White House To GOP: Only One Way Around Defense Cuts — And You're Not Gonna Like It

and deservedly so.

GOP will do everything they can to extend Bush tax cut for super rich like Mitt, and have ordinary American make up lost revenue for as long as these people are here.

GOP have no problem borrow China $700 billion to pay for super rich tax loophole like Mitt Romney. But they have an issue low tax rate for 160 million working American.

thank goodness that we have had those ten years of tax cuts to create jobs, jobs, jobs. it is also good that unemployment is only 1% because of those tax cuts. oh wait, unemployment is not 1%. something must have gone wrong. we made the tax cuts, and that is what creates the jobs. hmm, where are all of the jobs? maybe, just maybe, tax cuts do not equal jobs. maybe.

I personally have never thought tax cuts were pertinent to job creation in any way. Fiscal responsibility is, both in the public and private sector.

Raising taxes exclusively on the wealthy doesn't actually do anything meaningful toward fiscal responsibility. It's simply a political ploy, kinda like this mortgage program we heard about last week.

If we're going to raise taxes, raising them on 1 person out of 50 isn't going to be enough.

lowering taxes for the wealthy was a mistake. they should be restored to previous levels.

If we're going to raise taxes, raising them on 1 person out of 50 isn't going to be enough.

At this point, it's more of an emotional thing than a rational one.

I'm not against the very rich paying more taxes just for "the principle of the thing" to make everybody feel better, but people do need to remember that raising taxes on people at that level will NOT necessarily lead to more revenue; it could conceivably lead to less. These are people who could easily afford to quit work tomorrow for the rest of their lives, after all. They also have ways to shelter their money unavailable to the rest of us.

Tax avoidance is an integral part of any investment plan. With a few exceptions such as property tax, taxes are levied on transactions; if an individual perceives the tax burden to outweigh the benefit of the transaction, he or she simply won't make the transaction.

Since most taxable transactions occur within the private economy (as opposed to, for example, the income from tax-exempt bonds), none of the transactions that would have followed that initial one will take place, depriving the government of revenue from not only that single transaction, but from all those which would have followed. Remeber what happened when the Clinton adminstration decided to impose a luxury tax on boats?

If Corporations And The Rich Paid Taxes At The Same Level As The 1960s, The Debt Would Disappear

Over at the Campaign for America’s Future, the Institute for Policy Studies’ (IPS) Sam Pizzigati notes that one way to very easily tackle U.S. debt going forward would be to increase taxes on corporations and the wealthy to levels more closely matching mid-20th century rates. Pizzigati cites an IPS paper from last spring to make the argument that if corporations and households making more than $1 million paid the same rates as they did in 1961, our debt would virtually disappear in a decade:

Some numbers — from an Institute for Policy Studies report released this past spring — can help us better visualize just how monumental this political failure has been. If corporations and households taking in $1 million or more in income each year were now paying taxes at the same annual rates as they did back in 1961, the IPS researchers found, the federal treasury would be collecting an additional $716 billion a year. In other words, if the federal government started taxing the wealthy and their corporations at the same rates in effect a half-century ago, the federal debt to investors would almost totally vanish over the next decade.

The Republican three sacred cows they have refused to sacrifice are tax cuts to the rich, tax loopholes for corporations and over the top excessive military spending. Their plan singles out austerity for average Americans and the poor while indulging the rich, corporations and military industrial complex. When we should be focused on a stimulus for Main Street and jobs they are laying off fire department, law enforcement and school personnel while fixated on union busting.

I have no problem with higher taxes for the rich(trust me I am not one of the rich) but I want to see spending under control before taxes go up for any of us. If government continues with their open credit card line with no limit it will continue even when taxes go up and things wont be any better then they are now. Evrytime this admin has a new program/bill they want their answer is new taxes hell if we went along with Obama taxes would have gone up several times by now and no reduction in spending. Get spending under control then talk about the revebue that is needed to get to where we all want to be.

Rick, part of the spending we need to get under control, would be borrowing trillions in order to keep giving tax breaks to rich folks and corporations, (by the way, a proven economic recipe for collapse, and decline), so in that sense we should stop borrowing to lend more money to billionaires, effectively raising taxes, additionally it is absurd to think that NPR, PBS, planned parenthood's budget would impact our deficit in a remotely meaningful way, not even considering how many people would be hurt to favor so few, it's a little like eating dinner at Le Bec Finn every night and then cancelling the newspaper delivery in the hopes of paying for it.

BTW Rick - You still haven't provided any proof that President Obama has raised taxes on the middle class and poor.

Ron - Obama passed a cigarette tax and a tanning tax- Do you think it is the rich who are smoking and getting tans?

saids he wont tax us more

"Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES!!!"

Wow, BostonMan-3128434, what a stinging rebuttal./s

Boehner probably used that tanning tax for himself.

thats why no one else has heard about it, Boehner used it all on himself...

Actually guys I knew about both taxes. I just wanted to see if Rick could come up with anything.

The cigarette tax is used to pay for SCHIP. Health insurance for children in "moderate" income families.

The tanning tax was one of the sources of income to pay for health care reform and it was added by Democrats late (just to screw with Boehner if you really want to know the truth).

As someone who works with young people every day of my life, I think anything that will reduce their usage of tobacco and tanning booths is welcome no matter how you look at it.

Tobacco use and tanning= look like Governor Brewer of Arizona.

Governor Brewer of Arizona.\

I thought that was called "rode hard and put up wet".

