Military Brides
«1

Re: Military spending...

  • This is so difficult, because constitutionally I think that the only money of ours that the federal government is entitled to spend IS on national defense and interstate commerce. 

    It is difficult to see how this could possibly pan out. On one hand, I do agree that we spend a ridiculous amount of money (US Military spending constitutes a little over 40 percent of the military expenditures worldwide)- we have the highest (inflation adjusted) level of defense-spending since WWII. I think a lot of this can be blamed on programs that are "cutting edge technology" that are started but then canceled because I think a lot of politicians lack a long-term perspective in setting requirements for such projects (not to mention the future of the military in this day and age, because obviously technology is rapidly more influential in everything, including warfare and national defense). We also have to remember though, that while we spend a great deal of money on the military, we have one of the largest militaries in the world (I believe China has more AD than we do now- most of the stats are only based on AD and not the mil as a whole including reserves). 

    Bottom line, I hate to think of all the hard working people who could be out of a job with the budget cuts they propose in ANY sector... but I think they're going about fixing all of our national fiscal problems the wrong way... 
    wedding1 Anniversary
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_military-spending?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special Topic Wedding BoardsForum:13Discussion:deed2f2a-b452-4c26-b476-decac2dada22Post:4d6aebaa-b4da-4b76-9ec9-c6a5c755f5f0">Re: Military spending...</a>:
    [QUOTE]This is so difficult, because constitutionally I think that the only money of ours that the federal government is entitled to spend IS on national defense and interstate commerce.  It is difficult to see how this could possibly pan out. On one hand, I do agree that we spend a ridiculous amount of money (US Military spending constitutes a little over 40 percent of the military expenditures worldwide)- we have the highest (inflation adjusted) level of defense-spending since WWII. I think a lot of this can be blamed on programs that are "cutting edge technology" that are started but then canceled because I think a lot of politicians lack a long-term perspective in setting requirements for such projects (not to mention the future of the military in this day and age, because obviously technology is rapidly more influential in everything, including warfare and national defense). We also have to remember though, that while we spend a great deal of money on the military, we have one of the largest militaries in the world (I believe China has more AD than we do now- most of the stats are only based on AD and not the mil as a whole including reserves).  Bottom line, I hate to think of all the hard working people who could be out of a job with the budget cuts they propose in ANY sector... but I think they're going about fixing all of our national fiscal problems the wrong way... 
    Posted by firemedicrr[/QUOTE]

    If I could highlight this all I would. I agree with Fire on everything she said.
    I think a lot of it does have to do with the new growing technology, with the new projects, testing, purchasing new equipment - but that's just how its supposed to go. When you have the worlds largest military - your expected to have the best technology and best weapons that are available.

    I really think that they are making cuts from the wrong places. Now - I'm not a financial advisor and I don't know exactly where all our money is going to BUT what I will say is that they shouldn't be bailing our companies or 'investing' in companies that are a financial risk, allowing them to be paid back last - if ever - while they are trying to cut spending on our military. I rather invest more money in our military, who ensure that our freedoms and our consitution is not taken from us - than in other aspects. We aren't europe, and it really bothers me how much is changing and how much we are pushing towards becoming more like those nations in europe. You can't compare our spending - to a nation that isn't that similar to us.
    Lilypie Premature Baby tickers
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_military-spending?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:13Discussion:deed2f2a-b452-4c26-b476-decac2dada22Post:dfe20b81-ca70-40b8-8e3c-6700940cb721">Re: Military spending...</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Military spending... : If I could highlight this all I would. I agree with Fire on everything she said. I think a lot of it does have to do with the new growing technology, with the new projects, testing, purchasing new equipment - but that's just how its supposed to go. When you have the worlds largest military - your expected to have the best technology and best weapons that are available. I really think that they are making cuts from the wrong places. Now - I'm not a financial advisor and I don't know exactly where all our money is going to BUT what I will say is that they shouldn't be bailing our companies or 'investing' in companies that are a financial risk, allowing them to be paid back last - if ever - while they are trying to cut spending on our military. I rather invest more money in our military, who ensure that our freedoms and our consitution is not taken from us - than in other aspects. We aren't europe, and it really bothers me how much is changing and how much we are pushing towards becoming more like those nations in europe. You can't compare our spending - to a nation that isn't that similar to us.
    Posted by amh04[/QUOTE]

