Let's decrease or even elminate corporate subsidies to lower government deficit.

[Arrian]

First off, "means testing" SS is pretty vague. Put out an actual formula for so doing, and then people can actually consider it, instead of having to fill in the blanks themselves. Lefties should note, however, that making SS into a true welfare program has a likely political cost.

Corporate welfare - definitely has to go, sure. As has been pointed out, it's one of many things that should happen, along with significant cuts to the military/DHS and entitlements.

There is no silver bullet here.

-Arrian

[MrFun]

Corporate welfare - definitely has to go, sure. As has been pointed out, it's one of many things that should happen, along with significant cuts to the military/DHS and entitlements.

Besides, corporate welfare goes against the cherished idea of "free market."

[Al B. Sure!]

What's with this significant cuts to the military being patently obvious or something to you lot? National defense is the most basic and necessary activity of the federal government. Cut military spending at America's own peril.

Really, what else does the government do that is more basic/necessary than national defense? From a libertarian perspective, national defense is the ONLY activity the federal government should participate in.

[giblets]

Gee, I haven't seen anyone claim we should eliminate the military.

[DaShi]

We should eliminate the military. Let Japan watch over us for awhile.

[rah]

Yeah, I want to see exactly what they're thinking on limits in terms of means testing. In the last 10-12 years, between myself and my companies contributions are over 120k. I'm getting close to 57 so I was contributing for over 20 years even prior to that. I'm sure well over a quarter of a million dollars in total. It would be nice to get some benefit back from all that.

[MRT144]

Yeah, I want to see exactly what they're thinking on limits in terms of means testing. In the last 10-12 years, between myself and my companies contributions are over 120k. I'm getting close to 57 so I was contributing for over 20 years even prior to that. I'm sure well over a quarter of a million dollars in total. It would be nice to get some benefit back from all that.

It'd be nice if wishes were dollars.

[Al B. Sure!]

Gee, I haven't seen anyone claim we should eliminate the military.

What does 'significant cuts' entail? As is, the US military is spread fairly thin. Granted, the US is currently involved in foreign wars, but could we safely make dramatic cuts?

This is the per capita (as in US population) inflation-adjusted defense spending:



As you can see, we're not currently spending that much more than we have in the past. The presumed suggestion would be to reduce the military to late 1990's spending levels. However, how capable was the US military at that time, burdened with obsolete weapons systems?

[Al B. Sure!]

I'm just thinking about things like how many lives would have been saved had all humvees had armor upgrades.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/11/AR2007021101345.html

The Army began the Iraq war with an estimated $56 billion equipment shortage and has struggled to keep up with demands for new armor to protect against increasingly deadly bombs.

Maybe there is a problem with allocation and not general funding but I shudder to think of what 'significant cuts' would do to the operational ability of the US military and the minimization of US casualties.

[giblets]

What reason is there to think that Americans were less safe in the 90s?

[Imran Siddiqui]

It'd be nice if wishes were dollars.

It'd also be nice if the deficit wasn't so large.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

How cute. But Ogie, I'll only do this when you post nonsense just to make a lame political attack.

Are you this clueless? Lame political attack? Wherein lies the 'political attack'?

Tales of an out of touch old guy not a rebuttal of Obama you moron.

[MrFun]

What's with this significant cuts to the military being patently obvious or something to you lot? National defense is the most basic and necessary activity of the federal government. Cut military spending at America's own peril.

Really, what else does the government do that is more basic/necessary than national defense? From a libertarian perspective, national defense is the ONLY activity the federal government should participate in.

So all the Republicans' talk about having to make tough choices is just hyperbole?

Or is it just that these tough choices should only detrimentally affect the impoverished, the working class, and the middle class?

[Al B. Sure!]

Are you this clueless? Lame political attack? Wherein lies the 'political attack'?

Tales of an out of touch old guy not a rebuttal of Obama you moron.

I know right. Who the hell really listens to Snoop Dogg anymore? His debut album came out in 1993. That was nearly 20 years ago!

Snoop Dogg's fans are closer to Snoop Dogg's age... you know, 39 years old going to be 40 this year.

Grandchildren? More like the old timers' own kids!

[Al B. Sure!]

So all the Republicans' talk about having to make tough choices is just hyperbole?

Or is it just that these tough choices should only detrimentally affect the impoverished, the working class, and the middle class?

The Army began the Iraq War with a $56 Billion equipment shortage.

Hey since you only care about gays and Don't Ask, Don't Tell is being repealed to your joy, maybe you can now understand why $56 Billion in equipment shortages following the low military spending of the late 90's would have been detrimental to these gay servicemen?


Yes, if we weren't involved in foreign wars, we could get by with a very slightly smaller military budget but if we need the military for any reason, why the hell do we not want it fully funded and ready to go, especially with respect to minimizing casualties?