I was trying to be kind.☻

Rick,

Spending ISN'T really out of control, contrary to what the deficit figures may make people think. The deficit is a result of a shortfall in revenues over costs (yes, I know that statement sounds condescending, but please work with me here). That means there are TWO parts to the existence of a deficit. That is, spending AND revenue.

The spending part is obvious, it is what EVERYONE is focusing on, and while there has been an increase in spending, it isn't due to anything that Obama has done. Obama has not passed ANY legislation that has increased the year over year deficit problem (sometimes referred to as a structural deficit).

The Stimulus, while not completely effective, thanks to the GOP and their demand for 390 billion of it going to a pointless tax rebate, was not an increase in the year over year deficit problem. It was a one time expense, which was needed to keep the economy solvent long enough for it to start to repair itself.

The only other major bill that may be considered to have a cost impact is the health care reform bill. We can't as of yet state that this bill has had any impact on the structural deficit, in EITHER direction. While the health care reform bill is currently law, most of it; and pretty much all of it that would have a spending impact; hasn't entered force yet. When it does, that is when we can debate whether the law is or is not a problem, but until then, it is neither here nor there.

So what has increased spending? Things that were already law, The federal portion of Unemployment Insurance, Food Stamps, other social stabilization spending laws. The demand on those services are going to create a spending problem regardless of who is president, and what party. In addition, even if he wanted to, Obama CAN'T actually terminate any of those programs, that is for Congress to do. But to be honest, what do you think would happen to a presidency if UI was terminated at the point where it has the most need? That is like saying the US should have disbanded the military immediately after the Pearl Harbour attack by the Japanese in 1941. It just doesn't make sense.

Other factors include the BUSH medicare prescription drug plan costs kicking in full force, and since the Medicare Part D was never really funded by anything other than general revenues, that is something that the president really has no control over. It isn't like he is every going to be able to terminate that. What is even more telling is that in the Ryan budget plan (ryan voted FOR medicare part D by the way), he was perfectly willing the eviscerate medicare, but was going to leave part D alone. That is illogical beyond reproach.

Nobody can name ANYTHING that Obama has done that has made the structural deficit worse. Why is that? because he hasn't done anything.

Now for the other side, revenues:

This is actually much more serious, and even here, there are multiple facets to the issues. What is causing the general revenue problem is that the economy has dropped enough that a lot of the top end profit in the economy is gone and if the profit is gone, then the revenue that it creates is gone too. (In my company, a small manufacturing company, if I lose about 15% of my business due to economic decline, then I lose just over more than ALL my profit, in other words, I am in a lost position. Now that can vary depending on what part of the business suffers the decline as we categorize it in 3 areas with each area having different profit profiles, so the mileage may vary on that statement).

Since the economy hasn't recovered yet, and won't for years, the companies that provided the bulk of the tax revenue, the medium sized businesses that are unable to use the various tax avoidance techniques that the large multinational companies use. Also, since these are generally privately owned, the profit/loss figures generally don't get reported either, so the 'people' don't really hear about the current position. This is unlike say GE which reports quarterly as a publicly traded company. People hear that GE's profits have recovered, but that isn't really all that relevant because GE, as a multinational, spends a lot of money to transfer profits to where they can pay the lowest tax rates, sometimes even dropping the tax liability for their US business down to 0. This would happen in a 'good' year as well as a 'bad' year.

The other part that is FAR more insidious, is that in the bush tax cuts was also a drop in the capital gains tax rate (that is the rate that stock exchange profits) down to a rate that basically created a structural problem in the tax system. It made the tax rate on what could/should be considered marginal economic activity that doesn't create jobs, to a level that is FAR BELOW what the tax rate is for a company that is creating jobs, and producing economic activity. Now things looked good when bush made the change, but that was only because the so called economic growth during the bush years was pretty much ALL capital gains driven. It wasn't economic activity driven. When the bubble burst, not only do we no longer have that Capital Gains economic activity happening, but because the drive to increase shareholder value, to create that capital gains, has actually made our companies far less able to withstand economic distress, and is contributing to the current economic problems lasting so long.

What we need is a BALANCED system that tries to encourage the 'positive' economic activity, but at the very least, doesn't penalize it in favour of the negative economic activity that our current system actually encourages.

And YES, I know Capital Gains is more than stock market transactions, but when more than 95% of the Capital Gains in the country comes from the stock market, I would consider that the other activities are marginal, and if need be, could be handled as exemptions in the tax code, as is the Capital Gains on the sale of your primary residence is now.

What is very clear is that while Obama became president while the deficit took a major swing upwards, the root causes go back into the previous administration, and the last Bush budget actually had a 1.6T deficit. That was the year that Obama became president. (the budget years are staggered so the first half year of a new presidents administration is actually the last budget of the previous president).

The specific decisions that the previous administration made that has created the structural problem that we face today are:

1) The income tax cut which was passed because greenspan was worried that we were going to pay off our debt too fast (I mean WOW!!! at that logic to begin with). When Bush economic advisors indicated their concern for this, they were quickly asked to resign or were fired, meaning that the Bush presidency wasn't interested in hearing any contradictory evidence that their policies may in fact be a problem.

2) the previously mentioned Medicare Part D prescription drug plan. This was just a pure giveaway to the drug companies to begin with, but what adds insult to injury is that the funding for the program mostly comes from the government general fund, meaning that it isn't even 'medicare' to begin with, as it doesn't come from the SS Trust. It is just another government spending program. (This is a republican initiative remember, so you can't lay this on the democrats).

