More national security cuts to the budget?
Well, ya know, I almost understand the cuts to the Department of Defense…it’s a knee jerk reaction for Liberals to go after defense first thing. But, ya know, this one just doesn’t figure. Unless they thought that no one would notice. The Obama Administration has proposed to cut by almost half funding for training federal flight deck officers – those airline pilots who are specially trained to carry firearms on your commercial flight. You know, to protect the cockpit from hijackers. According to the Philadelphia Enquirer;
President Obama’s budget for the coming year, released last month, proposes $12.5 million for the federal flight deck officer and flight crew training program, down from $25 million this year.
The White House budget also calls for a $36.5 million cut in the Federal Air Marshal Service, although $929.6 million would remain in that program.
In an environment of overall budget tightening, the administration proposes that the TSA spend $7.6 billion in 2013, a cut of $197 million.
Yeah, the defense budget, I can almost understand because they hate things that the Constitution actually mentions, these things that protect us directly, that are right in front of the voters’ collective face, well, it just doesn’t make sense in an election year, unless, like I said, they thought no one would notice.
But if you couple these cuts with the cuts to defense, and the blatantly obvious lack of cuts to social programs, it looks to me as if this Administration is planning to disarm this country in the middle of a war against terrorists, taking apart the mechanisms which have resulted in no more successful terrorist attacks in more than ten years. Sacrificing security for votes from the leech class.
Where are the adults?
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Terror War
I just know they’ll be financing Snitch Phone apps with the savings.
I know you don’t condone “class warfare” – unless you’re the one stirring up class warfare by using terms like “the leech class”. You are one big bundle of biases, contradictions, paradoxes, and double-standards.
That’s exactly who he panders votes from. The one’s who want to live off the sweat of someone-else hard work.
It’s flawed logic. Even if entitlement programs were cut, the people who receive them are still going to vote for the liberal candidate, because they know for a fact what will happen if the conservates take the chair. There are only two main choices, and that leaves them only one candidate to vote for.
But its not a war. They’ve made it clear since day one they don’t view it that way. Its an overseas contingency operation (whatever the flying fuck that means).
From what I understand, the airline pilots who want to pack a pistol, have to attend the training on their own time…as it is now, there are only a few places in the country that they can be “QUALIFIED” to carry….and they want to cut it even more?
It has nothing to do with GOP vs Dems. It has to do with reality.
Our enemy still lives. Just because we leave doesn’t mean they don’t hate us less or will leave us alone.
we need to find them. Chase them down the hole. A beat the frack out of them.
OK, here goes with one of my periodic attempts at public service through educating a libidiot. (Yes, Joe, that would be you.)
The term “leech class” Jonn uses above is apropos. A very quick look at Federal spending for 1962 and 2010 indicates that quite clearly.
In 1962, Federal entitlement programs (Social Security, medical care, general welfare) amounted to approximately 20.8% of Federal expenditures. In 2010, parts of those same three categories (the mandatory entitlements Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, unemployment) accounted for roughly 56% of Federal expenditures. And those 4 programs for 2010 don’t seem to include the costs of subsidizing food or housing assistance – and probably misses a whole bunch of other entitlement spending, too.
In contrast, defense spending accounted for 59.6% of Federal outlays in 1962 – and for roughly 18% in 2010.
What that means is that now over 56 cents of every dollar spent by the Federal government represents money being taken from productive citizens and businesses so it can be given to people whose only claim to that money is that they are breathing. Getting something that someone else worked to produce simply because you are breathing sounds like a reasonable working definition of “leeching” to me.
By the way: in 1962, that proportion was 21 cents. And we were talking about a proportionally much smaller tax load, too.
The government takes proportionally about 5x more from the economy today than it did in 1962. 1962 Federal expenditures, adjusted for inflation, would have been somewhere around $772 billion in 2010; the 1962 deficit, around $51 billion. Federal expenditures in 2010 were roughly 5 times that, while the 2010 Fewderal deficit was a God-awful $1,293+ billion – 25x higher than the value of 1962’s Federal deficit.
1962 data: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_1962USbn_13bs1n_30408000021020706050#usgs302
2010 data: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_the_U.S._federal_budget_is_spent_on_entitlements
Air Marshals don’t do shit but waste taxpayer money anyways.
@#9,How does one prove that something has been prevented? Hijackers don’t usually have press conferences to announce that their plans failed.
Hondo, Joey response will be along the lines of, b-b-but they deserve to get whatever they can from the real workers.
