What would you cut?

Hughes was also sued by the government for overcharges, I am not sure about M & M, but Dixie needs to do some research!

I don't know who has been charged with overcharging and who hasn't. That is not the point or the discussion here.

The Left views "defense contracts" as some huge waste of money that could be going to fund some social program. In your mind, a multi-million dollar contract to Hughes is just squandered resources... but the money goes to pay the thousands of Hughes employees in modest size towns where they are typically the largest employer. Without the government money, those people are without a job. Without those people's incomes, the towns don't have the business to support other business, and they fold... it's a chain reaction. Congrats, you got rid of the evil multi-million dollar contract to the evil defense contractor, but you cost several thousand people a well-paying job, the likes of which they will probably never see again.
 
Doesn't matter how many are burning presently, how many could be on fire tomorrow, do you know? Do we have the capacity or training to put them out? If not, it's best we have someone on 'retainer' who can, isn't it? I gave this example to illustrate a point, not that we have a problem right now with oil fires, but that certain contractors perform a function we can't do with the military. Yes, we can eliminate some contractors, we can let the soldiers do a lot of the work, but there are certain things we can't eliminate and we must outsource, because there is no other practical way.



I don't see where that is what I said. Again, we can eliminate government defense contracts, but that has a consequence. All of the major contractors are located somewhere, and they employ thousands of people somewhere. When you punch their meal ticket, where are they going to go and what are they going to do? Not much use in the private sector for high-tech military hardware, so they would probably fold and lay off a lot of people as a result. Now suddenly, a town which was full of well-paid government contract workers, is a town full of people on unemployment. This means, not as much money to spend going out to eat at Red Lobster, so Red Lobster decides to close that location... the waitress who is a single mom struggling to get by, is effected. She isn't a defense contractor, and you didn't intend to cost her this job, but that is the consequence and ramification. Multiply this by hundreds of thousands, who will lose their jobs in totally unrelated businesses, because you pulled the plug on government contracts.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't touch defense contracts, that's what you want me to be saying so you can ridicule me. I'm saying that everything we cut has a consequence and we need to look at them before we start cutting. It's not as easy as waltzing in and waving our hand and making defense contracts go away!

You realize that this same basic concept is true with pretty much every single budgetary cut...right?
 
The very first sentence I posted in this thread is a testament to that realization, have you not read that yet?

And yet you only follow through with the argument when it comes to defense. You don't make that argument when it comes to slashing or eliminating other departments or programs.

It's just very telling.
 
And yet you only follow through with the argument when it comes to defense. You don't make that argument when it comes to slashing or eliminating other departments or programs.

It's just very telling.

No I make that argument for ANY cut in our budget. ANYTHING we cut will result in a consequence. It will effect someone, somewhere.
 
No I make that argument for ANY cut in our budget. ANYTHING we cut will result in a consequence. It will effect someone, somewhere.

You never have. All kinds of cuts have been suggested on this thread. But defense is the only one we apparently have to approach with real caution.

If you want to have a meaningful discussion about cutting the budget, defense has to be a big part of that. You can't cherrypick based on ideology.
 
You never have. All kinds of cuts have been suggested on this thread. But defense is the only one we apparently have to approach with real caution.

If you want to have a meaningful discussion about cutting the budget, defense has to be a big part of that. You can't cherrypick based on ideology.

It's because when it comes to defense cuts, a liberals eyes glow red and they begin to snarl as foam drools from their mouths...

The whimsical suggestions that we "eliminate defense contracts" without so much as a thought about what that actually means, is my concern. I don't have a problem with rational, reasonable people, coming together to discuss exactly what we can cut or eliminate, and what we can't afford to cut at this time. In fact, my first post in the thread says just that. But like always, no one reads my posts, they simply look for the sentence they can jump on with both feet to bash me and call me names. Go back and read my first post, you'll see that one of my ideas is to form a bipartisan commission to look at things we are doing that are wasteful and redundant. I also suggest we could probably scrap most of the weapons projects on the boards, because they are already obsolete now. These things would still have a ramification, people would still lose jobs and town would still dry up. And I am not sure, with the entire defense budget at $600B, we're really going to save all that much in the process. In the end, would we create MORE problems than we fixed?

I don't have a problem with making smart choices and cutting wasteful spending. I don't even have a problem with cuts in military spending, but we need to all realize this is ultimately going to mean someone is effected. That's really the only point I've tried to make here.
 
No I make that argument for ANY cut in our budget. ANYTHING we cut will result in a consequence. It will effect someone, somewhere.

This is why nothing will ever be cut. There will always be some sort of sob story about why we can't cut this or cut that. Which is why we are fucked.
 
This is why nothing will ever be cut. There will always be some sort of sob story about why we can't cut this or cut that. Which is why we are fucked.

Well that is true to an extent... a certain political party has discovered they can whine and moan, and get enough idiots to chortle in, they can pretty much kill any idea to make realistic cuts in the budget. That's why it's such a problem.

At some point, some hard choices will have to be made. We can't 'borrow and spend' our way out of this.

Meanwhile, we are entertained by the left, parading around the $600 billion military budget, and claiming that, along with a hefty tax increase on "the rich" is the solution to $10 trillion in new deficit spending. It just doesn't fly... You could dismantle the military entirely, and take 100% of everything earned over $250k, and it still wouldn't cover Obama's 4-year debt. These people have absolutely NO concept of finance.. .we're talking "trillions and billions" we may as well be talking "rainbow mushrooms and pixie dust" because they have no comprehension.
 
Well that is true to an extent... a certain political party has discovered they can whine and moan, and get enough idiots to chortle in, they can pretty much kill any idea to make realistic cuts in the budget. That's why it's such a problem.

Dixie, you're so myopic. It's both political parties. Tell me - how do Republicans react when it comes to defense cuts?

