Should we, or should we not...

[whell]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Speaking of tax cuts. I was surprised to notice mine in my pay stub this morning.
This is the 2% payroll cut negotiated into the last tax bill by the Obama Administration.

It aint much, and I don't really need it, but I'll take it and I find it interesting nonetheless.

I guess because it wasn't a cut given to billionaires is why there are no props being given to the administration on FauxNews.

Thanks, Barry!

Dave

Wow. In my case its an extra $1000 or so this year. Single income, wife and 3 kids. Yes, I can definitely use it. That along with the tax increase that didn't happen when the Bush - era tax rates were extended.

Why should "props" be given to the Administration, when a major Obama campaign promise was to let the tax cuts expire?

[whell]

Originally Posted by noonereal

Cuts!!!!!!!! Cuts!!!!!

Get the tax back that should have been collected!!!

cuts, what crap

(now my head exploded)

Yup, most folks believe it is time to reduce spending. Over 75% of folks apparently want this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...12-503544.html

Oh, wait. I forgot. You believe people are stupid. Sorry.

EDIT:

Interesting quote:

"Democrats and independents were more likely to favor cuts to defense spending than Republicans, only 39 percent of whom favored cuts there to reduce the deficit. Republicans were most likely to favor reducing money for projects in their area (73 percent), reducing social security for the wealthy (66 percent), reducing farm subsidies (58 percent) and reducing money for student loans (54 percent.)

Democrats were most likely to support reducing social security for the wealthy (60 percent), reducing defense spending (58 percent) and reducing farm subsidies (55 percent). "

OK, we have two areas of agreement between Repubs and Dems. Let's therefore start the cuts with reductions in SS benefits for the wealthy, and reducing farm subsidies. Sounds reasonable to me.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Hmm, near as I recall the defense budget in 2008 was about half what it is now. Gates wants to cut stuff, congress wants to fight him. Now there is a good place to cut. Also there is no reason why congresscitters need an income of $175,000 per year, how about the same cut for them they are proposing for government employees?

Yep, an article today shows Congressional resistance to cutting a poorly performing program for a Marine amphibious vehicle:

"...the EFV has cost $3.3 billion to develop. As costs have skyrocketed, the Marines have reduced the number they expect to order from 1,025 to 573.

Tests of original prototypes in 2006 saw repeated failures and critical breakdowns with vehicles, requiring 3.4 hours of corrective maintenance for every one hour of operation. The program was restructured in 2007, and five new redesigned EFV prototypes are being tested at Camp Pendleton, Calif.

In his statement announcing that the program would end, Gates said that it would cost $13 billion more for the planned 573 to be built and that they could bring ashore only 4,000 troops at any one time, because not all of the EFVs could be used in a single operation."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011503602.html

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

Yup, most folks believe it is time to reduce spending. Over 75% of folks apparently want this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...12-503544.html

Oh, wait. I forgot. You believe people are stupid. Sorry.

EDIT:

Interesting quote:

"Democrats and independents were more likely to favor cuts to defense spending than Republicans, only 39 percent of whom favored cuts there to reduce the deficit. Republicans were most likely to favor reducing money for projects in their area (73 percent), reducing social security for the wealthy (66 percent), reducing farm subsidies (58 percent) and reducing money for student loans (54 percent.)

Democrats were most likely to support reducing social security for the wealthy (60 percent), reducing defense spending (58 percent) and reducing farm subsidies (55 percent). "

OK, we have two areas of agreement between Repubs and Dems. Let's therefore start the cuts with reductions in SS benefits for the wealthy, and reducing farm subsidies. Sounds reasonable to me.

Your poll numbers are meaningless because they are manipulated.
I have no, zero, none desire to be part of any majority nor do I have any desire to listen to a manipulated electorate to validate my opinions.
I see a crisis that was PRIMARILY caused by tax cuts and corporate welfare. This should be paid back by those who benefited. fairly simple no?

