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

[KrazyHorse]

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.

Stop ****ing whining. I've maxed out on 2010 and 2011, expect to continue to max out for the rest of my life (until I retire) and don't expect any benefit back.

[Aeson]

Not even the benefit of being able to look down your nose at people who have worked far longer than you for far less reward?

[KrazyHorse]

I get that whether or not I pay SS, you twit.

[Aeson]

Thanks for admitting your "reasoning" supporting your attack on rah is of no value.

[KrazyHorse]

That makes as much sense as most of your posts nowadays. Go back to representing pimps

[Aeson]

I'm sorry you don't have the intellectual capacity to wrap your mind around the logic. It's very simple really. You use X as a weapon, from that we can determine that X is viewed by you as providing value as a weapon. You claim that without X you can do the same thing, from that we can deduce that X is viewed by you as no value as a weapon. I'm just pointing out your self-refutation of your own action, and doing so in a way that my own view of your attack on rah (eg "worthless") can be read from the same statement as well.

You really are boring though. I thought you were going to take it up a notch as you claimed you had been taking it easy on me. But you seem to just be copy and pasting your past insults that we've already determined were lame and hypocritical (since it's actually your ideology that would be "pimp apologetic" or even encourage them). I'm beginning to think that you simply do not have it in your capabilities to actually compete on a higher level.

[Hauldren Collider]

You're a ****ing idiot.

No, he's (mostly) right. If the pentagon's budget consisted only of what it actually wanted we would have substantial defense reductions since a lot of defense spending is actually just makework programs.

[KrazyHorse]

No, he's (mostly) right. If the pentagon's budget consisted only of what it actually wanted we would have substantial defense reductions since a lot of defense spending is actually just makework programs.

Good God. What the Pentagon "wants" is a function of the budget it knows it can procure. If its budget was endogenous then it would want a lot more. Perhaps not in the form of useless bases, but in the form of more aircraft carriers, newer tanks and more fighters.

[Hauldren Collider]

Good God. What the Pentagon "wants" is a function of the budget it knows it can procure. If its budget was endogenous then it would want a lot more. Perhaps not in the form of useless bases, but in the form of more aircraft carriers, newer tanks and more fighters.

That's why I said "mostly" right. What I'm referring to is more programs rather than quantity, so rather than having them pick how many F-35Cs they get, let them tell us whether they need F-35Cs or EFVs or alternative engines or whatever.

[Al B. Sure!]

Cast your mind back to when you were studying finance. More particularly to the process of setting up a budget for an entity with various departments. Do you let any department (corporate division or whatever) decide how much of the budget they will have? You can't let departments/divisions help themselves whether in business or government. Add up the wants of every department and you can be confident that sum will exceed the money available.

There has to be some dipstick beancounter in the middle of it all saying "no we haven't enough money for that".

I am well aware of a conflict of interests. But right now it seems that Congress and their constituencies are causing far more budget woes than the DoD.

My real point was that military spending right now isn't actually historically that high, even with the wars, as evidenced by the data I provided. The Pentagon is also actively preparing for downsizing AS WE SPEAK in preparation for the end of the Iraq and Afghan occupations.

This whole attitude of 'duh, just cut the military budget' that people here post is nonsense because the military isn't even spending much relative to spending over the past half century. And in fact, you would expect spending to be higher today because the military is far more technological than it was 50 years ago and there's much more of an emphasis on minimizing casualties. The fact of the matter is the Army was short $58 Billion worth of equipment heading into the Iraq War and there were many casualties that could have been averted by the simple use of armor kits on humvees.

I shudder to think that if some people here had their way with the budgetary axe how much risk they would be putting American servicemen in.

Because Imran had no real point he just mentioned base closings but that's only a point in favor of the Pentagon that wants to close bases to save money but the boys in Congress are beholden to their grubby voters. That's where I pointed out that the Pentagon is not the problem. It's Congress. It's civilian leadership.

[KrazyHorse]

And in fact, you would expect spending to be higher today

Actually, I'd expect it to be far lower, given that the USSR doesn't exist any more, China is (relatively) friendly, and the biggest security threat is a few thousand people with boxcutters.

[Dinner]

You cheating, bastard. Post more then one sentence (which you typed yourself), damn you.

[Al B. Sure!]

And in fact, you would expect spending to be higher today

Actually, I'd expect it to be far lower, given that the USSR doesn't exist any more, China is (relatively) friendly, and the biggest security threat is a few thousand people with boxcutters.

Force in readiness, KH. Force in readiness. That can strike as fast as geo-political changes happen.

I guess everyone wants the US to be caught with our pants down like Dec. 7, 1941.

We did the whole dramatic downsizing thing in 1918... hey League of Nations. Germany is humbled. Who could give the US any troubles? Exactly.

[KrazyHorse]

That's exactly the type of reasoning which explains why the military can't be placed in charge of its own budget.

[KrazyHorse]

Next you'll be telling me that I should be paying for your calcium supplements so you can pass army kindergarten on the third try...