    <div>haha, I'd highlight everything you said if I could... but I especially agree that we shouldn't be bailing out companies if we're cutting spending in one of the two areas that the federal government is actually constitutionally in charge of. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac should have tanked years ago. The government should have left them alone. We shouldn't be bailing out banks, either.... and the National Reserve is a joke. </div><div>
    </div><div>
    </div>
    wedding1 Anniversary
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_military-spending?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:13Discussion:deed2f2a-b452-4c26-b476-decac2dada22Post:f46a5abd-2223-4e70-9d04-cd54b76f16ae">Re: Military spending...</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Military spending... : haha, I'd highlight everything you said if I could... but I especially agree that we shouldn't be bailing out companies if we're cutting spending in one of the two areas that the federal government is actually constitutionally in charge of. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac should have tanked years ago. The government should have left them alone. We shouldn't be bailing out banks, either.... and the National Reserve is a joke. 
    Posted by firemedicrr[/QUOTE]

    So if we don't bail out banks, what happens to all the money that was in them?  And all the people who wouldn't have been protected by FDIC?  And if we didn't bail out Freddy and Fannie, all the student loans would have been bought up by collection agencies.  We would be in one heck of a mess.

    I don't necessarily agree with how they handled everything was right, but even with a minor in Economics, I don't feel qualified to make recommendations on how to fix a recession like the one we found ourselves in back in 2008.  I think we're in a much better place now, and I think it's improving, so something went well.  It does piss me off that the banks and corporations, like the auto industry, aren't required to pay back the government when they become solvent again. 

    image

    Anniversary

  • I'm sad to say I never really paid attention to military spending before being involved with the military by having a spouse.

    I would like to educate myself more. I think that is what I shall do today. No stuff and rain = Hike's time to learn.

    imageBabyFruit Ticker
  • I mean, a lot of spending is Social Security, Medicare, and Defense. And while I agree that the bailouts that don't have to be paid back frustrate me, I don't agree that the military shouldn't feel similar budget cuts as other programs. I think everyone on here is aware of the reduction in force going on in the military--just one of the ways the military can reduce the budget. But it's not the only solution obviously.
    image
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_military-spending?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:13Discussion:deed2f2a-b452-4c26-b476-decac2dada22Post:c3b71665-3ccb-40fc-9315-06c960d56256">Re: Military spending...</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Military spending... : So if we don't bail out banks, what happens to all the money that was in them?  And all the people who wouldn't have been protected by FDIC?  And if we didn't bail out Freddy and Fannie, all the student loans would have been bought up by collection agencies.  We would be in one heck of a mess. I don't necessarily agree with how they handled everything was right, but even with a minor in Economics, I don't feel qualified to make recommendations on how to fix a recession like the one we found ourselves in back in 2008.  I think we're in a much better place now, and I think it's improving, so something went well.  It does piss me off that the banks and corporations, like the auto industry, aren't required to pay back the government when they become solvent again. 
    Posted by calindi[/QUOTE]<div>
    </div><div>I'm not sure how to answer your question, other than to say that we need a complete overhaul of the fiscal system in America. </div><div><font color="#000000">There are only 3 ways that the government can get its hands on our money to continue its profligate and wasteful spending. These are: taxes, borrowing, and printing. We have fought them, at least for now, to a standstill on taxing (IMO, income tax is unconstitutional). To stop their borrowing (which so far we are losing) we need to restore constitutional money. Only then will we even be able to begin to balance the budget. America isn't creating jobs like we used to under the gold standard. Even under a plain stable dollar (which is just not as good as the gold standard) America created 17 million jobs during Reagan's presidency and (building on Reagan's recipe) 23 million jobs during Clinton's presidency. Prosperity can be regained quickly, but we created only 3 million jobs under the GW Bush presidency and unemployment is stuck at its ghastly high rates under Obama. Nothing the politicians have tried--from bailouts to "quantitative easings", works. The private sector is still stagnant while the federal government continues to grow out of control.</font></div><div><font color="#000000">
    In every other aspect of life, if you make a bad investment/choice with your money, you lose it. The federal government isn't there to bail out individuals or corporations. They are there to protect our constitutional rights (not to take them away) and to maintain national defense and regulate interstate commerce. I don't think that the Constitution is something that was designed to be interpreted and added to by each president.</font></div><div><span style="color:#000000;font-family:'Helvetica Neue', arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;line-height:18px;text-align:-webkit-auto;background-color:#f9f9f9;"> </span></div><div style="text-align:-webkit-auto;"><font face="'Helvetica Neue', arial, sans-serif" color="#000000"><span style="font-size:12px;line-height:18px;">
    </span></font></div>
    wedding1 Anniversary
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_military-spending?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:13Discussion:deed2f2a-b452-4c26-b476-decac2dada22Post:63bcefa9-e99d-4468-9f86-5f01efecffd5">Re: Military spending...</a>:
    [QUOTE]I mean, a lot of spending is Social Security, Medicare, and Defense. And while I agree that the bailouts that don't have to be paid back frustrate me, <strong>I don't agree that the military shouldn't feel similar budget cuts as other programs</strong>. I think everyone on here is aware of the reduction in force going on in the military--just one of the ways the military can reduce the budget. But it's not the only solution obviously.
    Posted by Irishcurls[/QUOTE]