As to reductions in the military, that is fine as long as they are prudent. As to reductions in SS, HELL NO. We need to increase SS significantly so grandma can be warm in the winter. SS needs the money put back that was taken and to remove the cap which allows the wealthy to escape their fair share of social responsibility. Doing this would allow grandma to eat what she wanted and be warm and provide dramatic surpluses that would enable us to lower the overall rate .

BTW I do not think people are stupid, I think that the average American is to self consumed to fully understand what takes place and is accustomed to making knee jerk decisions based on sound bites.

I think the people in this forum are the exceptions and that is why they are here. Yes, I think you are way smart whell, I question what makes someone adapt views such as you have. A big difference from intellect.

I will admit that you particularly confuse me because you adapt a straight party line regardless of common sense and this can only be for two reasons and I am still not sure which it is yet. I still learn toward you being a professional (or amateur)GOP strategist.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Yep, an article today shows Congressional resistance to cutting a poorly performing program for a Marine amphibious vehicle:

"...the EFV has cost $3.3 billion to develop. As costs have skyrocketed, the Marines have reduced the number they expect to order from 1,025 to 573.

Tests of original prototypes in 2006 saw repeated failures and critical breakdowns with vehicles, requiring 3.4 hours of corrective maintenance for every one hour of operation. The program was restructured in 2007, and five new redesigned EFV prototypes are being tested at Camp Pendleton, Calif.

In his statement announcing that the program would end, Gates said that it would cost $13 billion more for the planned 573 to be built and that they could bring ashore only 4,000 troops at any one time, because not all of the EFVs could be used in a single operation."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011503602.html

Looks like the sentiment is to cut the order to 200, and save money. Doesn't sound unreasonable. The option to canceling the program, and flushing the development and testing funds down the toilet, is to continue to field and support an almost 40 year old contingent of amphibious craft (aka Vietnam - era rust-buckets.

We're also talking about the Marines here. Ship to shore operations is what they do.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

Looks like the sentiment is to cut the order to 200, and save money. Doesn't sound unreasonable. The option to canceling the program, and flushing the development and testing funds down the toilet, is to continue to field and support an almost 40 year old contingent of amphibious craft (aka Vietnam - era rust-buckets.

We're also talking about the Marines here. Ship to shore operations is what they do.

Is ship to shore much of a need today?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by noonereal

Is ship to shore much of a need today?

In the first Iraq War, the Marines insisted on an amphibious attack as part of the first assault on Kuwait. It was all for show, an effort to keep the whole "ship to shore" tactic in the military playbook. Generals are always fighting the last war.

[whell]

Originally Posted by noonereal

Is ship to shore much of a need today?

Originally Posted by finnbow

In the first Iraq War, the Marines insisted on an amphibious attack as part of the first assault on Kuwait. It was all for show, an effort to keep the whole "ship to shore" tactic in the military playbook. Generals are always fighting the last war.

Are you suggesting that Marine amphibious assault capability isn't worth funding and supporting?

By the way, the amphibious assault on Kuwait in the Gulf War was telegraphed, and prompted the Iraqis to spend time, effort and resources fortifying that approach area and staffing it with multiple infantry divisions. It was part of the overall strategy to "faint" in one direction, than hit the enemy hard from another, if memory serves.

[merrylander]

Wow the marines fainted? Who knew.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Are you suggesting that Marine amphibious assault capability isn't worth funding and supporting?

By the way, the amphibious assault on Kuwait in the Gulf War was telegraphed, and prompted the Iraqis to spend time, effort and resources fortifying that approach area and staffing it with multiple infantry divisions. It was part of the overall strategy to "faint" in one direction, than hit the enemy hard from another, if memory serves.

Poorly conceived and executed government programs need to be curtailed. Being a DoD program doesn't convey some sort of magical trump card. As for amphibious assault capabilities, it's unclear whether it's useful or meaningful in this day and age. Warfare is becoming more and more a standoff proposition. Leading with one's chin is out of fashion.

I believe that this landing was telegraphed in an effort for the Marines to fluff up its relative importance and viability in future conflicts. It had no real impact on the success of the invasion.