3) TWO wars of choice. While the invasion of Afghanistan could have gone either way, the Iraq invasion was PURE choice. There was no compelling reason for the US to involve itself in that country as it was contained. The complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of that country also made it almost impossible to contain once Hussein was deposed.

We are STILL paying the costs of those decisions. All in all, it makes the refusal of the GOP to even accede to minimal defence spending cuts when the defence department budget has more than doubled in the last 12 years, making it one of the biggest problems that the government faces, out of control defence spending. You even have a lot of GOP politicians (and some Democrats as well though far fewer in number) that are actually proposing significant INCREASES in defence spending.

All in all, exactly where do you think the 'out of control' is? Based on your statement, I can only guess that it is the democrats that are the source of it, but the truth can be really ironic and quite sad.

Wow this was long, but I agree with nearly everything you said - except - I think spending is out of control.

Now I'm not getting into social security and Medicare just the Federal budget. We're at over 15.3 trillion of national debt. We're projected to have 1.1 trillion dollars added onto that for 2012 (if you cut defense to 0, there's stilll 400 billion left). We're planning to spend 3.7+ trillion dollars - compare that 10 years ago to spending 2.4 trillion and spending's not out of control? We're now at over 100% GDP to total borrowing we haven't been there since WW2, but we don't have a war effort to cut back from well I'll take that back we do,but not on that scale.

Granted a lot of the spending was built-in - but - it's out of control regardless. And clearly needs to be addressed.

I'm in very strong agreement with your problem statement and solutions.

My point was, people are looking in the wrong areas, and most importantly blaming the wrong president for what is happening.

First off, you can't come through and state that spending is out of control because the safety net that was put in place was needed. That is the nature of the huge drop in our economy and revenue. You can't look at it as a year by year basis, you need to look at it in the context of the entire economic cycle. Now admittedly, THIS recession is very atypical, something we haven't seen in 80 years, but the experience from 80 years ago just shows that you can't just drop things because you are going to get the modern equivalent of the dust bowl. The nature of this specific period of economic distress is however, I admit, VERY different from previous recessions, and that can be the subject of a huge discussion all unto itself.

Overall, as for the deficit, I am NOT angry at the deficit itself, because based on the economic factors that we are experiencing, the deficit is the LESSER OF TWO EVILS. It really is.

I am however, EXTREMELY pissed off that while we are currently spending money because the corporate and consumer sectors are not, we are NOT doing anything to try and address the structural issues that our country is facing economically. This falls clearly on both parties, and while I do lay most of my outrage on the Republicans, that is only because I consider the Democrats useless, while I consider the Republicans to be outrageously reckless. Sorry, the solution to the problems is NOT to make the policies that got us into this mess even more entrenched and more severe. Sorry, that is just pure idiocy.

This is also my problem with the remaining 4 candidates, we have 3 political loons and a person that represents the policies that got us into this mess, and while I do think that Obama is largely in over his head on economic issues, (his team isn't however and that is actually far more important than who is president), he is in my opinion, the best of the current options for nomination on both sides. The problem here isn't obama, but much more the alternatives that are being offered up. The GOP really needs a housecleaning from the party that got us into this mess and still control the caucus agenda. (The democrats largely do as well, but it isn't as apparent as what needs to be done on the republican side).

(by the way, I say this as a person who would normally be more comfortable in the republican party, but right now, the loonies have taken over the party, so that is another reason why I heap a lot of scorn on the GOP, it is a matter of self reflection).

Well, I could criticize John Boehner, but he is the only Republican leader of color and someone could use the race card against me.

Nice comments, Jonathan. Interesting read - and I agree with what you have to say. Thanks for taking the time and trouble to think things through and write them.

1950 and 2012 are two totally different era's. The entire world is different. Comparisons as such do no justice to an argument about taxes.

BigRed...

totally different era's. The entire world is different.

I don't agree !! People still work, vote, and pay taxes.

But, the middle class is still the middle class (although a little poorer).

I might agree that greed and politicians who suck up to the uber-rich is more wide spread.

BigRedOne4Life
1950 and 2012 are two totally different era's. The entire world is different. Comparisons as such do no justice to an argument about taxes.

Yeah, the only difference is that rather than being the largest creditor, we are the largest debtor, and we were paying off our huge war debt, and now we can't even get to the Reagan debt, when he slashed taxes for top incomes. Avg annual debt for the 12 years prior to his cuts...$35 billion a year...avg annual debt for the 12 years after Reagans tax cut...$295 billion! High marginal rates induce investment and domestic spending, lower marginal rates induce divestment and speculation...why wouldn't a manufacturer take all he could out his business , cut wages to the bare minimum while increasing productivity, when he is taxed at a higher rate making his wares than speculating on the market when he can cut that rate more than half?

The difference is that in the 1950s, we were the only real economic power because everybody else was rebuilding in the aftermath of World War II. It probably wouldn't have mattered what Eisenhower did in terms of tax policy.

If Ike cut taxes to 28% we'd have debt at 1000 times GDP by now, and we certainly would not have been a economic powerhouse for long. The Marshall Plan ended by 1952 and Europe which did the lions share of rebuilding was booming and did so for the next 2 decades. The Effective tax rate was 60% and the dif between marginal and effective rate is where domestic spending to get down to their lower rate was key to an domestic investment economy and a speculation based, offshore account hiding, race to the lowest wage that we have had for the last 30 years...

