On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:48:31 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:59:45 -0800, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 23:59:25 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:45:06 -0800, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:21:09 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:43:26 -0800, wrote:


The problem with defense cuts is most if that budget is a jobs
program, building hardware we don't need and the Pentagon doesn't
want.

I would bring the troops home tho. Why prop up the economy of other
countries when we have as much trouble as we have.
We do have the precedent of having the military working on
infrastructure here with the Army Corps of Engineers. Maybe we should
declare war on bad bridges and roads here with a CCC type service.
The unions would never tolerate it.

So, it should all be done without union workers? Doesn't sound like
much of a jobs effort to me.

I was thinking more about what you can do with a half million military
people if we stop the wars and pull back all the people we have
scattered around the world in places where we won the war a half
century ago.

So, you want to use the military to do the same jobs as regular
citizens for 1/10th the pay? I'm sure that would do a lot for the
economy.

"1/10th"?
Why do you think military people are so poorly paid?

Your typical GI is making over $20k by the end of his first hitch and
if he really moves up through the ranks it could be $27k or more.
They also have most of their living expenses paid by Uncle Sam.

It may not be as much as an attorney makes but once you factor in room
and board, it is certainly competitive with a basic construction
worker who may only be making $14 an hour ... when he can find work.

$27K... wow, that's over the poverty line for sure. And, they get to
get shot at from time to time. So, you'd prefer to throw the basic
construction worker out of a job to save some money? Even that doesn't
compute.

As usual you totally miss the point. I am talking about creating
enough new infrastructure construction to put all of them to work.

I am also talking about bringing these guys home so they won't get
shot at.

I'm not missing the point at all. How do you intend to create the
infrastructure without government funding?

You say you didn't miss the point then you go off in the wrong
direction
Co back up to the top if this snip. the whole thing is about
REDIRECTING the DoD budget

So, how are you going to "redirect" all these "low-paid" troops into
homeland jobs without displacing those low-paid construction jobs?

By starting new projects.

Ok. So, you have no objection to projects sponsored and paid for by
the gov't! Sounds like the heavy hand of gov't to me. I have no
objection your honor!


I don't think many are shot at in Germany and Japan, but I think it's
probably time to start moving them home. It can't all be done in a
moment. This won't have much of an effect either way, since it needs
to be a relatively slow process.

Why? What are they protecting? The Soviets are gone.

Good grief! You know that little about economics and/or how the
military works? You can't just decide one day to close bases and then
everyone leaves.

Now you are worried about the Germans?

I'm thoughtful about how we as a nation are perceived and our effect
on the rest of the world. You aren't I guess.

We could close foreign bases pretty fast if we wanted to and it is not
our job to replace the hole in the German economy. There are a few
people here saying the locals don't get that much money from our bases
anyway.

Sure thing! I guess that was the same sort of decision that was made
post WW1. That worked out pretty well, didn't it.

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 02:17:16 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:57:30 -0800, wrote:


So, how are you going to "redirect" all these "low-paid" troops into
homeland jobs without displacing those low-paid construction jobs?

By starting new projects.

Ok. So, you have no objection to projects sponsored and paid for by
the gov't! Sounds like the heavy hand of gov't to me. I have no
objection your honor!
\\

Good deal


I don't think many are shot at in Germany and Japan, but I think it's
probably time to start moving them home. It can't all be done in a
moment. This won't have much of an effect either way, since it needs
to be a relatively slow process.

Why? What are they protecting? The Soviets are gone.

Good grief! You know that little about economics and/or how the
military works? You can't just decide one day to close bases and then
everyone leaves.

Now you are worried about the Germans?

I'm thoughtful about how we as a nation are perceived and our effect
on the rest of the world. You aren't I guess.

I imagine there are plenty of Germans who wish we would go but even if
they didn't we are not the world's p[olicemen. If they want us there,
pay us to be there.

There are plenty more who appreciate us spending our money there. I
think we need to stay engaged there, but we don't need lots and lots
of bases. There are a few that should probably remain.


We could close foreign bases pretty fast if we wanted to and it is not
our job to replace the hole in the German economy. There are a few
people here saying the locals don't get that much money from our bases
anyway.

Sure thing! I guess that was the same sort of decision that was made
post WW1. That worked out pretty well, didn't it.

False equivalency again.

Really? Well, you just got done saying you don't care about the German
economy. That's what we said after WW1.

There was nothing in common with the surrender of a largely intact
Germany at the end of WWI, left to it;s own devices and their total
destruction in WWII.
We have occupied them for 66 years. When will we decide they are OK?