    <div>
    </div><div>Completely agree with the bolded part. What about agencies like HUD, Energy, Interior and Commerce? Obamacare? All of them are far more controversial (and definitely less constitutional) than the government's mil spending. </div>
    wedding1 Anniversary
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_military-spending?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:13Discussion:deed2f2a-b452-4c26-b476-decac2dada22Post:4c701e03-036f-4797-bd3c-d3fd772c9f26">Re: Military spending...</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Military spending... : I'm not sure how to answer your question, other than to say that we need a complete overhaul of the fiscal system in America.  There are only 3 ways that the government can get its hands on our money to continue its profligate and wasteful spending. These are: taxes, borrowing, and printing. We have fought them, at least for now, to a standstill on taxing (IMO, income tax is unconstitutional). To stop their borrowing (which so far we are losing) we need to restore constitutional money. Only then will we even be able to begin to balance the budget. America isn't creating jobs like we used to under the gold standard. Even under a plain stable dollar (which is just not as good as the gold standard) America created 17 million jobs during Reagan's presidency and (building on Reagan's recipe) 23 million jobs during Clinton's presidency. Prosperity can be regained quickly, but we created only 3 million jobs under the GW Bush presidency and unemployment is stuck at its ghastly high rates under Obama. Nothing the politicians have tried--from bailouts to "quantitative easings", works. The private sector is still stagnant while the federal government continues to grow out of control. In every other aspect of life, if you make a bad investment/choice with your money, you lose it. The federal government isn't there to bail out individuals or corporations. They are there to protect our constitutional rights (not to take them away) and to maintain national defense and regulate interstate commerce. I don't think that the Constitution is something that was designed to be interpreted and added to by each president.  
    Posted by firemedicrr[/QUOTE]

    Because our defence budget can be financed without taxes.  Because our highway systems and transportation systems can be financed without taxes.  Because any government in the world operates without borrowing.  Interstate commerce cannot work without transportation systems, which are managed by the federal government. 

    Any investor will tell you that you need to borrow in order to grow - there isn't a corporation in the world who grows without borrowing.  And who was president has less to do with our economic system than most make it out to be.

    <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/nov2007/pi20071121_848642.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/nov2007/pi20071121_848642.htm</a>

    The gold standard worked fine when our economy was naturally growing on its own.  It won't be a magic fix to stop inflation/deflation of our currency.  All it will do is limit our abilities to manage the depression, which can cause an even bigger depression such as in the 1920's.  While we have high unemployment now, we don't have a massively higher homeless population, and we don't have shanty-towns full of formerly middle class workers and their families.  The gold standard is an antequated way to manage money that is viewed, as the article says, in rose-colored glasses now by some because it is associated with more prosperous times.  That doesn't mean it was responsible for that prosperity; it's a tangential relationship at best.