And of course there is paying down the debt vs tripling it

Good Republican;Paying down, decreasing debt Overall and Annually respectively;

Eisenhower ; -15.4% -1.9%

Bad Republican; Tripling the Debt increase of Growth overall and annually ,respectively

Reagan ;+19.4% +2.4%

Mike,

while the top tax rate was in the 90% range, using a direct comparison isn't really valid because the currency value really isn't the same, but most importantly, there were far more ways that a taxable entity could lower their taxable income rate, to the extent that the effective taxation rate was essentially the same as what it was under the latter part of the Clinton administration.

Just looking at the tax rates doesn't really tell the whole story, and can be extremely misleading.

They REALLY should have taken Obama's grand Bargain...A 3 to 1 ratio That Reagan and Tip O'neill agreed to...But the wouldn't take 9 dollars in cuts to 1 dollar of revenue increases...they are off the rails...

Clintons military didn't do too bad taking down the Iraq Military in 2 weeks, Huh? Clinton continued what Bush started, the peace dividend, remember?

What? When did Clinton take down the Iraq military? Are you perhaps confusing Clinton with Bush the Elder? He's the one who invaded Iraq in 1991, remember? Clinton didn't become president until January, 1993.

You don't remember Operation Desert Fox? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(December_1998)

Oom, of course Clinton wasn't stupid enough to re-invade Iraq...Bush used the Clinton Military , apparently they had no problem fulfilling their mission in record time...it was Bushs' occupation that sent it south....

Bush SR.s Army Could of taken Iraq and the Occupation Clinton wouldnt even give bullets to marines in Somalia that were on the streets guarding. Then we go to see what happened when they were dragging our marines down the street cause they had no way to defend themselves. Clinton decided on a fast military instead of a rugged tuff military. Hence no armored Hummers and the need for Armor. I blame bush for not being ready and knowing this I blame Clinton for taking the cuts to Personnel carriers and personal Body armor. Instead the other bloated spending that was lining clintons reelection pockets. And I actually like Clinton on Domestics but he sucked Militarily.

bush was just as much pushing the light and fast concept as was anyone else. The objective is to be light and mobile like the military threats that are the current problem. There is very little point having an aircraft carrier based navy and a large standing army when your threats are more likely to be insurgents. You really should read up on Rumsfeld's planning for Iraq, which worked in terms of the invasion. What Rumsfeld forgot is that once you completely the invasion, you need the large numbers of people to keep the peace and return to normal life. That requires many more people, but not the same people that actually do the invastion.

As for Somalia, I think you completely misinterpreted what happened there.

As for cuts to personnel carriers and body armor, well that was the biggest complaint in Iraq, that the military couldn't get enough. Soldiers were actually buying it themselves. Now not sure why that should be a clinton thing, because that was during the bush administration. They were much more comfortable spending the 60 billion dollars on a missile defence system to deal with non existent threats than they were buying body armor for soldiers.

marines in Somalia

I was one of those Marines in Somalia (A 1/11 13th MEU (SOC)).

You are so way off base it's not even funny.

I had plenty of ammo. I had plenty of anything I could need. The problem was that no one realized how @!$%#ed up Somalia is. The right wingers would have left us there and we would have still been there 10 years later. Clinton put us there, realized that we were going to accomplish NOTHING but getting our asses shot off and he got us the @!$%# out of there. Thats why I refused re-enlistment. I knew we were going to get a republican president after Clinton and I got the @!$%# OUT!!! If I would have re-enlisted I would probably still be stuck in for years and years.

Somalia is what turned me into a liberal. I see Somalia as a right winger paradise. Every one carries a gun, the federal government has no power, there are no social programs, if you don't "work" you don't eat, there are no taxes and the few wealthy control everything.

We can talk about Somalia all day long if you think you have better knowledge of it than I do. I think you are just repeating what you have been told, regardless of what the truth is.

...and as far a the guy drug through the streets. RIP bro, but it's a job hazard....it's what we do.

So Angry this made you liberal?

Secretary of Defense Les Aspin and the Clinton Admin didn't want to "send the wrong message" to the civilians of Somalia and denied requests by UN Commander General Montgomery for 70-ton M1 Abrams tanks and 33-ton M2 tracked Bradley This was after CENTCOM Commander, Marine General Hoar pooh-poohed and stalled Montgomery's requests for armor support for days. This left soldiers "hanging in the breeze" without the necessary force mix to handle the job, and one of the dead Rangers' father was rightfully angered at this and publicly criticized President Clinton. The Somali civilians the Clinton team wanted to appease got gunned down by the hundreds because our men were not shielded by armored vehicles while doing the mission and had to use firepower as their defacto "shield".

Why do the Vast majority of the Military vote republican Angry? And still do even with a drop in 2008. Isnt it the Right that keeps them in war? And if thats so does that mean they think they are in better hands then with the Dems?

Personally I think Obama has used our Special forces better then any president since D-Day. But I dont agree with the wait till your buddy is shot before you can fire back that were doing now. I understand it in populated areas but a Marine division pinned under fire should not have to wait 2 hours for a bombing mission and 40 oks to do so. If we fought WW2 like we have these wars weed all be speaking Japanese on the west coast and German on the East Coast. Didnt we try this same solution with a dem leader in Vietnam? That didnt work out to good.....

BY the way thanks man for doing your service 100% no matter if we disagree on this or not :)

David,

the job was not winnable, unless you are going to put in a full occupation force. That would have required congressional approval. Not sure how you could have safely brought in any abrahms or bradleys anyways. That would require complete control of a landing facility so the C17's that carry them could land and take off again. Again, that leads to the requirement of a major occupation force.