As I said, I have no objection to closing most of the bases. It just
doesn't need to devastate our or their economy to do that. Again,
we're looking for a long-term solution not a short-term reactionary
policy.

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:42:05 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:25:11 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 02:17:16 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:57:30 -0800, wrote:


So, how are you going to "redirect" all these "low-paid" troops into
homeland jobs without displacing those low-paid construction jobs?

By starting new projects.

Ok. So, you have no objection to projects sponsored and paid for by
the gov't! Sounds like the heavy hand of gov't to me. I have no
objection your honor!
\\

Good deal


I don't think many are shot at in Germany and Japan, but I think it's
probably time to start moving them home. It can't all be done in a
moment. This won't have much of an effect either way, since it needs
to be a relatively slow process.

Why? What are they protecting? The Soviets are gone.

Good grief! You know that little about economics and/or how the
military works? You can't just decide one day to close bases and then
everyone leaves.

Now you are worried about the Germans?

I'm thoughtful about how we as a nation are perceived and our effect
on the rest of the world. You aren't I guess.

I imagine there are plenty of Germans who wish we would go but even if
they didn't we are not the world's p[olicemen. If they want us there,
pay us to be there.

There are plenty more who appreciate us spending our money there. I
think we need to stay engaged there, but we don't need lots and lots
of bases. There are a few that should probably remain.


We could close foreign bases pretty fast if we wanted to and it is not
our job to replace the hole in the German economy. There are a few
people here saying the locals don't get that much money from our bases
anyway.

Sure thing! I guess that was the same sort of decision that was made
post WW1. That worked out pretty well, didn't it.

False equivalency again.

Really? Well, you just got done saying you don't care about the German
economy. That's what we said after WW1.

Do you really think the best way to help the German economy is to
occupy them?

No. I think the best thing for the US to do is to carefully reduce our
presence there without damaging their economy.




There was nothing in common with the surrender of a largely intact
Germany at the end of WWI, left to it;s own devices and their total
destruction in WWII.
We have occupied them for 66 years. When will we decide they are OK?

As I said, I have no objection to closing most of the bases. It just
doesn't need to devastate our or their economy to do that. Again,
we're looking for a long-term solution not a short-term reactionary
policy.

We are looking for ways to cut an $800 billion dollar pentagon budget.
You have to cut something.

Let's start with getting the facts right...

http://www.janes.com/events/OnlineSe...DefenceBudget/

Maybe we can get rid of some nukes... oh wait, this was opposed by all
those fiscal conservative Republicans.

On Feb 28, 8:27*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:42:05 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:25:11 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 02:17:16 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:57:30 -0800, wrote:

So, how are you going to "redirect" all these "low-paid" troops into
homeland jobs without displacing those low-paid construction jobs?

By starting new projects.

Ok. So, you have no objection to projects sponsored and paid for by
the gov't! Sounds like the heavy hand of gov't to me. I have no
objection your honor!
\\

Good deal

I don't think many are shot at in Germany and Japan, but I think it's
probably time to start moving them home. It can't all be done in a
moment. This won't have much of an effect either way, since it needs
to be a relatively slow process.

Why? What are they protecting? *The Soviets are gone.

Good grief! You know that little about economics and/or how the
military works? You can't just decide one day to close bases and then
everyone leaves.

Now you are worried about the Germans?

I'm thoughtful about how we as a nation are perceived and our effect
on the rest of the world. You aren't I guess.

I imagine there are plenty of Germans who wish we would go but even if
they didn't we are not the world's p[olicemen. If they want us there,
pay us to be there.

There are plenty more who appreciate us spending our money there. I
think we need to stay engaged there, but we don't need lots and lots
of bases. There are a few that should probably remain.

We could close foreign bases pretty fast if we wanted to and it is not
our job to replace the hole in the German economy. There are a few
people here saying the locals don't get that much money from our bases
anyway.

Sure thing! I guess that was the same sort of decision that was made
post WW1. That worked out pretty well, didn't it.

False equivalency again.

Really? Well, you just got done saying you don't care about the German
economy. That's what we said after WW1.

Do you really think the best way to help the German economy is to
occupy them?

No. I think the best thing for the US to do is to carefully reduce our
presence there without damaging their economy.



There was nothing in common with the surrender of a largely intact
Germany at the end of WWI, left to it;s own devices *and their total
destruction in WWII.
We have occupied them for 66 years. When will we decide they are OK?

As I said, I have no objection to closing most of the bases. It just
doesn't need to devastate our or their economy to do that. Again,
we're looking for a long-term solution not a short-term reactionary
policy.