Nah Joey’s response would probably be something about how DOD actually gets like 95% of the tax money or some such bullshit.
Yeah, Adam, I forgot that, Joey is in on all those secrets, so he knows. Those hard-working teachers told him so.
Hondo,
Well, I was just pointing out the obvious double-standard Jonn subscribes to whenever he howls how people are fomenting class warfare every time they mention “the 1%”, yet he freely tosses around terms like “the leech class”. So which is it, is class warfare legitimate or not?
Your “statisitcs” leave so much room for argument on so many levels that I’m not even gonna start.
“Where are the adults?”
I’m pretty sure they are few and far between with those folks.
@#13, translates to, Holy shit, he’s got me, I’ll go with the “I’m not even gonna start” bullshit, because I can’t refute what he says. Thanks for playing, Joey.
@7 Yeah lets just stay at war forever, fuck it right? You aint the one going.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics. I’ll let you run along to your tea bagger meeting….
DUIDave – neither are you.
@ #16
Last time I cracked a history book it appears mankind has been at war, well, damned near forever in one fashion or another. When dangerous people threaten innocent people’s lives and livelihood, what should the response be? Hmmmm?
And yes, I did go, so what’s your smarmy comeback to that?
Joe: argue away. All you’ll do if you try to argue based on facts is prove you are a fool.
Documented facts are not subject to interpretation.
Comment 20 above was mine. ID info got dumped.
One more thing, Joe. You weren’t objecting to any double-standard; you couln’t give a damn about double-standards. You were trying to change the subject. I called you on it.
No, I really wasn’t trying to change the subject – if you noticed, you changed the subject. I was just bringingto light one of the many paradoxes and contradictions you run across on this site. Resorting to dueling 50 year old statistics, from a totally different time (how much did the gov’t take in 1789?) is not productive, comparing apples to oranges. 1962 is not 2012.
Joe: numbnuts, you did change the subject – and apparently don’t even realize it. Jonn’s whole point was that resources are being diverted from core governmental functions authorized by the Constitution to “feelgood” entitlement programs not explicitly authorized by the Constitution. These programs are funded by the forcible transfer, under color of law, of money earned by productive taxpayers to others who qualify to receive it merely by breathing. Your bringing up the Occupy Movement and it’s “1%” meme was a deliberate attempt to change the subject and/or shape the argument in a different direction. And it was a clumsy one at best.
A comparison of 48-year old statistics concerning Federal outlays is useful to illustrate the change over time as well as the magnitude of said change. That’s why I included it. Don’t like it? Fine. But don’t disregard facts as meaningless without explaining why they’re meaningless. And “it was a totally different time” is not sufficient explanation.
Federal revenue data for 1789 doesn’t seem to be readily available. For years 1792 and beyond it is. The Federal government appears to have taken in $3.7 million in taxes in 1792, mostly from customs duties.
From Joe: 1962 is not 2012.
You’re right Joe, but comparing the two helps illustrate the path we’ve been on as a nation, and how the progressively more intrusive nanny state has failed to solve any problems by throwing ever increasing amounts of money at it.
Don’t be so disingenuous Joe, you know perfectly well what Hondo was illustrating, you’re just uncomfortable with it because it doesn’t fit your meme or assuage your self inflicted class/cultural guilt.
” Lets work together to fundamentally transform the United States of America” It’s all one has to remember about the spoiled, petulant little boy who does not to act like an adult because he got his ass handed to him in 2010,
Jacobite: bingo – and thanks.
Further: that $3.7 million in Federal taxes in 1792 was less than 1.7% of US GDP for the year; Federal spending was a bit over 2.3% (yeah, 1792 was a deficit year too). In 1962, Federal taxes were 17.0% of US GDP, while Federal spending was nearly 18.4%.
In 2010, taxes were about 14.9% of GDP (a drop in tax revenues is a given during a recession; in 2006, Federal taxes took 18.1% of GDP) – but spending was was almost 23.8%.
So in fact the Federal tax “bite” isn’t really all that different 50 years later, Joe. The Federal government still takes about the same “cut” off the top today as it did then. But it comes from different places, and we spend it differently today.
The ballooning Federal deficit, however, is a vastly different story. We’ve added roughly $3.4 trillion in debt over the last 3 years alone – or about 21% of current GDP. And at the end of this fiscal year, our total Federal debt will exceed the GDP – if it hasn’t already.
Hondo – do the stats bear that the US has never had a problem with raising money, but has had a spending problem?