    image

    Anniversary

  • I'm pro whatever will get us to a balanced budget, though that's obviously a timely process. I just don't think the DoD gets a pass. I mean, I certainly don't have the answers, I just disagree with the concept of the military being more important than other agencies.
    image
  • edited January 2012
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_military-spending?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:13Discussion:deed2f2a-b452-4c26-b476-decac2dada22Post:5cca66b7-1a75-42ae-b141-7b47ce5f0203">Re: Military spending...</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Military spending... : <strong>Because our defence budget can be financed without taxes.  Because our highway systems and transportation systems can be financed without taxes.  Because any government in the world operates without borrowing.  Interstate commerce cannot work without transportation systems, which are managed by the federal government.</strong>  Any investor will tell you that you need to borrow in order to grow - there isn't a corporation in the world who grows without borrowing.  And who was president has less to do with our economic system than most make it out to be. <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/nov2007/pi20071121_848642.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/nov2007/pi20071121_848642.htm</a> The gold standard worked fine when our economy was naturally growing on its own.  It won't be a magic fix to stop inflation/deflation of our currency.  All it will do is limit our abilities to manage the depression, which can cause an even bigger depression such as in the 1920's.  While we have high unemployment now, we don't have a massively higher homeless population, and we don't have shanty-towns full of formerly middle class workers and their families.  The gold standard is an antequated way to manage money that is viewed, as the article says, in rose-colored glasses now by some because it is associated with more prosperous times.  That doesn't mean it was responsible for that prosperity; it's a tangential relationship at best.
    Posted by calindi[/QUOTE]<div>
    </div><div>Sorry, was the bolded part supposed to be sarcasm? Honestly, I'm either missing something or misinterpreting it as being serious statements, which don't line up with what you went on to say. </div><div>
    </div><div>First, I didn't say I'm against all tax. I think that income tax is unconstitutional. Obviously the federal government needs to be funded somehow. That's what sales tax is for (on both a state and a federal level). Even a sales tax of 5 percent (even if only 1 percent of that went to the federal government) would support the government that is called for in the Constitution. A huge problem we have is that we have given too much power to the federal government and it has grown to be such an enormity that everyone feels like we have to pay these exorbitant amounts of money to fund our government- true, if we let them have more control over things than they're supposed to have constitutionally- but not the case if government were scaled back to what the constitution calls for on a federal level. </div><div>
    </div><div>Sure, you have to borrow to grow; I totally agree with that... but why is it that the government can borrow from the Federal Reserve- a private, for profit company- and not tax them? I do believe that the gold standard was much better; I don't believe it is because I have a rosy picture of it simply because it was considered a more prosperous time. I think there's something to be said about borrowing against something that is actually tangible- it keeps inflation in check. Under the gold standard, the economy grew faster, more jobs were created, and recessions were both shorter and shallower. Every other aspect of Nixon's New Economic policy (such as price controls and tariffs) have been discredited and discarded... so why do we still have his monetary policy? The dollar's value has fallen more than 70 percent against the Euro/German Mark and Japanese Yen since Nixon broke the final link between the dollar and gold in 1971. The value of the Chinese yuan (based in gold standard) has risen 31 percent relative to the dollar since 2003. </div><div>
    </div><div>If the dollar were the path to prosperity, then the 1970's and the last decade would be the good old days, and the strong dollar eras (under Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton) would be recalled as the tough times. Of course, just the opposite are true.

    </div>
    wedding1 Anniversary
  • The only way to balance the budget is to either cut funding or raise taxes (if you want to reduce debt).


    TBH, I would really love to see a balanced budget (Probably the Accountant in me, but I get good fuzzy feeling inside when I think about it). In order get a balanced budget we have to cut spending EVERYWERE! And let’s face it; the military is one of the biggest areas we spend.  If people want the US to not default on our loans we need to make some changes…it is not going to be popular, but we need to cut ALL programs sizably.  Even the cuts that are proposed it still leaves us with the biggest militia in the world. While I do think those cuts are a little on the drastic end, something does need to be done.  When you are balancing your personal budget you can either get a second job to cover your bills or trim the fat, sometimes you need to do more than just stop eating out and going shopping every weekend, sometimes you have to sell your car, move into a smaller house or some other drastic change to live within your means.  No one wants to do that, and it would be very inconvenient but it is just something you have to do if you want to ever get out of debt. No one wants their programs cut, just like no one wants to sell their car and ride the bus. But it is time that we as Americans own up to the hole we have put ourselves in.

    Yes, there might be people out of jobs. But I worked for the FAA for a semester, and that federal program has so much bureaucracy and red tape it is a little on the ridiculous side; for example, every MANAGER had a full time receptionist and all they ever did was schedule meetings. People did NOTHING at work for years, but they couldn’t get rid of them because they were scheduled to retire soon and it would have been too much trouble. I know it is sad and all to fire people, but if you were working for any other public company you would have been fired years ago.
    Photobucket
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_military-spending?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:13Discussion:deed2f2a-b452-4c26-b476-decac2dada22Post:92802bd1-b183-4fca-97bc-9988b7e1b313">Re: Military spending...</a>:
    [QUOTE]I'm pro whatever will get us to a balanced budget, though that's obviously a timely process.<strong> I just don't think the DoD gets a pass</strong>. I mean, I certainly don't have the answers,<strong> I just disagree with the concept of the military being more important than other agencies.</strong>
    Posted by Irishcurls[/QUOTE]

