he's done is offshore thousands of jobs, use the Government for money, then take the government money as a consulting fee and kill the company. If Corporations are people, 'my friend', then Mitt Romney is a mass murderer.

karnal: Remove Obama's blockade of the oil pipeline from Canada that would have created 20,000 jobs and ending offshore limits on oil and gas exploration to boost energy supplies and flatten gas prices.

It's cute you think Obama has anything to do with Gas Prices. I suppose you think Mitt will play hardball with the Saudi's to get our gas prices down. It's cute you think that, as well. It doesn't matter who is in office, they have very little control over the price of oil in the Middle East. It's funny how with the Bush Tax cuts, these oil companies are getting billions of dollars of refunds while our gas prices crawl ever higher. So, you just keep on believing it's Obama's fault, it's cute that you do.

karnal: And what is Obama going to do? More of the same? Double his efforts from the last four years? Tripling? Quadrupling? In the words of the late, great Billy Preston: "Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'"

Let's take Clinton as an example. Many of these arguments were said about him as well, and guess what happened his second term. Wanna wager $10,000 on what happened? If there's a chance that Obama can turn us around from 8 years of Bush like Clinton did from 12 years of Reagan/Bush, then my bet is on him.

I said it in another thread: I won't lose my job if Obama is in office, Romney already said he'll cut funding to Non-Profits when he takes office, and I work for a non-profit, thus, I will lose my job if Romney gets elected.



Time to dust off your resume, Big Bird.
 
2012-10-15 01:47:25 PM
This makes a lot of sense to me. At one point, Romney's entire platform was to just say he would do the opposite of in every case. But once it started to look like Romney had even the smallest chance of winning, the fatal flaw in this strategy became apparent. Suppose Romney won, and then received the dreaded 3:00 AM phone call sometime in the middle of his term. Without Obama there to chart a a reasonable, even-keeled response, how would Romney know what policy he should immediately disagree with, and later take credit for (if it works)?

But with Ryan on board, the problem is solved. Now Romney can disagree with his own administration's policies! His administration can take any position he wants it to take, and then he can be simultaneously for it and against it, depending on the mood of his audience. It's perfect!
 
2012-10-15 01:49:06 PM

karnal: Time to dust off your resume, Big Bird.


Taken verbatim from another thread:

For all the braying you do about people living off the government teat, you certainly want to add more to it as long as you get your way. To reiterate: As long as the Right gets their way, we're cool. Damn everyone else, vote for our guy! Though you've brought nothing to the table, offered zero proof of his ability to turn the country around and refuse to answer, just like your candidate, the issue of his economic policies. Thus far, you only say: Vote for my guy and lose your job because it's selfish to do anything else.
 
2012-10-15 01:49:56 PM

Mrtraveler01: That was a good time to be a Phillies fan.


Oh no, sir. I must disagree. The reign of John Kruk cannot be topped. The man was making a laughingstock of physics every time he stepped on the field. Seen here: Human SingularityProfessional Athlete.
a.espncdn.com 

/end threadjack
 
2012-10-15 01:52:35 PM
HST's Dead Carcass

karnal: Obama's moratorium on offshore drilling was prompted by the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico two years ago... any surged in domestic oil production since are from actions set in motion years before Obama took office....and even if he hasn't tried to "shut down" traditional energy industries, his policies have steered federal money away from oil and coal to alternative energy sources.

You're absolutely correct in all statements. What's weird is you're saying these things as if they were bad for our country...



I am all for alternative energy.....in theory, we should be well on our way to getting off of fossil fuels by now....but we are not.....and taking money from the oil industries to give to "green" companies (Solar Trust of America, Solyndra, Abound Solar, LSP Energy, Evergreen Solar and Azure Dynamics....to name just a few...and all have FAILED...all have cost us taxpayers millions!) is like robbing Peter to pay Paul.
 
2012-10-15 02:01:45 PM
HST's Dead Carcass

karnal: Time to dust off your resume, Big Bird.

Taken verbatim from another thread:

For all the braying you do about people living off the government teat, you certainly want to add more to it as long as you get your way. To reiterate: As long as the Right gets their way, we're cool. Damn everyone else, vote for our guy! Though you've brought nothing to the table, offered zero proof of his ability to turn the country around and refuse to answer, just like your candidate, the issue of his economic policies. Thus far, you only say: Vote for my guy and lose your job because it's selfish to do anything else.