We are looking for ways to cut an $800 billion dollar pentagon budget.
You have to cut something.

Let's start with getting the facts right...

http://www.janes.com/events/OnlineSe...DefenceBudget/

Maybe we can get rid of some nukes... oh wait, this was opposed by all
those fiscal conservative Republicans.

"oh wait?" D'Plume? Still having problems with dementia?

In article 2b0a179d-224d-4b6c-bac0-0304437a7194
@u14g2000vbg.googlegroups.com, says...
We are looking for ways to cut an $800 billion dollar pentagon budget.
You have to cut something.

Let's start with getting the facts right...

http://www.janes.com/events/OnlineSe...DefenceBudget/

Maybe we can get rid of some nukes... oh wait, this was opposed by all
those fiscal conservative Republicans.

"oh wait?" D'Plume? Still having problems with dementia?


Let's take d'Plume's $800 billion number and start closing bases in
Democrat districts and canceling defense contracts in Democrat
districts. If reducing the defense budget is what is needed and Obama
says we all need to share the pain, then the Democrats should be ready
to set the example.

On 3/1/11 7:37 AM, BAR wrote:
In article2b0a179d-224d-4b6c-bac0-0304437a7194
@u14g2000vbg.googlegroups.com, says...
We are looking for ways to cut an $800 billion dollar pentagon budget.
You have to cut something.

Let's start with getting the facts right...

http://www.janes.com/events/OnlineSe...DefenceBudget/

Maybe we can get rid of some nukes... oh wait, this was opposed by all
those fiscal conservative Republicans.

"oh wait?" D'Plume? Still having problems with dementia?


Let's take d'Plume's $800 billion number and start closing bases in
Democrat districts and canceling defense contracts in Democrat
districts. If reducing the defense budget is what is needed and Obama
says we all need to share the pain, then the Democrats should be ready
to set the example.


We should begin cutting military spending by 10% each fiscal year until
we are at half the level we are at today, and then see what further cuts
can be made.

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

On 3/1/11 7:37 AM, BAR wrote:
In article2b0a179d-224d-4b6c-bac0-0304437a7194
@u14g2000vbg.googlegroups.com, says...
We are looking for ways to cut an $800 billion dollar pentagon budget.
You have to cut something.

Let's start with getting the facts right...

http://www.janes.com/events/OnlineSe...DefenceBudget/

Maybe we can get rid of some nukes... oh wait, this was opposed by all
those fiscal conservative Republicans.

"oh wait?" D'Plume? Still having problems with dementia?


Let's take d'Plume's $800 billion number and start closing bases in
Democrat districts and canceling defense contracts in Democrat
districts. If reducing the defense budget is what is needed and Obama
says we all need to share the pain, then the Democrats should be ready
to set the example.


We should begin cutting military spending by 10% each fiscal year until
we are at half the level we are at today, and then see what further cuts
can be made.

Agreed, let's start with bases and programs in Democrat districts.

On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 07:37:28 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article 2b0a179d-224d-4b6c-bac0-0304437a7194
, says...
We are looking for ways to cut an $800 billion dollar pentagon budget.
You have to cut something.

Let's start with getting the facts right...

http://www.janes.com/events/OnlineSe...DefenceBudget/

Maybe we can get rid of some nukes... oh wait, this was opposed by all
those fiscal conservative Republicans.

"oh wait?" D'Plume? Still having problems with dementia?


Let's take d'Plume's $800 billion number and start closing bases in
Democrat districts and canceling defense contracts in Democrat
districts. If reducing the defense budget is what is needed and Obama
says we all need to share the pain, then the Democrats should be ready
to set the example.

Because you'd prefer to see Republicans gut this country, right?

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 22:51:21 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:27:07 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:42:05 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:25:11 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 02:17:16 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 11:57:30 -0800, wrote:


So, how are you going to "redirect" all these "low-paid" troops into
homeland jobs without displacing those low-paid construction jobs?

By starting new projects.

Ok. So, you have no objection to projects sponsored and paid for by
the gov't! Sounds like the heavy hand of gov't to me. I have no
objection your honor!
\\

Good deal


I don't think many are shot at in Germany and Japan, but I think it's
probably time to start moving them home. It can't all be done in a
moment. This won't have much of an effect either way, since it needs
to be a relatively slow process.

Why? What are they protecting? The Soviets are gone.

Good grief! You know that little about economics and/or how the
military works? You can't just decide one day to close bases and then
everyone leaves.

Now you are worried about the Germans?

I'm thoughtful about how we as a nation are perceived and our effect
on the rest of the world. You aren't I guess.

I imagine there are plenty of Germans who wish we would go but even if
they didn't we are not the world's p[olicemen. If they want us there,
pay us to be there.

There are plenty more who appreciate us spending our money there. I
think we need to stay engaged there, but we don't need lots and lots
of bases. There are a few that should probably remain.


We could close foreign bases pretty fast if we wanted to and it is not
our job to replace the hole in the German economy. There are a few
people here saying the locals don't get that much money from our bases
anyway.

Sure thing! I guess that was the same sort of decision that was made
post WW1. That worked out pretty well, didn't it.

False equivalency again.

Really? Well, you just got done saying you don't care about the German
economy. That's what we said after WW1.

Do you really think the best way to help the German economy is to
occupy them?

No. I think the best thing for the US to do is to carefully reduce our
presence there without damaging their economy.

Yet we keep kicking that can down the road too.

Yes. So? You're so skeptical that we can't reform our tax code, but
you have no problem believing we can get out of all our commitments
(treaty and otherwise) in 180 days.




There was nothing in common with the surrender of a largely intact
Germany at the end of WWI, left to it;s own devices and their total
destruction in WWII.
We have occupied them for 66 years. When will we decide they are OK?

As I said, I have no objection to closing most of the bases. It just
doesn't need to devastate our or their economy to do that. Again,
we're looking for a long-term solution not a short-term reactionary
policy.

We are looking for ways to cut an $800 billion dollar pentagon budget.
You have to cut something.

Let's start with getting the facts right...

http://www.janes.com/events/OnlineSe...DefenceBudget/

I guess that all comes down to what is included in the defense budget
doesn't it?
It is usually democrats accusing republicans of understating what the
real cost of defense is.
Interesting where you will go to disagree with me.

Nothing to disagree with... sorry.

Maybe we can get rid of some nukes... oh wait, this was opposed by all
those fiscal conservative Republicans.

Nukes are probably the most cost effective weapons system we have if
you are looking about a deterrent from another super power.

Which super power would that be? China? I don't think they're
interested.

I agree we have more than we need. The problem is disposing of them is
more expensive than storing them. Most are technically "disarmed"
though from what we are told. The triggers are not with the booster.

Disarmed? Huh? If it's so expensive, and we've already disarmed them,
why are we spending billions on them?

That is still not where most of the money goes. It goes into "jobs"
building hardware we don't need that are scattered across 435
congressional districts.

And, your solution is....

I know! I know! Don't vote for the treaty!

On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 16:47:16 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:51:32 -0800, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 22:51:21 -0500, wrote:


Sure thing! I guess that was the same sort of decision that was made
post WW1. That worked out pretty well, didn't it.

False equivalency again.

Really? Well, you just got done saying you don't care about the German
economy. That's what we said after WW1.

Do you really think the best way to help the German economy is to
occupy them?

No. I think the best thing for the US to do is to carefully reduce our
presence there without damaging their economy.

Yet we keep kicking that can down the road too.

Yes. So? You're so skeptical that we can't reform our tax code, but
you have no problem believing we can get out of all our commitments
(treaty and otherwise) in 180 days.

I am skeptical that we would do either but I know we could and should.

Yet you're promoting one vs. the other. I don't see any justification
for that.



Maybe we can get rid of some nukes... oh wait, this was opposed by all
those fiscal conservative Republicans.

Nukes are probably the most cost effective weapons system we have if
you are looking about a deterrent from another super power.

Which super power would that be? China? I don't think they're
interested.

Why is China building a stealth fighter? Why do they still have a
bunch of nukes themselves and the missiles to get them here?

Do you think that's going to help them collect on the debt we owe
them? Seems kinda dumb to me.

I agree we have more than we need. The problem is disposing of them is
more expensive than storing them. Most are technically "disarmed"
though from what we are told. The triggers are not with the booster.

Disarmed? Huh? If it's so expensive, and we've already disarmed them,
why are we spending billions on them?

"Billions is not a lot in the DoD budget."

Yeah, I guess $50+ billion isn't that much...


That is still not where most of the money goes. It goes into "jobs"
building hardware we don't need that are scattered across 435
congressional districts.

And, your solution is....

I told you before, transfer the money and the jobs to infrastructure
improvements.

I know! I know! Don't vote for the treaty!

I am in favor of drawing down the nukes.
A few hundred is a credible deterrent.
I just don't expect it to save much money.

Look it up.