    <div>
    </div><div>I don't think that they should just get a pass to do whatever they want, but I think that the military /DoD is more important than other agencies because it's actually constitutional, and is a responsibility enumerated to the fed government under the Constitution.</div>
    wedding1 Anniversary
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_military-spending?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special Topic Wedding BoardsForum:13Discussion:deed2f2a-b452-4c26-b476-decac2dada22Post:4c701e03-036f-4797-bd3c-d3fd772c9f26">Re: Military spending...</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Military spending... : I'm not sure how to answer your question, other than to say that we need a complete overhaul of the fiscal system in America.  There are only 3 ways that the government can get its hands on our money to continue its profligate and wasteful spending. These are: taxes, borrowing, and printing. We have fought them, at least for now, to a standstill on taxing (IMO, income tax is unconstitutional). To stop their borrowing (which so far we are losing) we need to restore constitutional money. Only then will we even be able to begin to balance the budget. America isn't creating jobs like we used to under the gold standard. Even under a plain stable dollar (which is just not as good as the gold standard) America created 17 million jobs during Reagan's presidency and (building on Reagan's recipe) 23 million jobs during Clinton's presidency. Prosperity can be regained quickly, but we created only 3 million jobs under the GW Bush presidency and unemployment is stuck at its ghastly high rates under Obama. Nothing the politicians have tried--from bailouts to "quantitative easings", works. <strong>The private sector is still stagnant while the federal government continues to grow out of control. In every other aspect of life, if you make a bad investment/choice with your money, you lose it. The federal government isn't there to bail out individuals or corporations. They are there to protect our constitutional rights (not to take them away) and to maintain national defense and regulate interstate commerce. I don't think that the Constitution is something that was designed to be interpreted and added to by each president.  
    </strong>Posted by firemedicrr[/QUOTE]

    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_military-spending?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special Topic Wedding BoardsForum:13Discussion:deed2f2a-b452-4c26-b476-decac2dada22Post:85625286-6624-44ed-a028-cc6dac44dab7">Re: Military spending...</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Military spending... :<strong> I don't think that they should just get a pass to do whatever they want, but I think that the military /DoD is more important than other agencies because it's actually constitutional, and is a responsibility enumerated to the fed government under the Constitution.
    </strong>Posted by firemedicrr[/QUOTE]

    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_military-spending?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special Topic Wedding BoardsForum:13Discussion:deed2f2a-b452-4c26-b476-decac2dada22Post:56026bbe-c8c1-4126-9534-2af2876cffbd">Re: Military spending...</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Military spending... : Completely agree with the bolded part. <strong>What about agencies like HUD, Energy, Interior and Commerce? Obamacare? All of them are far more controversial (and definitely less constitutional) than the government's mil spending. 
    </strong>Posted by firemedicrr[/QUOTE]

    I agree, pretty much I have a lot of the same views and opinions as Fire. Our federal government should be cutting more from things such as ObamaCare (which is unconsitutional) than from the Military/DOD.

    The federal government is meant to protect our rights, and make sure the states are not infringing our our rights or doing things that are unconsitutional. Not be our big brother as they have been acting. Last time I checked - I got a student loan from a bank - and now the federal government is in control of student loans. Something is seriously wrong with that picture. But back to the topic - our federal government should not be so involved in our lives as they are. And they're many aspects they can take cuts from. Why not take cuts from their pay? That should of been the first cut - they should not be payed as highly as they are. Cutting lets say 50k from that and not giving pensions to those who have only served a few years is a start. I understand they are all highly educated people and I get their jobs can be tough, but really - they are all very overpaid - especially when no one can make any steps in deciding and voting to have an answer on our budget - they just keep extending it.
    Its obvious there need to be cuts - and they can take them from everywhere. But they don't need to be using the DoD as the first place to take it from, and it won't nearly fix the problem at all.
     
    Amanda said that simply cutting the fat isn't going to solve the problem - and she's right. Things like social security (which were only meant to be around for 20 years) need to be completely removed - its the biggest Ponzi scheme out there and the federal government is getting away with it. I'm paying social security every year, actually double social security, and I will never ever see it again. That's complete BS. There are plenty of programs in need of restructure, I just don't understand why everyone always wants to jump to the DoD to take it from them first, it might be the largest place where spending occurs - but I don't think its fair to take more from the DoD whose main purpose is to protect our country - when they can take some from other less consitutional federally funded programs.
    Lilypie Premature Baby tickers
  • AmandaSC1988AmandaSC1988 member
    First Comment First Anniversary
    edited January 2012
    I think we need to do equal cuts all around, percentage wise. Remember the giant fuss that got made because they wanted to cut PP's funding?? There is always SOME group that will fight even the smallest of budget cuts. I could be wrong...but I still don't think the 2011 budget has been approved. Ha!

    It boils down to  People feel alienated when they are singled out to get budget cuts.  I imagine it might be an easier pill to swallow for everyone, if  every program had a 10% (just an example) cut. I may be over simplifying the issues, but come on... Just do it!