You thought that was good enough to quote "verbatim"?
What proof did Obama have of his abilities when he ran the first go around? None! How about this time? None!
Same things you say can apply to Dems just as easy.
 
2012-10-15 02:01:50 PM

karnal: Obama's moratorium on offshore drilling was prompted by the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico two years ago... any surged in domestic oil production since are from actions set in motion years before Obama took office....and even if he hasn't tried to "shut down" traditional energy industries, his policies have steered federal money away from oil and coal to alternative energy sources.


Um. None of that is related to what I responded to. What moratorium on free trade agreements?
 
2012-10-15 02:02:36 PM

karnal: I am all for alternative energy.....in theory, we should be well on our way to getting off of fossil fuels by now....but we are not.....and taking money from the oil industries to give to "green" companies (Solar Trust of America, Solyndra, Abound Solar, LSP Energy, Evergreen Solar and Azure Dynamics....to name just a few...and all have FAILED...all have cost us taxpayers millions!) is like robbing Peter to pay Paul.


So, in your own words: We should be investing in Alternative Energies. But, investing in Alternative Energies is costing us money, so we need to stop it.

Cognitive Dissonance in a nutshell right there.

Is it because it's not your guy blowing the money that is making you question it? Or the fact he won't blow it at all, he'll just hand it to the Oil and Coal execs in huge piles he likes to call Tax Breaks.
 
2012-10-15 02:05:13 PM

karnal: I am all for alternative energy.....in theory, we should be well on our way to getting off of fossil fuels by now....but we are not.....and taking money from the oil industries to give to "green" companies (Solar Trust of America, Solyndra, Abound Solar, LSP Energy, Evergreen Solar and Azure Dynamics....to name just a few...and all have FAILED...all have cost us taxpayers millions!) is like robbing Peter to pay Paul.


If all of that has failed, why is alternative energy like solar up from 8% in 2002 to 14% in 2012?
 
2012-10-15 02:13:54 PM

karnal: You thought that was good enough to quote "verbatim"?
What proof did Obama have of his abilities when he ran the first go around? None! How about this time? None!
Same things you say can apply to Dems just as easy.


Who said I voted for Obama last time around? I saw him in the middle of the Cult Of Personality and said: No thank you. This time around, I see what he is up against, and I was undecided up until Romney started talking about his plans to fix the economy. He says whatever his audience wants to hear. When speaking to the rich, he talks about how he's going to end Social Programs and starve them out, when talk to the middle class, he's talking about taxing the rich. He's a shiatty liar, and does nothing but pander to whoever he is speaking to. As of now, he's totally turned his back on his base, who he's been pandering for the last 6 years.

In case you haven't heard, the economy is picking up slightly. It's easy to stand on the outside and say: I'll do it better. Plans? Proof? Just trust me, I'll do it better.

I'll tell you right now I have a SIX point plan to recover our economy, that's one better than Romney's, so that means my plan is better. Given I'm an independent, I don't cater to either side, I'll arm the whole farking country and give buy 1 get one free abortion coupons. Who needs vouchers, everyone likes coupons better. Vote for me! It's only fair...
 
2012-10-15 02:17:10 PM

cameroncrazy1984: 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.


What's funny is everyone also seems to agree a failing economy and dependence on foreign oil are both threats to our national security. But investing money in alternative energies at home is socialism - see for instance Solyndra1!1!1@#!
 
2012-10-15 02:18:42 PM
cameroncrazy1984

karnal: Obama's moratorium on offshore drilling was prompted by the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico two years ago... any surged in domestic oil production since are from actions set in motion years before Obama took office....and even if he hasn't tried to "shut down" traditional energy industries, his policies have steered federal money away from oil and coal to alternative energy sources.

Um. None of that is related to what I responded to. What moratorium on free trade agreements?\


Ok - I mispoke. His failure to pass free trade agreements.
 
2012-10-15 02:20:11 PM

cameroncrazy1984: 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.


seconded
 
2012-10-15 02:21:17 PM

karnal: cameroncrazy1984

karnal: Obama's moratorium on offshore drilling was prompted by the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico two years ago... any surged in domestic oil production since are from actions set in motion years before Obama took office....and even if he hasn't tried to "shut down" traditional energy industries, his policies have steered federal money away from oil and coal to alternative energy sources.