Not sure what your link is trying to prove, but there isn't any such thing as a light tracked APV, no armed forces in the world has them. A tracked vehicle is going to be at the very least a medium tracked vehicle. Even the Russians don't have them. They have a WHEELED vehicle as their light infantry vehicle. The HMMV's take on that same role.

As to the M113, that is just silly to think that it is still a viable front line vehicle. It isn't. The bradley has COMPLETELY assumed the role and remaining M113's in the forces are using in supporting roles where its limitations aren't as much of a factor. If anything, the LAV vehicles that are currently in service are far more effective vehicles with the V shaped bottom which protects the occupants from being injured from IED's.

This comment alone makes the entire contents of the link suspect:

The Army has a M113A3-based Immediate Ready Force in Europe ready to fly into Afghanistan to support the 101st, but General Shinseki will not allow it to go because if Congress saw light tracks accomplishing the mission, it would learn we don't need to be wasting billions of dollars on planned purchases of inferior LAV-III armored cars.

The LAV-III is NOT inferior, and it isn't a car either.

Jonathan is correct.

Just how many resources are you going to dedicate to "winning" Somalia??? To what ends??? There is nothing there and your vision of total war wouldn't have ended at Somalia. We would still have troops over there fighting and dying.

I'm not saying that going there in the first place wasn't a mistake, but getting us out of there before more of us got killed for nothing was a good decision.

Dying isn't a problem, killing isn't a problem. The problem is doing either one for no reason. As a Marine I promised to do either one when ordered and I kept my promise. The other side of that is the promise that we don't throw our troops into something un-winnable and without good reason.

I never saw a problem with the "don't fire unless fired upon" rule. Who are we going to preemptively shoot?? People with guns??? EVERYONE had a gun!! Would you just have us shooting people who walked by??? Trust me, if someone threatened us with a weapon they went down. It sounds like you would have us riding around just killing everyone.

...and yes I am a liberal now because of my service. Why do most of the military vote republican?? I have no idea, but I would say that maybe you should compare the way actively serving people vote compared to the way veterans vote (and not just those crusty WW2/Korea guys). When I was in I loved the action, I loved it. But the things that happened over there, the things I saw are still there with me. I still sometimes wake up with the smell of fresh blood and sand. I did things that will always be with me and haunt me till the end. It would make me very happy if our young men and women never had to see combat ever again.

I would say the young guys vote republican because they are young and dumb and can't wait to see action and the old guys....the old guys, do you know what "LIFER" means to a Marine??

Living

In

Fear of

Entering

Reality

This was long before the Major use of IED's At the time when all this went down M113 was what we had.

The M113 is a fully tracked armored personnel carrier that has formed the backbone of the United States Army's mechanized infantry units from the time of its first fielding in Vietnam in April 1962.[2] The M113 was the most widely used armored vehicle of the U.S. Army in the Vietnam War, earning the nickname 'Green Dragon' by some people, but largely known as an APC and ACAV (armored cavalry assault vehicle) by the allied forces,[3] as it was used to break through heavy thickets in the midst of the jungle to attack and overrun enemy positions.
The M113 introduced new aluminum armor that made the vehicle much lighter than earlier vehicles; it was thick enough to protect the crew and passengers against small arms fire but light enough that the vehicle was air transportable and moderately amphibious. In the U.S. Army, the M113 series have long been replaced as front-line combat vehicles by the M2 and M3 Bradley, but large numbers are still used in support roles such as armored ambulance, mortar carrier, engineer vehicle, command vehicle, etc. The Army's Heavy Brigade Combat Teams are currently equipped with around 6,000 M113s and 4,000 Bradleys.
The M113's versatility spawned a wide variety of adaptations that live on worldwide, and in U.S. service. These variants together represent about half of U.S. Army armored vehicles today. To date, it is estimated that over 80,000 M113s of all types have been produced and used by over 50 countries worldwide, making it one of the most widely used armored fighting vehicles of all time.[4] The Military Channel's "Top Ten" series named the M113 the most significant infantry vehicle in history.[5] The U.S. Army plans to retire the M113 family of vehicles by 2018 and is seeking replacement with the GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle program.[6]

Before the animals turned on us we had and were able to bring anything in. My point in all this and I think we can both agree is do not take away from ground troops in Budget cuts. Maybe instead get rid of planes that will never fly ect....

both agree is do not take away from ground troops in Budget cuts. Maybe instead get rid of planes that will never fly

I can totally agree to that.

If you read my comment at 23.3 I say that we can start by cutting the waste and a few of the trillion dollar ships named after republican presidents.

Im 100% for our military. I never want to see what happened to our guys like with vietnam from idiot college kids that are now sending troops to war after spitting on them in the 60's & 70's

That is good.

Excellent and very informative link! Thanks for posting that.

So right......we now have a tea bagging President......

I hope he cuts them off,Fed up with Republicans

I agree Paul and would be surprised if it was on the backs of our service people. I tend to think the big savings will come from systems like planes, boats, weaponry etc.

I would hope that Congress will provide the funding TO take care of our service people and their families who have sacraficed so much.

me too, but if history is any indication, it is unlikely.

The military personnel are usually the first on the chopping block. Their benefits are affected and early outs are usually implemented.

Last time when Clinton was in office we cut and it was at the price of our soldiers not having body armor cause clintons Idea of military was never get out of the vehicles that they also decided didnt need extra armor. And well lets look at the beginning of Iraq with parents buying body armor. Soldiers using destroyed vehicles to armor their own.

And well lets look at the beginning of Iraq with parents buying body armor. Soldiers using destroyed vehicles to armor their own.

David-1830107

Apparently David, you are confused. Clinton did not take us into Iraq, it was Bush.