    Edited for clarity
    Photobucket
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_military-spending?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:13Discussion:deed2f2a-b452-4c26-b476-decac2dada22Post:767f2554-7c4f-46a6-b2f5-569b07a94e1d">Re: Military spending...</a>:
    [QUOTE]
    <span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#ffffff;">I agree, pretty much I have a lot of the same views and opinions as Fire. Our federal government should be cutting more from things such as ObamaCare (which is unconsitutional) than from the Military/DOD. </span>

    <span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#ffffff;"><strong>The federal government is meant to protect our rights, and make sure the states are not infringing our our rights or doing things that are unconsitutional. Not be our big brother as they have been acting.</strong> Last time I checked - I got a student loan from a bank - and now the federal government is in control of student loans. Something is seriously wrong with that picture. <strong>But back to the topic - our federal government should not be so involved in our lives as they are. And they're many aspects they can take cuts from. Why not take cuts from their pay? That should of been the first cut - they should not be payed as highly as they are.</strong> Cutting lets say 50k from that and not giving pensions to those who have only served a few years is a start. I understand they are all highly educated people and I get their jobs can be tough, but really - they are all very overpaid - especially when no one can make any steps in deciding and voting to have an answer on our budget - they just keep extending it. </span>
    <span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#ffffff;"><strong>Its obvious there need to be cuts - and they can take them from everywhere. But they don't need to be using the DoD as the first place to take it from, and it won't nearly fix the problem at all.</strong></span>
    <span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#ffffff;"> </span>
    <span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#ffffff;">Amanda said that simply cutting the fat isn't going to solve the problem - and she's right. <strong>Things like social security</strong> (which were only meant to be around for 20 years) need to be completely removed - its the <strong>biggest Ponzi scheme out there and the federal government is getting away with it. </strong>I'm paying social security every year, actually double social security, and I will never ever see it again. That's complete BS. There are plenty of programs in need of restructure, I just don't understand why everyone always wants to jump to the DoD to take it from them first, it might be the largest place where spending occurs - but<strong> I don't think its fair to take more from the DoD whose main purpose is to protect our country - when they can take some from other less consitutional federally funded programs.</strong></span><strong> </strong>
    Posted by amh04[/QUOTE]
    <div>
    </div><div>I totally agree with this, especially the bolded parts. Not only should the government officials be subjected to the same pay cuts they want to impose on military, but also we should drastically reduce the number of government officials- completely eliminating their pay/pensions. I totally agree that you shouldn't get a pension if you only serve a few years. You don't get a decent pension if you only work for a company for a few years. </div><div>
    </div><div>Social Security is crazy and was never designed to be what its been turned into. I shouldn't be paying for something that I will never use.</div><div>
    </div><div>[QUOTE]I think we need to do equal cuts all around, percentage wise. Remember the giant fuss that got made because they wanted to cut PP's funding?? There is always SOME group that will fight even the smallest of budget cuts.<strong> I could be wrong...but I still don't think the 2011 budget has been approved. Ha!</strong> It boils down to  People feel alienated when they are singled out to get budget cuts.  I imagine it might be an easier pill to swallow for everyone, if  every program had a 10% (just an example) cut. I may be over simplifying the issues, but come on... Just do it! Edited for clarity
    Posted by AmandaSC1988[/QUOTE]</div><div>
    </div><div>Nope, you're not wrong. Something like 1000 days without a budget. Ridiculous.