Um. None of that is related to what I responded to. What moratorium on free trade agreements?\

Ok - I mispoke. His failure to pass free trade agreements.


If by "failure" you mean "success in signing 3 during his tenure"

Could you please explain this "failure" a little more?
 
2012-10-15 02:24:32 PM

sprawl15: So, potentially in the future he could apply that declared loss to passive activity gains from his dancing horses, but that's a far cry from the original claim.


This is where you get it wrong, he can fold those losses over into any other income by selling it. I tried to mention that to you earlier but like Deucednuisance is complaining about you went all babyish, figured it wasn't worth it at that point.
 
2012-10-15 02:42:56 PM

sprawl15: Headso: sprawl15: So, potentially in the future he could apply that declared loss to passive activity gains from his dancing horses, but that's a far cry from the original claim.

This is where you get it wrong, he can fold those losses over into any other income by selling it. I tried to mention that to you earlier but like Deucednuisance is complaining about you went all babyish, figured it wasn't worth it at that point.

Are you Benjamin Button?


case in point
 
2012-10-15 02:44:24 PM

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.


Better check all your options. If you vote Republican: the perks are better, according to this woman.
 
2012-10-15 03:05:31 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?!


Dukes suck.
 
2012-10-15 03:05:59 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


Why do have friends like that?
 
2012-10-15 03:08:52 PM

sammyk: Cythraul: 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 doesn't surprise me, given the average American Idiot.

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. 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.

But I don't think Obama wants to cut the military. I think it is simply on the table and has to be if you are going to approach balancing the budget like an adult.


I'm afraid you're mistaken. If he was very intelligent he wouldn't make comments on things he knows nothing about. He also wouldn't vote without researching each candidate's policies. He's just another idiot.
 
2012-10-15 03:12:18 PM

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

[i1162.photobucket.com image 675x360]


When we're spending five times as much as Russia AND China COMBINED...it might be time to slow down military spending just a tad, you know?
 
2012-10-15 03:15:10 PM

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


Which is why 9/11 happened during the Clinton administration.
 
2012-10-15 03:17:18 PM

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.


It shouldn't be. The cold war is long since won and it's about time the US defense budget was for actual defense of the US instead of being used to project US power around the world.
 
2012-10-15 03:26:00 PM

ha-ha-guy: Incorrect. When sats are being brought back to Earth there are concerns as to if their power source will burn up in the atmosphere.


If a sat is being deliberately brought back to earth, then either it is nearly out of fuel anyway. You don't spend thousands of dollars per pound to put something into orbit with no intention of using every last drop. And then, being a controlled deorbit, you aim for the ~70% of the planet that's ocean.

There are only two reasons to blow up a satellite; One is if it's malfunctioned and is in an out of control descent into or near a populated area. The other is if the technology on board is something you don't want anyone to know about. (The only case I'm aware of where a deorbiting satellite was destroyed as it came down happens to be both.)

In those cases there is absolutely no need for the Aegis cruiser. The job can be done just as easily - perhaps moreso - by aircraft launched munitions.

But let's assume a billion-dollar missile cruiser ship is somehow the only tool that can do the job. How often does this happen and how many such ships do we actually need? I'm thinking less than we have now.


ha-ha-guy: One possible option on the table for asteroid defense is basically a missile battery that spams missiles as the asteroid so it is nudged.


And the astrophysicists who actually know a thing or two about asteroids will tell you that is not a good plan, even if you could get your missiles beyond LEO. The better strategy is to actually push the asteroid with a steady, controllable, steerable force - that means landing a probe with a rocket engine on it.


ha-ha-guy: 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.


It's not completely clear what China has to gain by blowing up their neighbors. Distract from internal issues? Really? That might work in the USA, where the distraction is a place halfway around the world with little or no economic importance to us and that half the population couldn't find on a map if their life depended on it. Even in China I'd think saturation bombing of neighboring countries would not go over well with the population.

If Japan wants more cruisers as a deterrent, they can build them. The US is worth too much to China's economy for the foreseeable future to just randomly start a war out of ennui. Still not convinced it's money well spent.


qorkfiend: 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.


With the very high probability that the resulting debris would damage civilian and YOUR military sats, and anything else you try t put up there for decades to come? No, still ridiculous. What you might do, however, it tag it with a laser to blind it or ruin its communications systems. Still don't need a missile for that.
=Smidge=
 
2012-10-15 03:29:33 PM

kg2095: 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

Why do have friends like that?