Never mind we had no reason to invade Iraq and waste tens of thousands of our soldiers limbs and thousand of their lives; no President should ever commit our troops to any military action with our service men and women under equipped.

exactly David, a trend evident in the civilian side of this equation as well, the small people are asked to pay/sacrifice more, in favor of million dollar bombs to drop on 25 dollar a head camel caravans, and the cost of air conditioning tents in order to protect the gross profit margins of a very few, the same few who coincidently have prospered expontentially, quite literally on the blood of our own people.

Corporations don't make people ( well not yet ) so military personal will get the chop, equipment is big business, and who is going to feed that hungry cow..?

John Franklin Mason

Um are you confused here? Bush Inherited Clintons Army. Clinton Inherited Bush SR.s Army that destroyed the 4th largest military in the world in 2 weeks.......

Um are you confused here? Bush Inherited Clintons Army. Clinton Inherited Bush SR.s Army that destroyed the 4th largest military in the world in 2 weeks.......

David-1830107

Bush inherited the United States Army and the position of Commander in Chief. Bush and the Republican Congress so-called improvements to the military was to privatize a lot of it to save money. To purchase sinkable Navy ships.

As Commander in Chief President Bush, and Republicans who controlled both houses of Congress in charge of the Nations Security, were unable to protect the United States and our Worlds most powerful military and financial headquarters from devastating attacks and loss of thousands of American lives from less than two dozen dime store box cutter wielding foreign terrorist.

Certainly the Billions of dollars in cash Bush sent in plane loads to Iraq could have been better spent in equipping soldiers.

No spending cut will be meaningful without hefty cuts in defense.

And entitlements.

Fine, all of it is on the table. No sacred cows. Including the massive revenue entitlements for corporations and wealthy private citizens enshrined in the tax code.

Agreed

If EVERYONE in America paid 25% with no loopholes and no matter how much you make...problem solved.

This goes for the person making 10.00 to the person making a billion a year.

BTW: No more returns. No more returns of 6,000 to people that pay no federal income tax irregardless of how much cigarette and gas tax you pay.

If EVERYONE in America paid 25% with no loopholes and no matter how much you make...problem solved.

No, flat taxes are not fair to those who generate little income because they need every cent of that measly income they do generate. Plus they pump it all right back into the economy. The income tax burden should be on those who generate the most income. And I don't care HOW you generate the income, if it's money in your pocket it should be taxed as income.

If it were up to me a family making under $40,000 a year shouldn't have to pay a cent in federal income taxes

LanaD,

"If it were up to me a family making under $40,000 a year shouldn't have to pay a cent in federal income taxes"

If the family making 40K has a child or two they most likely don't pay a cent in federal income tax thanks the the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Credit. I'll take this one further since this is my favorite topic. A family making more than 50,000 doesn't pay federal income tax when more than one child is involved. You can actually extend this number up to 100, 000 per year and still pay zero federal income tax if you use the deductions that are available.

According to USA Today, the fastest growing group paying zero in federal income tax is the 75 to 100,000 income range.

I have no problem with the first sentence, in fact great!

According to USA Today, the fastest growing group paying zero in federal income tax is the 75 to 100,000 income range.

Hhhmm.... Well not sure how I feel about since I still consider that middle class, just upper middle class and I'm sure they are pumping nice amounts of money into the economy, not just stock piling it or hiding it in offshore bank accounts. Would be nice to get rid of deductions other than kids for the upper middle class. $100,000 a year is chump change to the rich. Mitt Romney and his little $340,000 in speaking fees for example... I'm more concerned about those making $250,000+ a year paying their fair share

James, heres a link to the article buckeye is talking about
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2011-10-06/income-tax-nonpayment/50676912/1

If it were up to me a family making under $40,000 a year shouldn't have to pay a cent in federal income taxes

Well, that's all well and good, but we'll need to get by on a lot less federal government.

snarky,

Thanks for that! I just got back to my computer.

your both welcome.
The article and its info was an eye opener for me.

Will Obama cave....again?

Caved or forced into compromise to protect vulnerable americans? seeing the bigger picture is helpful.

Damn,

You mean they won't have money in the budget for any new Hummers to park outside high schools on Career Day... ;-)

Just checking, Are you then against what we did in Libya?

Stick to the thread, please. No trolling me, thank you very much.

Libya was done correctly.

Lets buy more drones and "smart" weaponry....lets stop building trillion dollar ships named after republican presidents.

We can also get rid of a ton of wastefull practices. Here is an example, that I can attest to first hand. I was a Marine Corps Fire Direction Controller attached to an artillery battery (M198 155mm). On the last day of field exercises we would fire off EVERY round we could...we wouldn't adjust, we wouldnt call targets we would just pump rounds down range. Why?? Because it was a hassle to bring them back and check them back in. Some of those rounds are 50k each.We would fire all artillery rounds and even all of our small arms/crew served rounds.....just firing at nothing. The last couple days we would also dump "unservicable" equipment, we would take these huge camo nets and dump them out the back of the truck as we were leaving because its easier to replace than repair. We had a Humvee that was problematic, the motor pool guys got tired of working on the thing so the drained the oil and transmission fluids and drove it around until it became "unservicable" and would be replaced. Same thing with our armory, we had a .50 cal that was continuously causing problems they strung together a bunch of ammo belts and just started firing, they didn't change the barrel and the thing started turning red and eventually rounds started coing out the side of the barrel and ended up welding itself shut, so we could get a new one.