    </div>
    wedding1 Anniversary
  • There are a lot of cuts that can be made to the military with out cutting people and services like they are.  There is soooooo much being wasted it's pathetic.  The first thing that needs to be done is having military personel supervising building contractors.  We could save BILLIONS cutting down on the wasted time and supplies in construction.  My brother quit a good job with a contractor at Ft Stewart building new barraks because he couldn't stand to watch all the crap going on there.  There were workers and contractors loading up truck loads of building supplies to take home to use on their homes or side jobs.  He was ahead of schedule on his job.  His boss told him to stop working for a few days because he was going to make them finish before they needed to.  "Sit back and take your piece of the pie, man."  was what he was told. 
    In J's section, they were adding on to their building.  It was a small add on that was supposed to take 3 months and $100k.  These guys showed up at 8am every morning.  They left at 10am, came back at 1pm and left for the day at 3pm.  Every day!  One guy would lay bricks while 5 guys sat around and watched him.  It took 7 months and over $500K!!  This happens on nearly every building project on this base.  That is where major cuts need to be made.  They need to be held responsible. 
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_military-spending?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:13Discussion:deed2f2a-b452-4c26-b476-decac2dada22Post:168289d3-91e6-43d0-aaa8-ae13267e8779">Re: Military spending...</a>:
    [QUOTE]There are a lot of cuts that can be made to the military with out cutting people and services like they are.  There is soooooo much being wasted it's pathetic.  The first thing that needs to be done is having military personel supervising building contractors.  We could save BILLIONS cutting down on the wasted time and supplies in construction.  My brother quit a good job with a contractor at Ft Stewart building new barraks because he couldn't stand to watch all the crap going on there.  There were workers and contractors loading up truck loads of building supplies to take home to use on their homes or side jobs.  He was ahead of schedule on his job.  His boss told him to stop working for a few days because he was going to make them finish before they needed to.  "Sit back and take your piece of the pie, man."  was what he was told.  In J's section, they were adding on to their building.  It was a small add on that was supposed to take 3 months and $100k.  These guys showed up at 8am every morning.  They left at 10am, came back at 1pm and left for the day at 3pm.  Every day!  One guy would lay bricks while 5 guys sat around and watched him.  It took 7 months and over $500K!!  This happens on nearly every building project on this base.  That is where major cuts need to be made.  They need to be held responsible. 
    Posted by iluvmytxrgr[/QUOTE]<div>
    </div><div>all of this is so true. Someone needs to hold their feet to the fire. This sort of thing is just assanine- makes me sick.

    </div>
    wedding1 Anniversary
  • Where is the idea that the military is the first place cuts are being made coming from? The article is only one example of the proposed cuts; I found the plan for 120 terminations, reductions, and other areas of savings in a lot of aspects of spending that is part of President Obama's <FY 2012 budget>. Click there and look at the large amount of money allocated to DoD. It's not going away, and it's still a huge portion of our yearly spending.
    image
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_military-spending?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:13Discussion:deed2f2a-b452-4c26-b476-decac2dada22Post:85625286-6624-44ed-a028-cc6dac44dab7">Re: Military spending...</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Military spending... : I don't think that they should just get a pass to do whatever they want, but I think that the military /DoD is more important than other agencies because it's actually constitutional, and is a responsibility enumerated to the fed government under the Constitution.
    Posted by firemedicrr[/QUOTE]
    But where was it enumerated that they get an unlimited spending budget with no oversight? I think the thing to remember is that cuts can and will be made in a lot of places in order to attempt a balanced budget. Just because its constitutional doesn't mean carte blanche spending, for anyone.
    image
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_military-spending?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:13Discussion:deed2f2a-b452-4c26-b476-decac2dada22Post:32abcad1-d4a9-4412-91a4-ec161ee193be">Re: Military spending...</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Military spending... : But where was it enumerated that they get an unlimited spending budget with no oversight? I think the thing to remember is that cuts can and will be made in a lot of places in order to attempt a balanced budget. Just because its constitutional doesn't mean carte blanche spending, for anyone.
    Posted by Irishcurls[/QUOTE]

    <div>Oh, I totally agree, which is why the first thing I said is that I don't think they should get a free pass to do whatever they want. I definitely think there should be oversight and auditing of their practices.</div>
    wedding1 Anniversary
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_military-spending?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:13Discussion:deed2f2a-b452-4c26-b476-decac2dada22Post:3eb89766-ebd9-450b-b2f7-e842e7bd297e">Re: Military spending...</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Military spending... : Oh, I totally agree, which is why the first thing I said is that I don't think they should get a free pass to do whatever they want. I definitely think there should be oversight and auditing of their practices.
    Posted by firemedicrr[/QUOTE]
    But you do think it's more important than other agencies. That's where we disagree.
    image
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_military-spending?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:13Discussion:deed2f2a-b452-4c26-b476-decac2dada22Post:722f8bec-2883-4c54-b4b8-2822bc2d7acd">Re: Military spending...</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Military spending... : But you do think it's more important than other agencies. That's where we disagree.
    Posted by Irishcurls[/QUOTE]

    <div>I certainly think it's more important than other unconstitutional agencies, yes. </div>
    wedding1 Anniversary
  • LetsHikeTodayLetsHikeToday member
    Combo Breaker First Comment
    edited January 2012
    Fire- Is obamacare the name of the bill???
    imageBabyFruit Ticker
  • Hike - The name is the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
    Photobucket
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_military-spending?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:13Discussion:deed2f2a-b452-4c26-b476-decac2dada22Post:7dff72a4-523b-43fd-8af8-daba600951ab">Re: Military spending...</a>:
    [QUOTE]Hike - The name is the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
    Posted by AmandaSC1988[/QUOTE]
    Exactly
    image
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_military-spending?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special Topic Wedding BoardsForum:13Discussion:deed2f2a-b452-4c26-b476-decac2dada22Post:7dff72a4-523b-43fd-8af8-daba600951ab">Re: Military spending...</a>:
    [QUOTE]Hike - The name is the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
    Posted by AmandaSC1988[/QUOTE]