Because I am not a partisan asshat that expects his friends to agree with him politically. In fact its very rare for politics to come up at all when I am hanging out with my friends.
 
2012-10-15 03:32:25 PM
HST's Dead Carcass

karnal: You thought that was good enough to quote "verbatim"?
What proof did Obama have of his abilities when he ran the first go around? None! How about this time? None!
Same things you say can apply to Dems just as easy.

Who said I voted for Obama last time around? I saw him in the middle of the Cult Of Personality and said: No thank you. This time around, I see what he is up against, and I was undecided up until Romney started talking about his plans to fix the economy. He says whatever his audience wants to hear. When speaking to the rich, he talks about how he's going to end Social Programs and starve them out, when talk to the middle class, he's talking about taxing the rich. He's a shiatty liar, and does nothing but pander to whoever he is speaking to. As of now, he's totally turned his back on his base, who he's been pandering for the last 6 years.

In case you haven't heard, the economy is picking up slightly. It's easy to stand on the outside and say: I'll do it better. Plans? Proof? Just trust me, I'll do it better.

I'll tell you right now I have a SIX point plan to recover our economy, that's one better than Romney's, so that means my plan is better. Given I'm an independent, I don't cater to either side, I'll arm the whole farking country and give buy 1 get one free abortion coupons. Who needs vouchers, everyone likes coupons better. Vote for me! It's only fair...



Well, there you go.....four years and 11,000,000,000,000 dollars later and our economy is "picking up slightly".....you have talked me into voting for Obama.....good job!
 
2012-10-15 03:33:58 PM

Smidge204: With the very high probability that the resulting debris would damage civilian and YOUR military sats, and anything else you try t put up there for decades to come? No, still ridiculous. What you might do, however, it tag it with a laser to blind it or ruin its communications systems. Still don't need a missile for that.
=Smidge=


But Tom Clancy assured me that it would work!

=3Horn=
 
2012-10-15 03:38:36 PM

kg2095: 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

Why do have friends like that?


And furthermore, has anyone really been so far as to be more like?
 
2012-10-15 03:44:36 PM

karnal: Well, there you go.....four years and 11,000,000,000,000 dollars later and our economy is "picking up slightly".....you have talked me into voting for Obama.....good job!


how would you have handled the recession? austerity?
 
2012-10-15 03:50:56 PM

ha-ha-guy: 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.


For the majority of our nations history the Guard has been option 3. My unit helped fight wildfires in 2007. Ever since GWOT, though, the feds have basically told us they want us to be 3 AND 1 while still drilling only 1 weekend a month and 2 weeks in the Summer. Its unsustainable and needs to be rethought. Your idea seems reasonable, but perhaps we should make the Reserves option 2 and move combat arms units over to them, allowing the Guard to focus more stateside while still being able to fill in occasional gaps in combat service support and service support roles.

I have always wanted to make all reserve/guard positions above E-7 for enlisted and above O-3 for officers full-time just to allow for more effective management, but the Guard cant even afford re-up bonuses or lodging so i doubt that will happen.
 
2012-10-15 03:57:31 PM

born_yesterday: 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.


The tragedy of the commons at work.
 
2012-10-15 04:33:41 PM
cameroncrazy1984
2012-10-15 03:33:58 PM

=3Horn=


Really?

3Horn
 
2012-10-15 04:54:28 PM

3horn: cameroncrazy1984
2012-10-15 03:33:58 PM

=3Horn=

Really?

3Horn


Yep

-smidge
 
2012-10-15 05:12:31 PM

sprawl15: The All-Powerful Atheismo: The problem people have with him is not that he is rich and gets tax deductions. $77,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to how much he is worth. It would be bothersome if he got the money, but whether he did or didn't ISN'T THE ISSUE.

The issue is that HE IS ABLE TO IN THE FIRST PLACE

How is he able to?


You want me to say 'because he is rich' but the actual answer is because people like him advocate giving unfair advantages to rich people in the tax code.

Now go use 2nd grade logic elsewhere.
 
2012-10-15 05:24:50 PM

karnal: HST's Dead Carcass

karnal: You thought that was good enough to quote "verbatim"?
What proof did Obama have of his abilities when he ran the first go around? None! How about this time? None!
Same things you say can apply to Dems just as easy.