So lets stop the waste, stop buying @!$%# that will never get used, buy things that work well (like those predator drones) and cut the waste and see where we end up.

Better,

I'm not "trolling" I am just curious if you are against war when the president is a democrat too.

Angry,

Libya was not done correctly. Libya was not a threat to the us or our interests. We had no business being there just like we had no business invading Iraq. The only difference in the two is there were more countries willing to pick on the little guy. The reality is, if Gaddafi had to go for the attrocities he commited, So did Saddam.

So you disagree with Reagan bombing the @!$%# out of Libya???

So lets see....

Reagan getting rid of Gaddafi = FAILED

Bush getting rid of Osama = FAILED

Obama getting rid of both of them = EVIL

I am starting to see how this works.....only republican presidents can attempt to "get rid" of people. When a dem does it, it is a bad thing.

So let's see...

Angry left writing things that I never wrote as if he or she knows me=typical liberal blow-hard

Maybe you should put on your reading glasses

" We had no business being there just like we had no business invading Iraq" That means I think all this bull@!$%# was "evil. I know the Marine Corps teaches reading better than that.

Angry,

I think you need a refresher in the meaning of the first J in JJDIDTIEBUCKLE.

I am a pacifist. Even helping people rid themselves of a brutal and murderous dictator as in Libya goes against my principles. Those such cases have my sympathy, but killing and death by military is still unacceptable.

I opposed, actively, Johnson in Viet Nam. I actively opposed Bush in his war of vanity and conquest against the people of Iraq. Sad to say, given my sympathies for the Libyans seeking to rid themselves of a deadly dictator, I opposed that military action only in words.

Better Careful,

Fair enough.

I did find your comment about Gaddafi being a deadly dictator and not mentioning the same of Saddam since he killed more of his own citizens and attacked a neighbor a little odd. I had sympathy for the people of Libya and Iraq. Both deserved better.

Iraq was invaded and occupied in a war of conquest and vanity by a few in the Bush administration. There was no current uprising by the people against Hussein. In fact, after the USA invaded their country, many Iraqis wished for a return of Hussein. Bush's pals got oil contracts; Bush's pals made $Billions; Bush paid some political debts; and Bush got his jollies.

In the end, the war was criminal, stupid, and entirely wrong from a strategic point of view. The USA did not invade Libya, and did not wage war on all Libya's citizens, you seem to ignore. I assume you do so in support of a personal agenda.

except that repealing ACA it won't reduce expenses...

Yep - that's the spirit...

Let's repeal something that is saving the taxpayers money - in favor of letting the health insurance companies continue to bankrupt people or not cover people because of "pre-existing" conditions...

except that repealing ACA it won't reduce expenses...

Current expenses, not much; future expenses, a lot.

Yep - that's the spirit...

Let's repeal something that is saving the taxpayers money

Ain't saving me any money, nor will it; it will in fact cost me a bundle to pay the taxes for all the government employees' salaries and to pay insurance subsidies for those who can't afford it, as well as to pay an insurance company for a service I neither need nor desire. I discovered a long time ago that I was better off covering my own medical expenses than paying an insurance company to shuffle paper.

no, still wrong....

repealing obamacare has a negative effect on our bottom line. this would actually increase our deficits, and national debt, according to those that produce these types of numbers.

repealing obamacare has a negative effect on our bottom line. this would actually increase our deficits, and national debt, according to those that produce these types of numbers.

The provision in "obamacare" that causes it to help our bottom line is the $500 billion taken away from Medicare.

It's easy to improve your bottom line when you just don't pay for stuff.

Yeah, because the uninsured, that doesn't cost any money right?

After well, we just let them die if they need help but can't afford it, that doesn't cost anyone anything--wait, we don't?

/sarcasm

according to those that produce these types of numbers

You mean the same ones who cooked the books in the first place, through such time-honored accounting devides as double-counting the Medicare "savings" (which was an imaginary number to begin with), front-loading the revenue while passing off expenses to future budget cycles (which is a joke in its own right, since Congress hasn't passed a budget since the Dems took control), and assuming a rate of economic growth for those fictitious future budgets completely unsupported by real-world data (you know what you get when you break down the word "assume", don't you?)?

The problem with the CBO is that they can only work with the figures given to them by Congress, using no other source; and when it comes to Congress, Abe said it best: "Figgers don't lie, but liars can figger." To be charitable, not all Congresscritters are liars; but when it comes to economics, most of them are dumb as a box of rocks. Not one single projection by Congress of the cost of any legislation has ever been remotely accurate. Ever.

Yes, we learned that from the current crop of GOP governors.

But when a democrat does so....well that's glorious. We call it "signature legislation".

Yeah, because the uninsured, that doesn't cost any money right?

After well, we just let them die if they need help but can't afford it, that doesn't cost anyone anything--wait, we don't?

Do not complain to me that you do not have the backbone to make people pay for their own care. You complain that "the uninsured cost us money", yet your solution for that is still to pass the cost on to everyone else. You're just going to wrap it up differently.

It's very simple. You have no insurance, but you incur a $100k hospital bill for your cancer treatment. The hospital forwards that to HHS, who pays it and in turn forwards it to the IRS to add to your tax liabilities. It may take you 15 years to pay it off, but you do, because the alternative is having your wages garnished or your assets seized.

You complain that "the uninsured cost us money", yet your solution for that is still to pass the cost on to everyone else. You're just going to wrap it up differently.

I never said either of those things. I was pointing out that someone, somewhere, down the line pays.