    Thanks Amanda. I get annoyed when people call it Obamacare because the President isn't the only one who is pushing the agenda.
    imageBabyFruit Ticker
  • Fire, I think it's funny that you keep throwing around 'constitutional'.  When did you get a law degree?  I certainly don't have one, but I do know that there's enough constitutional lawyers out there, on both sides of the political spectrum and everywhere in between, to keep in check what is and isn't constitutional.  If income tax was unconstitutional, it would have been eliminated decades ago.

    Honestly, political conversations bring out the biitch in me.  I find that so much of what I hear in any political conversation is parrotted bullshite that was heard from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about in the first place, or twisted in such a way that it looks like something it isn't.  There's so much propoganda in the world that is based on nothing more than hot air and some overblown ego speaking without the facts or experience to back it up (I am NOT targeting anyone here - I'm thinking TV news anchors and politicians).  People tend to sensationalize things to make it a story and to get people riled up, when in fact the truth is often a lot more complicated and advanced than most voters (myself included) can fully comprehend, so we end up having people just spew out what they've heard rather than understand what they're choosing to espouse.

    image

    Anniversary

  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_military-spending?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:13Discussion:deed2f2a-b452-4c26-b476-decac2dada22Post:ab5e9fd6-7247-4778-ad7c-eb3b623c980a">Re: Military spending...</a>:
    [QUOTE]Fire, I think it's funny that you keep throwing around 'constitutional'.  <strong>When did you get a law degree? </strong> I certainly don't have one, but I do know that there's enough constitutional lawyers out there, on both sides of the political spectrum and everywhere in between, to keep in check what is and isn't constitutional.  If income tax was unconstitutional, it would have been eliminated decades ago. Honestly, political conversations bring out the biitch in me.  I find that so much of what I hear in any political conversation is parrotted bullshite that was heard from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about in the first place, or twisted in such a way that it looks like something it isn't.  There's so much propoganda in the world that is based on nothing more than hot air and some overblown ego speaking without the facts or experience to back it up (I am NOT targeting anyone here - I'm thinking TV news anchors and politicians).  People tend to sensationalize things to make it a story and to get people riled up, when in fact the truth is often a lot more complicated and advanced than most voters (myself included) can fully comprehend, so we end up having <strong>people just spew out what they've heard rather than understand what they're choosing to espouse.</strong>
    Posted by calindi[/QUOTE]

    <div>I totally agree- it irritates me as well when people don't do their own research and form their own beliefs independent of what any specific politician has to say. </div><div>
    </div><div>I don't have a law degree, but I think that the mentality that someone has to have a law degree in order to have an opinion on whether or not something is constitutional is one of the big problems we have in this country. People feel like their opinions don't matter because they aren't "qualified". The Constitution wasn't written for lawyers specifically, it was written to protect the rights of all American Citizens, of which I am one.</div>
    wedding1 Anniversary
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/special-topic-wedding-boards_military-brides_military-spending?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Special%20Topic%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:13Discussion:deed2f2a-b452-4c26-b476-decac2dada22Post:72248cf5-1fa4-4adc-956e-4c6bab9d6136">Re: Military spending...</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Military spending... : I certainly think it's more important than other unconstitutional agencies, yes. 
    Posted by firemedicrr[/QUOTE]

    This "unconstitutional" thing really ruffles my feathers - who are you getting this from?  Where is your reference that this is unconstitutional?  What exactly is the federal government supposed to do, in your opinion?

    For the record, based on some of the Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, the purpose of giving states a large portion of the automony that they have is because it would be impractical for one location to run the entire country.  This is when letters were delivered on horses, so it makes sense.  They couldn't protect the whole country from one location, they couldn't collect taxes, they couldn't communicate about issues efficiently.  Now we have jets that we can move across the entire country within a few hours, and electric banking, and we have the internet and phones.  A lot of the reasoning for some of the state's powers were because it simply was not efficient are no longer valid.

    The Constitution was written as guidelines, but it does not say specifically that the federal government cannot collect income tax.  If it did, it wouldn't be happening.  There's a lot up for interpretation, which is why experts read it and interpret it and why precident in law helps us set specific examples for how it should be implemented.  It's a living document that is meant to grow as we do.

    image

    Anniversary

This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards