13
   

Where would you make the budget cuts?

 
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 25 Oct, 2014 09:08 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:
Bullshit.

It is a fact that our readiness is critically low (note the article Hawkeye linked where we were down to just two brigades capable of serious combat -- it is a very good thing that we did not have an enemy capable of invading us right then, or the United States might not be here right now).

And it is a fact that we have way too few F-22 fighter jets.

In addition the Navy could stand to have a new generation of destroyers. The current ones are pretty obsolete by modern standards.


Lustig Andrei wrote:
The only (possible) advantage I can see to increasing the military budget is that it might help ease the unemployment situation by pumping up production in defense-related industries.

Being able to defeat our enemies is a desirable advantage that a strong military budget would provide.


Lustig Andrei wrote:
I certainly don't see any signs of the military being "underfed."

The shortage of modern weapons and the lack of training are pretty good signs.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 25 Oct, 2014 09:08 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Then the question is why, is it because of not enough money or because money is being spent in the wrong places?

It is because the Democrats have cut so much out of the military budget.
0 Replies
 
chai2
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Oct, 2014 09:09 pm
@engineer,
For the president, that changed. Don't know about the others.

Presidential Salary Information

The most recent salary increase, to $400,000/year from $200,000/year, took effect when George W. Bush became President. The President also receives a $50,000 non-taxable expense account. The compensation of the President is controlled by law, specifically 3 USC 102 ("Compensation of the President", Title 3, Section 102, of the US Code).

You can view the section of the U.S. Code dealing with presidential salaries at the United States Code website published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives.
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Oct, 2014 09:19 pm
@engineer,
Thnx for that, engineer. I just posted the o.p. directly from Facebook. I didn't check it for authenticity.
chai2
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Oct, 2014 09:23 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
I just refuted that above.

They do, in fact make $400,000, plus $50,000 non taxable in expenses.
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Oct, 2014 09:34 pm
@chai2,
Yes, thnx. You posted that after I had already hit "reply." Thnx for the correction.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Oct, 2014 11:40 am
Maybe tax hikes but maybe cuts on programs which are either not needed or not run efficiently. That is the easy part, most of the voting public think we need a tax hikes and they would probably agree with the latter, but identifying and agreeing on the latter would be a huge problem.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Oct, 2014 01:18 pm
@chai2,
That is correct for the sitting President. The retirement pay is lower.
Quote:
Congress enacted the Former Presidents Act (FPA) in 1958 to provide former
Presidents an annual lifetime pension, currently $191,300, and office allowances
administered by the General Services Administration (GSA). The FPA, as amended,
also provides former Presidents with travel funds and mailing privileges (3 U.S.C. 102
note). Secret Service protection for former Presidents is also authorized by statute.
chai2
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Oct, 2014 01:38 pm
@engineer,
you know what engineer?

you are absolutely right, and I'm wrong.

apologies.
0 Replies
 
Woodworker766
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2014 12:18 pm
@roger,
Quote:
What are the stated qualifications for a hospital CEO?


There aren't any.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2014 01:03 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:


It is a fact that our readiness is critically low (note the article Hawkeye linked where we were down to just two brigades capable of serious combat -- it is a very good thing that we did not have an enemy capable of invading us right then, or the United States might not be here right now).


Is this meant to be satire? Or are you just being stupid?

Our readiness is more than enough to defend us for what is really out there but that means we need to be prepared for something that can't happen just because oralloy likes to **** his pants.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2014 03:37 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
It is a fact that our readiness is critically low (note the article Hawkeye linked where we were down to just two brigades capable of serious combat -- it is a very good thing that we did not have an enemy capable of invading us right then, or the United States might not be here right now).

Is this meant to be satire? Or are you just being stupid?

Neither. As usual it was me pointing out unvarnished facts, just as I always do.


parados wrote:
Our readiness is more than enough to defend us for what is really out there but that means we need to be prepared for something that can't happen just because oralloy likes to **** his pants.

Your point could be boiled down to: No one was capable of invading us at that moment in history.

Yes, it is indeed true that we survived that moment in history due to the fact that no one was in a position to invade us right then.

But the mere fact that we would have been completely unable to mount any serious defense, had there been such an invasion, should be very disturbing to people.

Do you remember the Roman Empire? Guess what happens to a polity that is unable to defend themselves once someone actually does invade them?

I am not sure why you are objecting to me making an issue of our unacceptable defenselessness, but if the Left is going to take the position that we should remain defenseless into the future, that is good cause for the voters of America to send lots and lots of Republicans to Washington.
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2014 03:46 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:


It is a fact that our readiness is critically low (note the article Hawkeye linked where we were down to just two brigades capable of serious combat -- it is a very good thing that we did not have an enemy capable of invading us right then, or the United States might not be here right now).


Is this meant to be satire? Or are you just being stupid?

. . .


Oralloy doesn't do satire. Oralloy has absolutely no sense of humor whatever. (delete words "of humor" from previous sentence; it makes more sense without them.)
roger
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2014 04:51 pm
@Woodworker766,
Every large business and government agency has stated job descriptions.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2014 08:15 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:
Oralloy doesn't do satire.

Well, never say never, but probably not. It's not really my thing.


Lustig Andrei wrote:
Oralloy has absolutely no sense of humor whatever.

Untrue.


Lustig Andrei wrote:
Oralloy has absolutely no sense whatever.

It really is scary the way the Left actually likes the idea of America being defenseless against enemy invasion.

More reasons to vote for Republicans.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2014 08:27 pm
@oralloy,
The only countries capable of invading the US without facing our air force and navy would be Canada and Mexico. Neither of which would be much of a contest for 2 brigades, let alone the reservists in the states that border those 2 countries. But that's alright oralloy. Explain how China could have landed 300,000 troops using some magical way of getting them to the US mainland. Hell, Governor Christie could have just quarantined them after they landed.

Red Dawn is a movie, Oralloy and a pretty unbelievable one at that.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2014 09:04 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
That's the result of that old and wise refrain; it's called "conflict of interest."
They're the same yokels who won't increase the federal minimum wage.


As I've said many times, Washington is broken.

A full time worker at the federal minimum wage earns $15,080. They complain when these same people with families working full time must get government subsidies in food stamps and welfare. They're the 47% of Americans on the take.

TNCFS
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2014 09:04 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
The only countries capable of invading the US without facing our air force and navy would be Canada and Mexico. Neither of which would be much of a contest for 2 brigades, let alone the reservists in the states that border those 2 countries. But that's alright oralloy. Explain how China could have landed 300,000 troops using some magical way of getting them to the US mainland. Hell, Governor Christie could have just quarantined them after they landed.

It's pretty unbelievable that the Left actually wants the US to be completely defenseless against invasion.

Vote for Republicans if you want the United States to continue to exist.


parados wrote:
Red Dawn is a movie, Oralloy and a pretty unbelievable one at that.

What's scary is the way the Left is trying to transform the movie into reality.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2014 11:33 pm
Quote:
Where would you make the budget cuts?
Delete the budget (including all salaries)
of the Bureau of Alcohol & Tobacco of the Treasury Dept.
Lustig Andrei
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2014 11:41 pm
@oralloy,
How long have you been suffering from this paranoia, oral? I'd seek some good psychiatric help if I were you.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 10/14/2019 at 04:15:00