Who said I voted for Obama last time around? I saw him in the middle of the Cult Of Personality and said: No thank you. This time around, I see what he is up against, and I was undecided up until Romney started talking about his plans to fix the economy. He says whatever his audience wants to hear. When speaking to the rich, he talks about how he's going to end Social Programs and starve them out, when talk to the middle class, he's talking about taxing the rich. He's a shiatty liar, and does nothing but pander to whoever he is speaking to. As of now, he's totally turned his back on his base, who he's been pandering for the last 6 years.

In case you haven't heard, the economy is picking up slightly. It's easy to stand on the outside and say: I'll do it better. Plans? Proof? Just trust me, I'll do it better.

I'll tell you right now I have a SIX point plan to recover our economy, that's one better than Romney's, so that means my plan is better. Given I'm an independent, I don't cater to either side, I'll arm the whole farking country and give buy 1 get one free abortion coupons. Who needs vouchers, everyone likes coupons better. Vote for me! It's only fair...


Well, there you go.....four years and 11,000,000,000,000 dollars later and our economy is "picking up slightly".....you have talked me into voting for Obama.....good job!


Lols, nice math skills. Do you work for Rasmussen?
 
2012-10-15 05:28:43 PM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: sprawl15: The All-Powerful Atheismo: The problem people have with him is not that he is rich and gets tax deductions. $77,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to how much he is worth. It would be bothersome if he got the money, but whether he did or didn't ISN'T THE ISSUE.

The issue is that HE IS ABLE TO IN THE FIRST PLACE

How is he able to?

You want me to say 'because he is rich' but the actual answer is because people like him advocate giving unfair advantages to rich people in the tax code.

Now go use 2nd grade logic elsewhere.


No, I want you to explain, clearly, what methodology he would use to write off the $77k against his general income. You're very sure of yourself, so I'd like to see your work.
 
2012-10-15 05:48:25 PM

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

HEHEHE


Geez, the filter even recognizes LEET! Think about it, here is what Jackson probably typed (and I'm separating with hyphens to maybe bypass the filter): "... aircraft carrier,coont-9." Do you see the LEET word before the 9? Unmazing!
 
2012-10-15 06:02:06 PM

karnal: I am all for alternative energy.....in theory, we should be well on our way to getting off of fossil fuels by now....but we are not.....and taking money from the oil industries to give to "green" companies (Solar Trust of America, Solyndra, Abound Solar, LSP Energy, Evergreen Solar and Azure Dynamics....to name just a few...and all have FAILED...all have cost us taxpayers millions!) is like robbing Peter to pay Paul.


The Department of Energy loan program has financed 28 green energy projects, involved 23 companies. Of those 23 companies, only Abound Solar, Beacon Power, and Solyndra have gone bankrupt.

If you widen the net from the DOE loan program to the grants received by companies such as Azure Dynamics, the list of failures rises to 14.

14 out of over 15,000, representing a success rate of 99.907%.

While some politicians may gleefully cheer the tiny number of failures, representing out of work Americans and bankrupted businesses, most Americans would interpret this as a wildly successful program.
 
2012-10-15 09:27:01 PM

karnal: Ok - I mispoke.


You didn't misspeak, you're just wrong.
 
2012-10-16 12:16:24 PM

sprawl15: No, I want you to explain, clearly, what methodology he would use to write off the $77k against his general income. You're very sure of yourself, so I'd like to see your work.


Tee-hee.

The answer you seek is upthread.

May I interest you in this lovely petard, by which you have already hoisted yourself?
 
2012-10-16 12:18:35 PM

starsrift: The Department of Energy loan program has financed 28 green energy projects, involved 23 companies. Of those 23 companies, only Abound Solar, Beacon Power, and Solyndra have gone bankrupt.

If you widen the net from the DOE loan program to the grants received by companies such as Azure Dynamics, the list of failures rises to 14.

14 out of over 15,000, representing a success rate of 99.907%.

While some politicians may gleefully cheer the tiny number of failures, representing out of work Americans and bankrupted businesses, most Americans would interpret this as a wildly successful program.



Now, now, we can't be injecting "truth" and "facts" into a discussion! "Lies" serve The Narrative so much more ably!
 
Displayed 178 of 178 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report