Gawain 0 #26 July 15, 2009 QuoteFor all the faux-outraged GOPers, I think this kind of says it all. For all the O-pologists out there...it kind of says it all.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #27 July 15, 2009 I find it amusing that people are pointing fingers: "It's the Republican/Democrats fault! Look at who held Congress/the White House during the years of XXXX!" It's both parties fault, and more generally, all of our faults. If we don't stop pointing fingers and start digging our way out, we're in serious trouble. In fact, I think we're in serious trouble already. I don't know about you guys, but personally I'm moving my assets away from dollar denominated anything.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #28 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd in just one term in office Obama will outspend them both. In eight years he will make that number seem trivial It's ok - he's a Dem, and Dems can do no wrong Well, they've certainly been outspent by the GOP up to this point. Quoteat least with RR & GB (1&2) alot of the money was spent on defense and we did bankrupt USSR and got the wall to come down in germany, opened up alot of countries to more freedom than they ever had. what positives have come out of Carter, Clinton, & Obama? Illegals get a free pass and health care and the government now runs most of the major financial and auto businesses. when do we get to see the positives for the hard working americans? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #29 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteFor all the faux-outraged GOPers, I think this kind of says it all. Do you happen to have one that shows control of Congress? I have a theory that spending is greatest when the same party controls Congress and the White House, but I haven't actually looked into the numbers, You won't find data to support this. The Democrats controlled the House for most of the modern era. While the GOP captured the Senate for 81-87 and 95-05, spending originates in the House. And for most of this time, the GOP dominated the White House. Anyone pretending to care about fiscal responsibility has to condemn the last Bush and the GOP leadership for the actions this decade. When he entered in 2001, he could have cut taxes, or increased spending. He chose to do both. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites FallingOsh 0 #30 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnd in just one term in office Obama will outspend them both. In eight years he will make that number seem trivial It's ok - he's a Dem, and Dems can do no wrong Well, they've certainly been outspent by the GOP up to this point. So your response to all of this is "well the GOP spent money too?" No, my response was (and still is): "Your conversion to fiscal conservatism, although late, is admirable." The Republicans' attitude to Obama's spending is rather like their attitude to sexual peccadillos - "do as I say and not as I do." Fact is, under Reagan the debt nearly TRIPLED. So? Does that make it ok to quadrouple the deficit in one year? Why does Reagan's spending have anything to do with Obama's? If you don't care about fiscal responsibility (which I guess you don't since there haven't been any comments condemning Obama) then why do you suddenly care about spending policies from from 20 years ago? If you're unwilling to condemn the spending of this administration then you're no better than those who "suddenly became fiscally conservatice." -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnskydiver688 0 #31 July 15, 2009 One thing to consider is there have been a lot of things that needed money that are now coming to bear. Our infrastructure for one. I-35 Bridge collapse? Extremely out-dated power grid. Among other things. Everyone, both democrat and republican have been saying, eh don't worry about it we can fix it later. Sooner or later, money needs to be spent on our country. Does this spending scare me? Hell yes. Does it scare me that the attitude of it is "good enough" has been going on as well. Hell yes. On another note, Healthcare came to mind. For those that think that we don't already have a form of nationalized healthcare think again. Where do you think all that money the insurance companies pay out comes from? Us! And that doesn't include the bailout sh*t. Isn't capitalism fun!Sky Canyon Wingsuiters Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #32 July 15, 2009 Who cares who's fault it is? Let's stop pointing fingers and start solving the problem (instead of making it worse). Since 1980, the best we've been able to do is "go into debt slower" with Clinton. The last time we actually paid down federal debt, Harry Truman was in the white house. Despite one party or the other trying to claim the issue, or blame the opposition, this isn't a party-specific issue.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #33 July 15, 2009 QuoteFor those that think that we don't already have a form of nationalized healthcare think again. Where do you think all that money the insurance companies pay out comes from? Especially the largest, and most powerful health insurance payer in the nation. You know, the one that makes more than half of all healthcare expenditures? The one that's so powerful it sets the rates and forces every other insurance company (and hospital, and doctor) to follow them?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites FallingOsh 0 #34 July 15, 2009 QuoteWho cares who's fault it is? Let's stop pointing fingers and start solving the problem (instead of making it worse). Since 1980, the best we've been able to do is "go into debt slower" with Clinton. The last time we actually paid down federal debt, Harry Truman was in the white house. Despite one party or the other trying to claim the issue, or blame the opposition, this isn't a party-specific issue. That was my point. I don't understand why Kallend feels it necessary to keep bringing up Reagan. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #35 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteWho cares who's fault it is? Let's stop pointing fingers and start solving the problem (instead of making it worse). Since 1980, the best we've been able to do is "go into debt slower" with Clinton. The last time we actually paid down federal debt, Harry Truman was in the white house. Despite one party or the other trying to claim the issue, or blame the opposition, this isn't a party-specific issue. That was my point. I don't understand why Kallend feels it necessary to keep bringing up Reagan. To remind you Johnny Come Lately Republican disciples of fiscal responsibility that your great hero was the biggest borrow and spender we've seen in generations. If you had spoken up during GWB's spending binge instead of fawning all over him you might have some credibility now. That is all.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,998 #36 July 15, 2009 >It's both parties fault, and more generally, all of our faults. Agreed. Both parties like to spend. Unfortunately, they are doing what we elected them to do, and thus I don't see a change any time soon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #37 July 15, 2009 QuoteIf you had spoken up during GWB's spending binge instead of fawning all over him you might have some credibility now. That is all. Seeing as how you have spent years talking about Republican spending and now are fawning over Obama's GREATLY increased spending, we're supposed to accept your hypocritical accusations, why?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #38 July 15, 2009 QuoteIf you had spoken up during GWB's spending binge instead of fawning all over him you might have some credibility now. You realize that there were people who spoke up, right? Your inability to see past your partisan fingerpointing is disappointing, but hardly surprising.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #39 July 15, 2009 Quote>It's both parties fault, and more generally, all of our faults. Agreed. Both parties like to spend. Unfortunately, they are doing what we elected them to do, and thus I don't see a change any time soon. If we don't make a change at some time (and soon), I think we're going to have change forced on us when people (mostly Chinese people) stop buying our worthless debt.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #40 July 15, 2009 Quote That was my point. I don't understand why Kallend feels it necessary to keep bringing up Reagan. Reagan broke the prior mold on spending. It's highly relevant to the practice of guys later. Carter ran as low as deficit as we've seen in a long time and what did that get him? He was the boogeyman that the GOP would bring up in every presidential election. Reagan spent our way out of the recession and is fondly remembered. So it's no surprise that since then, every new Administration has noticed that long term debt is of little concern to the public. Frankly it was amazing that we got so close to even in the end of the 90s, and less surprising that it was immediately squandered away. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #41 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuote>It's both parties fault, and more generally, all of our faults. Agreed. Both parties like to spend. Unfortunately, they are doing what we elected them to do, and thus I don't see a change any time soon. If we don't make a change at some time (and soon), I think we're going to have change forced on us when people (mostly Chinese people) stop buying our worthless debt. THERE'S some "hopenchange" for ya...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #42 July 15, 2009 Quote So? Does that make it ok to quadrouple the deficit in one year? First off, the debt hasn't quadrupled - it hit a trillion this month in a year that ends in October. But that's rather irrelevant - either we need this spending to recover, or we don't. The real concern is what about 2 years from now. We don't need cash for cars spending, or at least not the bill that came out. I feel pretty confident of this. Whereas capital improvement spending would serve the short term goal of boosting and paying off in the long term. In between is a lot of spending that is less clear cut. But look at the bright side - for those of you opposed to any revamping of the health care system, this deficit pretty much guarantees nothing will happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,998 #43 July 15, 2009 >THERE'S some "hopenchange" for ya... Aaaaaaand . . . right back to the partisan attacks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #44 July 15, 2009 QuoteI think you are confused that I was never concerned about fiscal responsibility. Spending needs to occur, sometimes that number is quite high. Reagan's spending was largely on the military which was woefully lacking in very department. When I joined during Carter we still had equipment from the WWII era. We had flak vests instead of kevlar. Steel pots which were useful for wasking up or boing water. Crappy boots. Lousy gear, worn out weapons. Awful vehicles. I guess you were ok with all that. It sounds to me like you're ok with spending, as long as it's directed at a population you are a member of. And before you take offense at that, note that it just makes you like (almost) every other person. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #45 July 15, 2009 Quote>THERE'S some "hopenchange" for ya... Aaaaaaand . . . right back to the partisan attacks. No problem - I try to keep the ratio even, but I'm greatly outnumbered.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #46 July 15, 2009 QuoteIt sounds to me like you're ok with spending, as long as it's directed at a population you are a member of. And before you take offense at that, note that it just makes you like (almost) every other person. Exactly. And that's the problem.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #47 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteIf you had spoken up during GWB's spending binge instead of fawning all over him you might have some credibility now. That is all. Seeing as how you have spent years talking about Republican spending and now are fawning over Obama's GREATLY increased spending, we're supposed to accept your hypocritical accusations, why? Who said I approve of the current massive spending (begun, I might add, under the previous administration). I understand that because the GOP's denial that there was a recession had left us in a huge hole that some stimulus was necessary, but I think it's gone way too far. Remind us how much the Bush/Paulson bailout of AIG cost us. I read just this week that the next round of bonuses to AIG execs is coming up.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DrewEckhardt 0 #48 July 15, 2009 QuoteI think you are confused that I was never concerned about fiscal responsibility. Spending needs to occur, sometimes that number is quite high. Reagan's spending was largely on the military which was woefully lacking in very department. When I joined during Carter we still had equipment from the WWII era. We had flak vests instead of kevlar. Steel pots which were useful for wasking up or boing water. Crappy boots. Lousy gear, worn out weapons. Awful vehicles. I guess you were ok with all that. I want a military that's sized for defense instead of empire building. We should downsize our 1,473,900 active personel and 1,458,500 reserves to the 65, 890 and 53,398 (23,401 of whom are unpaid) needed in first-world countries with our land-mass and border length like Canada. In 2008 we spent $651,000,000,000 on budget, or $441,685 per full-time military employee. Assuming we're content saving a mere $5,000,000,000,000 per decade (while billions are pocket change, trillions do add up), after right-sizing our military we can increase per-solider spending 540% to $2,827,821 a year. That should provide exceptional equipment. We could even boost deployed soldier salaries to the same comfortable six figure range demanded by private contractors who work in the same conditions. We'd still be spending 750% of what a comparable country does. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #49 July 16, 2009 +1. Good post. Do you have a solid source for the expenditure and military personnel figures? Or, better yet, one that shows similar data for a range of countries?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #50 July 16, 2009 Quotethe same comfortable six figure range demanded by private contractors who work in the same conditions. What contractors are those - I'd like to talk to them about a job. I'd also like the 100% tax immunity that the troops get.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 2 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kelpdiver 2 #29 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteFor all the faux-outraged GOPers, I think this kind of says it all. Do you happen to have one that shows control of Congress? I have a theory that spending is greatest when the same party controls Congress and the White House, but I haven't actually looked into the numbers, You won't find data to support this. The Democrats controlled the House for most of the modern era. While the GOP captured the Senate for 81-87 and 95-05, spending originates in the House. And for most of this time, the GOP dominated the White House. Anyone pretending to care about fiscal responsibility has to condemn the last Bush and the GOP leadership for the actions this decade. When he entered in 2001, he could have cut taxes, or increased spending. He chose to do both. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #30 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnd in just one term in office Obama will outspend them both. In eight years he will make that number seem trivial It's ok - he's a Dem, and Dems can do no wrong Well, they've certainly been outspent by the GOP up to this point. So your response to all of this is "well the GOP spent money too?" No, my response was (and still is): "Your conversion to fiscal conservatism, although late, is admirable." The Republicans' attitude to Obama's spending is rather like their attitude to sexual peccadillos - "do as I say and not as I do." Fact is, under Reagan the debt nearly TRIPLED. So? Does that make it ok to quadrouple the deficit in one year? Why does Reagan's spending have anything to do with Obama's? If you don't care about fiscal responsibility (which I guess you don't since there haven't been any comments condemning Obama) then why do you suddenly care about spending policies from from 20 years ago? If you're unwilling to condemn the spending of this administration then you're no better than those who "suddenly became fiscally