It's very simple. You have no insurance, but you incur a $100k hospital bill for your cancer treatment. The hospital forwards that to HHS, who pays it and in turn forwards it to the IRS to add to your tax liabilities. It may take you 15 years to pay it off, but you do, because the alternative is having your wages garnished or your assets seized.

So if you get sick you deserve to be poor, for the next 15 years? That's assuming you survive the cancer as well.

Basically your idea is that the government, instead of collecting money for the United States government, should become a bill collector for hospitals and insurance companies. I guess if you get sick and are unemployed that's it for you then, death sentence! Or even better we get to collect taxes on you even if you didn't have any income.

Because that'll work, of all plans this is the best one.

Repeal health care for Americans to pay for war and death on sovereign foreign citizens? That sounds about right-wing to me.

Wow, but their instincts are all wrong. All wrong.

Not "to pay for war and death on sovereign foreign citizens" but to ensure we have the capability to defend ourselves and our interests abroad.

Ongoing staffing, training, equipment replacement, and the development of advanced technologies is critical to maintaining a viable defense. I did not support either the war in Iraq or Obama's Libyan intervention, but neither am I naive enough to believe we will never have to fight another war; and given the speed with which things happen these days, we won't have the time to build what we need from scratch. "If you would have peace, prepare for war." - Vegetius. Nothing invites aggression like a defenseless victim.

We had health care for Americans before Obamacare: no American was denied emergency care, and our poorest were eligible for Medicaid; all Obamacare did was to ensure a government-guaranteed windfall for the insurance industry.

So if you get sick you deserve to be poor, for the next 15 years? That's assuming you survive the cancer as well.

Ah yes. Liberal drama, right on time.

Why do we assume it would make you poor? Millions of people have their wages garnished for one thing or another. They do OK. Why is it acceptable to garnish a man's wages for child support but not medical bills?

No. Not "if you get sick". If you are financially irresponsible. How do you condone financial irresponsibility out of one side of your mouth and then seek to outlaw it out of the other?

Basically your idea is that the government, instead of collecting money for the United States government, should become a bill collector for hospitals and insurance companies.

First of all, if there were an insurance company involved, we wouldn't have this problem, would we?

You are the one lamenting about how the uninsured cost all of us money. We pay for it one way or another, whether the hospital applies and gets reimbursed through Medicaid, they take a credit on their tax return, or they pass the cost on by raising their rates to other payers, like Medicare.

So rather than enabling irresponsibility the way we have been, you want to enable irresponsibility in new and creative ways, because you lack the backbone to do otherwise.

You seek to disguise the problem so you don't have to look at it any more, but don't think you're any closer to solving it.

If you are financially irresponsible. How do you condone financial irresponsibility out of one side of your mouth and then seek to outlaw it out of the other?

The same way people condone financially supporting those of us too irresponsible to plan for our own retirement and then expect the government to pay them but also cover their ever inflating medical bills as well.

I don't get why righties are ok with supporting you once you get old and before you are born but could give 2 @!$%#s and a @!$%# about you the rest of your life.

Don't give me that "payed in" crap either...I would just as gladly "pay into" a medical plan as I would an under-performing retirement fund.

I don't get why righties are ok with supporting you once you get old and before you are born but could give 2 @!$%#s and a @!$%# about you the rest of your life.

Once you get old you've paid your dues, and likely unable to work anyway for physical or social reasons (just try to get hired anywhere if you're over 50); before you're born you haven't had a chance to yet. In between you or your parents are perfectly capable of taking responsibility for you.

I would just as gladly "pay into" a medical plan as I would an under-performing retirement fund.

Now you don't have a choice for either. Pay up, or the Feds'll come and get you.

Pay up

Fine, it's about time we get some actual services for what they take,,,I get so tired of rebuilding countries republicans just finished blowing the @!$%# out of.

When we spend money rebuilding Iraq's Hospitals, schools and roads the right wingers call that spending "patriotic".

If we spent that money in the US and the federal government built a hospital or a school the righties would lose their minds and start screaming about "socialism" and "entitlements".

You are the one lamenting about how the uninsured cost all of us money.

No, I'm just pointing it out.

So rather than enabling irresponsibility the way we have been, you want to enable irresponsibility in new and creative ways, because you lack the backbone to do otherwise.

You mean forcing people to have insurance is forcing people to be irresponsible?

*head explodes*

I get so tired of rebuilding countries republicans just finished blowing the @!$%# out of.

Now THAT we can agree on. I just hope you feel the same way about the money spent on rebuilding the nations that were once part of Yugoslavia, and about the money we will be funneling into Libya.

When we spend money rebuilding Iraq's Hospitals, schools and roads the right wingers call that spending "patriotic".

I call it the least we could do, since we wrecked them in the first place, rightly or wrongly. BTW, whether we like it or not, ALL the prominent Democrats in Congress endorsed the war in Iraq.

If we spent that money in the US and the federal government built a hospital or a school the righties would lose their minds and start screaming about "socialism" and "entitlements".

Correctly so; such construction is not a Federal responsibility, but a local one, like the two elementary schools and the cancer unit our community built recently. Not that it's important, but the schools and cancer unit were built under a local Republican administration.

about the money spent on rebuilding the nations that were once part of Yugoslavia

Absolutely.

Correctly so; such construction is not a Federal responsibility, but a local one

Tell that to the Iraqis.

Absolutely.

Good, because our war in the Balkans was all Clinton, all the time.

Tell that to the Iraqis.

Guess you missed the one in the middle.

No I saw it, I just disagree.

How about this....for every school, road, hospital or any other infrastructure we build in a foreign country we just bombed to hell and back, one gets built here.