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 18
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-15 10:51:11 AM
3 votes:
If there's one thing that we need it's moar defense spending.

i1162.photobucket.com
2012-10-15 11:10:59 AM
2 votes:

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 10:52:24 AM
2 votes:

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 10:46:08 AM
2 votes:

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 12:00:43 PM
1 votes:
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 11:38:20 AM
1 votes:

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 11:24:35 AM
1 votes:
This from the party that high-fived each other after cutting military pay?

Fark your mothers, GOP.
2012-10-15 11:14:30 AM
1 votes:

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 11:13:22 AM
1 votes:

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 11:12:34 AM
1 votes:

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 11:04:11 AM
1 votes:
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 10:57:28 AM
1 votes:

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 10:57:10 AM
1 votes:

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 10:52:32 AM
1 votes:
"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 10:50:03 AM
1 votes:

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 10:49:31 AM
1 votes:

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 10:22:36 AM
1 votes:

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 08:22:30 AM
1 votes:
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
 
Displayed 18 of 18 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report