conservatice." -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnskydiver688 0 #31 July 15, 2009 One thing to consider is there have been a lot of things that needed money that are now coming to bear. Our infrastructure for one. I-35 Bridge collapse? Extremely out-dated power grid. Among other things. Everyone, both democrat and republican have been saying, eh don't worry about it we can fix it later. Sooner or later, money needs to be spent on our country. Does this spending scare me? Hell yes. Does it scare me that the attitude of it is "good enough" has been going on as well. Hell yes. On another note, Healthcare came to mind. For those that think that we don't already have a form of nationalized healthcare think again. Where do you think all that money the insurance companies pay out comes from? Us! And that doesn't include the bailout sh*t. Isn't capitalism fun!Sky Canyon Wingsuiters Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #32 July 15, 2009 Who cares who's fault it is? Let's stop pointing fingers and start solving the problem (instead of making it worse). Since 1980, the best we've been able to do is "go into debt slower" with Clinton. The last time we actually paid down federal debt, Harry Truman was in the white house. Despite one party or the other trying to claim the issue, or blame the opposition, this isn't a party-specific issue.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #33 July 15, 2009 QuoteFor those that think that we don't already have a form of nationalized healthcare think again. Where do you think all that money the insurance companies pay out comes from? Especially the largest, and most powerful health insurance payer in the nation. You know, the one that makes more than half of all healthcare expenditures? The one that's so powerful it sets the rates and forces every other insurance company (and hospital, and doctor) to follow them?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #34 July 15, 2009 QuoteWho cares who's fault it is? Let's stop pointing fingers and start solving the problem (instead of making it worse). Since 1980, the best we've been able to do is "go into debt slower" with Clinton. The last time we actually paid down federal debt, Harry Truman was in the white house. Despite one party or the other trying to claim the issue, or blame the opposition, this isn't a party-specific issue. That was my point. I don't understand why Kallend feels it necessary to keep bringing up Reagan. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #35 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteWho cares who's fault it is? Let's stop pointing fingers and start solving the problem (instead of making it worse). Since 1980, the best we've been able to do is "go into debt slower" with Clinton. The last time we actually paid down federal debt, Harry Truman was in the white house. Despite one party or the other trying to claim the issue, or blame the opposition, this isn't a party-specific issue. That was my point. I don't understand why Kallend feels it necessary to keep bringing up Reagan. To remind you Johnny Come Lately Republican disciples of fiscal responsibility that your great hero was the biggest borrow and spender we've seen in generations. If you had spoken up during GWB's spending binge instead of fawning all over him you might have some credibility now. That is all.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #36 July 15, 2009 >It's both parties fault, and more generally, all of our faults. Agreed. Both parties like to spend. Unfortunately, they are doing what we elected them to do, and thus I don't see a change any time soon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #37 July 15, 2009 QuoteIf you had spoken up during GWB's spending binge instead of fawning all over him you might have some credibility now. That is all. Seeing as how you have spent years talking about Republican spending and now are fawning over Obama's GREATLY increased spending, we're supposed to accept your hypocritical accusations, why?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #38 July 15, 2009 QuoteIf you had spoken up during GWB's spending binge instead of fawning all over him you might have some credibility now. You realize that there were people who spoke up, right? Your inability to see past your partisan fingerpointing is disappointing, but hardly surprising.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #39 July 15, 2009 Quote>It's both parties fault, and more generally, all of our faults. Agreed. Both parties like to spend. Unfortunately, they are doing what we elected them to do, and thus I don't see a change any time soon. If we don't make a change at some time (and soon), I think we're going to have change forced on us when people (mostly Chinese people) stop buying our worthless debt.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #40 July 15, 2009 Quote That was my point. I don't understand why Kallend feels it necessary to keep bringing up Reagan. Reagan broke the prior mold on spending. It's highly relevant to the practice of guys later. Carter ran as low as deficit as we've seen in a long time and what did that get him? He was the boogeyman that the GOP would bring up in every presidential election. Reagan spent our way out of the recession and is fondly remembered. So it's no surprise that since then, every new Administration has noticed that long term debt is of little concern to the public. Frankly it was amazing that we got so close to even in the end of the 90s, and less surprising that it was immediately squandered away. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #41 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuote>It's both parties fault, and more generally, all of our faults. Agreed. Both parties like to spend. Unfortunately, they are doing what we elected them to do, and thus I don't see a change any time soon. If we don't make a change at some time (and soon), I think we're going to have change forced on us when people (mostly Chinese people) stop buying our worthless debt. THERE'S some "hopenchange" for ya...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #42 July 15, 2009 Quote So? Does that make it ok to quadrouple the deficit in one year? First off, the debt hasn't quadrupled - it hit a trillion this month in a year that ends in October. But that's rather irrelevant - either we need this spending to recover, or we don't. The real concern is what about 2 years from now. We don't need cash for cars spending, or at least not the bill that came out. I feel pretty confident of this. Whereas capital improvement spending would serve the short term goal of boosting and paying off in the long term. In between is a lot of spending that is less clear cut. But look at the bright side - for those of you opposed to any revamping of the health care system, this deficit pretty much guarantees nothing will happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #43 July 15, 2009 >THERE'S some "hopenchange" for ya... Aaaaaaand . . . right back to the partisan attacks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #44 July 15, 2009 QuoteI think you are confused that I was never concerned about fiscal responsibility. Spending needs to occur, sometimes that number is quite high. Reagan's spending was largely on the military which was woefully lacking in very department. When I joined during Carter we still had equipment from the WWII era. We had flak vests instead of kevlar. Steel pots which were useful for wasking up or boing water. Crappy boots. Lousy gear, worn out weapons. Awful vehicles. I guess you were ok with all that. It sounds to me like you're ok with spending, as long as it's directed at a population you are a member of. And before you take offense at that, note that it just makes you like (almost) every other person. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #45 July 15, 2009 Quote>THERE'S some "hopenchange" for ya... Aaaaaaand . . . right back to the partisan attacks. No problem - I try to keep the ratio even, but I'm greatly outnumbered.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #46 July 15, 2009 QuoteIt sounds to me like you're ok with spending, as long as it's directed at a population you are a member of. And before you take offense at that, note that it just makes you like (almost) every other person. Exactly. And that's the problem.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #47 July 15, 2009 QuoteQuoteIf you had spoken up during GWB's spending binge instead of fawning all over him you might have some credibility now. That is all. Seeing as how you have spent years talking about Republican spending and now are fawning over Obama's GREATLY increased spending, we're supposed to accept your hypocritical accusations, why? Who said I approve of the current massive spending (begun, I might add, under the previous administration). I understand that because the GOP's denial that there was a recession had left us in a huge hole that some stimulus was necessary, but I think it's gone way too far. Remind us how much the Bush/Paulson bailout of AIG cost us. I read just this week that the next round of bonuses to AIG execs is coming up.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #48 July 15, 2009 QuoteI think you are confused that I was never concerned about fiscal responsibility. Spending needs to occur, sometimes that number is quite high. Reagan's spending was largely on the military which was woefully lacking in very department. When I joined during Carter we still had equipment from the WWII era. We had flak vests instead of kevlar. Steel pots which were useful for wasking up or boing water. Crappy boots. Lousy gear, worn out weapons. Awful vehicles. I guess you were ok with all that. I want a military that's sized for defense instead of empire building. We should downsize our 1,473,900 active personel and 1,458,500 reserves to the 65, 890 and 53,398 (23,401 of whom are unpaid) needed in first-world countries with our land-mass and border length like Canada. In 2008 we spent $651,000,000,000 on budget, or $441,685 per full-time military employee. Assuming we're content saving a mere $5,000,000,000,000 per decade (while billions are pocket change, trillions do add up), after right-sizing our military we can increase per-solider spending 540% to $2,827,821 a year. That should provide exceptional equipment. We could even boost deployed soldier salaries to the same comfortable six figure range demanded by private contractors who work in the same conditions. We'd still be spending 750% of what a comparable country does. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #49 July 16, 2009 +1. Good post. Do you have a solid source for the expenditure and military personnel figures? Or, better yet, one that shows similar data for a range of countries?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #50 July 16, 2009 Quotethe same comfortable six figure range demanded by private contractors who work in the same conditions. What contractors are those - I'd like to talk to them about a job. I'd also like the 100% tax immunity that the troops get.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