@18 I am not the one volunteering other peoples kids to go off and fight, and by the way dickhead I have seen more than my fair share of combat.. What the fuck have you done? From what I can ascertain from your moronic posts is that you are some over educated toc roach who never went set foot out in sector because you never make a lick of sense on this blog that is full of other morons.
Drunkard if you are going to insult someone for making supposedly “moronic” posts, you really should proof read your own posts so that you do not come across as any more moronic than normal.
You guys all bitch about the nanny state but I bet the vast majority of you are collecting some bullshit VA disability and even more maddening the vast majority of you were in a soft skill MOS, who is sucking Uncle Sugar dry now? Bunch of fucking hypocrites!!!
I guess you’re an angry drunk.
1792! Here’s a clue – they didn’t have interstate highways, electricity or the internet to pay for in 1792, for three things. Are you suggesting we all go back to being yeoman farmers who eat what we raise? Sheesh! Times have changed, and our infrastructure and coresponding support costs have too.
“I like to pay taxes. It is purchasing civilization.” — Oliver Wendell Holmes
“Taxes, after all, are dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society.”
— Franklin Delano Roosevelt
By definition collecting and spending taxes is “redistributing the wealth”. Always has been. There is noting special about that. I would expect as societies become more complex and interdependent, overhead costs rise. So comparing vastly different eras is a flawed methodology.
But I know it’s not really about lofty issues like tax policy, public policy, etc. The bottom line is – you guys are a bunch of selfish, cheap “I’ve got mine” SOB’s (I know, I know, you’re vets, and you deserve more merely because of your exalted status) who never yell louder than when their benefits are getting cut, or some weapons program is cut.
Boy, angry drunk is right.
‘Over educated’? Nope, GED, then 140+ assorted college credits in a variety of technical things, mostly computer science and fire science. But no degree, and no ‘liberal arts’ courses.
What did I do in the service?
I served uninterrupted from 1985 to 2006.
4 years as a 19E10 armored crewman, 3 years as a military firefighter 55M20, 1.5 years as an ammo handler 55B10, 12 years as a heavy wheeled vehicle operator 88M30. I’m also still a ‘gray area employee’, retired reserve. (I might be off by a bit on some of these time lines but they’re close, it’s been a while, lol)
No, I’m not receiving any VA benefits of any kind, yet. And even if I was, that wouldn’t be a ‘nanny state’ hand out, it would be the fulfillment of the government’s contractual obligations to me in return for services rendered. Get it straight.
And last but not least, we still have an all volunteer army. If our service people didn’t support the nation’s actions they could vote with their feet. No one is “volunteering other peoples kids to go off and fight.”
Joey Joey Joey, there’s no exalted status, its just the fact these people actually fucking did something and were promised something in return. They’re not popping out babies and crying about the government not taking care of them, or buying 1.3 million dollar homes and never making a payment on them.
Jesus you and Dave really are a pair. You guys should definitely go get a drink together.
@32 Joe, not all vets are like these guys I am embarassed to have served in the same uniform as most of them, the vast majority of the guys I served with are much different.
These guys are hardcore republicans who use their service as some kind of shield. Their political beliefs are much more important to them then anything military related.
Most guys who are this in your face about their veteran status couldn’t hack it in the service or were some kind of support MOS that really didn’t require any effort so don’t take any of these guys seriously. They are just a collection of American Legion cast offs who need somewhere to tell their bullshit stories to.
And, Dave, you never served day in uniform, so you can just cut the shit now or pony up some proof, you wannabe POS.
So why are you here drunkard?
@#35- DUIDave; You know how to NOT come here and leave your chickenshit comments. You wouldn’t make a pimple on a piss poor soldiers ass…Show us you know how to use better digression and hit the dusty internet trail.
@36 I could send you buttholes every military document I have and you will say it’s all fake to serve your bullshit argument. You guys need to look up the No True Scotsman fallacy because it fits you scumbags perfectly.
Dave, Dave
Pale and wan
Go outside
Get a tan
Burma Shave
Good, good, Dave–FEEL the butthurt FLOW through you… /EmperorPalpatine
I’m wondering how you feel about the fact (FACT) that there has been NO budget passed in over 1000 days. Despite the fact that the House passed one, Sen. Reid has declared any debate on it DOA. Why is that, you suppose?
Oh, and Joe? Article I, Section 8. See if you can find anything about healthcare, welfare, or any of your other little projects in there, Scooter.