Your posturing on this thread is typical; no fuss over wholesale cuts in any other part of the budget, but hey - defense cuts AFFECT people.

They all do; both sides have to be willing to cut their favorite programs. That's life.
 
Well that is true to an extent... a certain political party has discovered they can whine and moan, and get enough idiots to chortle in, they can pretty much kill any idea to make realistic cuts in the budget. That's why it's such a problem.

At some point, some hard choices will have to be made. We can't 'borrow and spend' our way out of this.

Meanwhile, we are entertained by the left, parading around the $600 billion military budget, and claiming that, along with a hefty tax increase on "the rich" is the solution to $10 trillion in new deficit spending. It just doesn't fly... You could dismantle the military entirely, and take 100% of everything earned over $250k, and it still wouldn't cover Obama's 4-year debt. These people have absolutely NO concept of finance.. .we're talking "trillions and billions" we may as well be talking "rainbow mushrooms and pixie dust" because they have no comprehension.

the fact that you lay this only at the feet of a certain political party makes you no different than that "certain political party". To deny the role of the GOP in this mess is to deny reality to the extreme. It was the GOP that gave us the prescription drug deal in medicare. It was the GOP that increased spending.

It was the GOP that "went along to get along". Yes, there are some GOP members who are good conservatives, but for each one there are 3 Mitch McConnell's who are more than glad to grow government
 
I have NEVER SAID THAT 1/3 CAN NOT EXIST!!!

Oh Ditzie... do try reading what I wrote. You HAVE said that 1/3 cannot exist without a remainder. That is incorrect.

Not stuck in anything, I am right here in 2012 with you. I made the point that US military bases are overseas for various reasons, namely, to prevent Soviet aggression in Europe.... you want to divert the argument of the point to make the point that I am technically incorrect in semantics. YEA! Someone give this fucktard a cookie and a gold star!

1) There is no Soviet aggression in Europe... the Soviet Union broke up long long ago ditzie. So our bases cannot be there to prevent Soviet aggression.

2) There is no need for most of our bases in Europe any more. Europe can handle itself against Russia. Those bases near the mideast, those we may want to keep.
 
Dixie, you're so myopic. It's both political parties. Tell me - how do Republicans react when it comes to defense cuts?

Your posturing on this thread is typical; no fuss over wholesale cuts in any other part of the budget, but hey - defense cuts AFFECT people.

They all do; both sides have to be willing to cut their favorite programs. That's life.

I've said since my very first sentence in this thread, that ALL budget cuts effect someone. I have said I support a bipartisan commission to find waste and redundancy in the military budget. Cancelling of obsolete weapons programs, closing bases overseas... on and on. Did you miss all that? Apparently so.

The only "wholesale cut" I have proposed, is for the Department of Education, because I think it's redundant. Others have made much more dramatic suggestions, but again... my philosophy is, whatever we cut is going to effect people. Now, even cutting the DoE will effect people, but I think we can find something for a bunch of Washington bureaucrats to do besides meddling in the education business of the states. Maybe they could go back to where they are from, and get a job in the state education system?

I disagree that both sides have to be willing to cut their favorite programs. I don't think they do. I think they can keep borrowing and spending until they collapse capitalism, and implement Marxist Socialism. Then you can expect to be told to get your ass to work and stop using the internet to express your irrelevant views, and if they have further problems from you, a nice empty ditch is waiting!
 
Oh Ditzie... do try reading what I wrote. You HAVE said that 1/3 cannot exist without a remainder. That is incorrect.

That is incorrect. I have no problem with the vulgar fractional representation of value known as "1/3" and have never denied it's existence.

If you have a piece of paper, and know how to do long division, you can prove that 1 divided by 3 produces a remainder.
If you don't have paper, and/or how to do long division, the same thing can be proven with a standard calculator. Simply divide 1 by 3. There will be an infinite repeating remainder. For all of eternity into infinity, there will be a remainder. We can not rectify this, so at some point, this remainder is simply absorbed unnoticeable to one of the three parts, it's irrelevant at that point, it doesn't matter that there was a remainder. The third which benefited, didn't benefit enough to notice, the other two weren't jealous. You see... the fact that we can not calculate to infinity, means that we have to presume the extra remainder would never be reached or needed... we'll never need that degree of accuracy. Therefore we invented "1/3" as a way to express ".333333333e"

Now.... 1/3 can be applied as a real number in calculation, but it is a fractional representation of value. The "value" of 1/3 is different, depending on what it applies to. "1/3" of a million dollars, is of more value than "1/3" of ten dollars. When applied to base 10 values, "1/3" produces a remainder. You can demonstrate this by trying to divide 100 pennies between three people. Each will have 33, with 1 left over... the remainder.

Now go have your Jell-O cup and take your nap!

1) There is no Soviet aggression in Europe... the Soviet Union broke up long long ago ditzie. So our bases cannot be there to prevent Soviet aggression.

Really? When did we build the bases there, genius?

2) There is no need for most of our bases in Europe any more. Europe can handle itself against Russia. Those bases near the mideast, those we may want to keep.

Well why don't you trot on off over to NATO and tell them about this!! Because they don't seem to think so.
 
That is incorrect. I have no problem with the vulgar fractional representation of value known as "1/3" and have never denied it's existence.

You keep avoiding what I stated. Typical ditzie dodge.

Really? When did we build the bases there, genius?

Poor ditzie... I did not say that we NEVER had a reason for the bases. You friggin half wit. I stated there is no Soviet aggression towards Europe TODAY, as the Soviets no longer exist. Europe can handle Russia... as I also stated.

Well why don't you trot on off over to NATO and tell them about this!! Because they don't seem to think so.

Link us up to where our NATO allies are saying they need us there to protect them from Russia.
 
Back
Top