Joey, really? The Internet?
We pay taxes to pay for the internet? And electricity? Wow, I wasn’t aware that we paid taxes, to pay for electricity to run the internet, thanks for pointing that out. Oh, and Joey, you might want to take a quick course in contracts, that might explain things. On second thought, don’t bother, you wouldn’t have the faintest idea of how a contract should be honored.
“I could send you buttholes every military document I have and you will say it’s all fake ” translates to drunk dave saying, I got nothin’.
Joe: The info regarding 1792 was in response to your question about how much the Federal government collected in taxes in its infancy, jackass. If you don’t want a question answered, don’t ask it – keep yer yap closed instead. Regarding the Interstate highway system: I am well aware that they didn’t have them in 1792, as is anyone else with 3 or more working brain cells. I am also aware of when the Interstate highway system was started, under which President, and for what major rationale, dipstick. (Here’s a hint: it wasn’t started to promote commerce or the general welfare.) My guess is you don’t know much about them other than they have potholes. You are correct in stating that electricity and the Internet didn’t didn’t exist in 1792. Congratulations on having 3 or more working brain cells, as anyone with 3 or more working brain cells knows that fact. However, most also know that electric companies and the Internet are privately funded. So your argument that they exist today and that the Federal government thus needs tax revenues to pay for them is ludicrous. You are also incorrect in that taxes have always been about “redistributing the wealth”. As the term is generally used today, the term “redistributing the wealth” means governmental actions that are synonymous with Robin Hood’s MO. That is, they forcibly take from the “rich” to benefit the supposed “poor”. (The quotes are intentional.) In contrast, taxes are the mechanism the government uses to raise money – period. They are only wealth “redistribution” in the same sense that commerce itself is also “wealth redistribution”. Here, you are deliberately conflating the terms for your own purposes, bastardizing them in the process. The principle of governmental wealth redistribution is most commonly espoused today by Marxists, Communists, and Socialists. I guess we know what political leanings you favor. Selfish? Yeah – and capitalist. Greedy? Damn right. I earned what I have; I’ll take care of myself and my family with that, thanks. And I’ll be damned if I want anyone – including the government – to take what… Read more »
DaveO: haven’t conducted an analysis, but that would be my guess from perusing the numbers. Since the FDR era (if not before), our Federal government generally doesn’t ever seem to have been able to live within it’s means.
There’s plenty of money coming in, but instead of spending on what the Constitution requires as the first priority, and paying off the debt as the second priority, we’re going to continue to see shrimp put on a treadmill, extremely expensive resort clubs that are exclusive to AFL-CIO bigwigs, and oh so innocent law school coeds’ nympho sex lives.
Damn. 45 above was mine.
— break —
Well, I see our resident “alcohol expert” has returned.
Ya know, DUIDave, I was initally willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. But no longer. You’ve proven by word and attitude you don’t deserve it. Playing the “you’ll call my documents fakes” card when challenged to put up or shut up clinched it for me. To me, that says either you don’t have documentation to back your claims – or that the documents you do have are so obviously bogus they won’t survive scrutiny. And I doubt I’m the only one here who’s come to that conclusion.
But it’s easy to prove us wrong. On comments to another post, you claimed to have been assigned to a SF line company that deployed to Afghanistan – in 2009, if I recall correctly. That means you should have an 18-series MOS. Above, you claim to have seen your “fair share of combat”. That plus your 18-series MOS means you should have orders awarding you a CIB – with an issuing HQ and an orders number. And serving on active duty in-theater means you will have a DD214 for that period of service.
Just send copies of those two documents (DD214 and CIB orders) to Jonn – and give him permission to redact all PII (e.g. names/addresses/NOK info/SSNs, plus blocks 23-30 of the DD214) and allow others here to review them. It’s been 2+ years, so you’ll have received the documents by now.
So c’mon, Joe; prove us wrong. Send Jonn the DD214 and CIB orders and give him permission to redact and provide for review. Or just shut up and quit wasting our time with your whining.
Geez, I need some sleep. 45 and 47 above are mine.
Guys, we really need to stop feeding the trolls. As hard as it is to ignore them the quicker we do the quicker they will go away
DUI Dave obviously did some time in the service and I’m sure got chaptered out for being a shit bag and Joe is just a shaft pumping Obama loving poser who read a couple things about the military and thinks he knows his ass from a hole that isn’t his sister
I will send them to you, I dont trust Jonn.. Where should I send them to?