Anyone else (possibly) getting a mandatory vacation come Tuesday?

[Guynemer]

Well, if we didn't have the Biggest Goddamned Hammer The World Has Ever Seen, then maybe every problem in the world would stop resembling nails.

Frankly, it is too easy for us to intervene militarily overseas. It should be much more difficult to poke our nose into Iraq/Afghanistan/Somalia/Bosnia/Dickpunchistan than it is now. If it were more difficult for us to do so, we wouldn't do it as often. We'd spill much less blood (ours and others) and resources (so much goddamned waste) on solutions that end up being not terribly effective.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Guynemer for Speaker of the House

[PLATO]

Well, if we didn't have the Biggest Goddamned Hammer The World Has Ever Seen, then maybe every problem in the world would stop resembling nails.

Frankly, it is too easy for us to intervene militarily overseas. It should be much more difficult to poke our nose into Iraq/Afghanistan/Somalia/Bosnia/Dickpunchistan than it is now. If it were more difficult for us to do so, we wouldn't do it as often. We'd spill much less blood (ours and others) and resources (so much goddamned waste) on solutions that end up being not terribly effective.

There certainly is some merit in that line of thought. I suspect that the power vacuum would cost more lives then it would save, but maybe not. I also suspect that people would challenge our interests much more and if we had to make a decision to defend one, then that could be a lot more bloody as well. Who knows? It might be interesting to see what would happen if we pulled back in stages and insisted that our allies fill the gaps left in their own security though.

[Guynemer]

Well, come on. Do you really think Germany can't defend itself? Japan? South Korea? There is no reason for us to maintain a military presence in those countries 60-70 years after the fact.

In fact, there is a reasonable argument to be made that lifting the burden of having a notable military presence is what allowed those countries to thrive in the postwar era.

[Sava]

game changer

[MRT144]

That would be an interesting debate. What would be the consequences of a greatly reduced U.S. military?

Less money spent on billion dollar jets and hundred million dollar tanks that get built by a lot of americans in podunk districts that the representitives fight tooth and nail to preserve, cause of jerbs. honestly, the amount of bull**** defense contracter bull**** that gets passed down the line in the name of jobs is disgusting. We could have those same people making water purification setups for small villages in africa for a fraction of the cost, resulting in the same level of jobs.

[Ben Kenobi]

There certainly is some merit in that line of thought. I suspect that the power vacuum would cost more lives then it would save, but maybe not. I also suspect that people would challenge our interests much more and if we had to make a decision to defend one, then that could be a lot more bloody as well. Who knows? It might be interesting to see what would happen if we pulled back in stages and insisted that our allies fill the gaps left in their own security though.

Cutting defense while piling on unconstitutional entitlements is a recipe for disaster.

Even without Obamacare - entitlements already consume more than everything else (military, etc), combined. by 2058 assuming no Obamacare, and average growth rates, entitlements will consume everything. Debt servicing not included.

If you include debt servicing, you get 2030 as the 'drop dead rate', and that was before Obama piled on 100+ percent debt to GDP in just 5 years. After?

The problem isn't defense. The problem is domestic spending on entitlements. The good thing is that cutbacks are now inevitable. Cuts are coming. No matter how much you nibble at the edges.

Obamacare is like buying a Volt. It makes everything you do more expensive and it drains your bank account at the same time. And the worst part - it doesn't even operate when you need it to.

[SlowwHand]

Less money spent on billion dollar jets and hundred million dollar tanks that get built by a lot of americans in podunk districts that the representitives fight tooth and nail to preserve, cause of jerbs. honestly, the amount of bull**** defense contracter bull**** that gets passed down the line in the name of jobs is disgusting. We could have those same people making water purification setups for small villages in africa for a fraction of the cost, resulting in the same level of jobs.

You have no idea how ridiculous this reads, do you?

[giblets]

Cutting defense while piling on unconstitutional entitlements is a recipe for disaster.

Even without Obamacare - entitlements already consume more than everything else (military, etc), combined. by 2058 assuming no Obamacare, and average growth rates, entitlements will consume everything. Debt servicing not included.

If you include debt servicing, you get 2030 as the 'drop dead rate', and that was before Obama piled on 100+ percent debt to GDP in just 5 years. After?

The problem isn't defense. The problem is domestic spending on entitlements. The good thing is that cutbacks are now inevitable. Cuts are coming. No matter how much you nibble at the edges.

Obamacare is like buying a Volt. It makes everything you do more expensive and it drains your bank account at the same time. And the worst part - it doesn't even operate when you need it to.

In Ben Kenobi land, if Congress decides not to increase entitlement spending until it consumes the entire budget it's a "cut".

[Dinner]

Less money spent on billion dollar jets and hundred million dollar tanks that get built by a lot of americans in podunk districts that the representitives fight tooth and nail to preserve, cause of jerbs. honestly, the amount of bull**** defense contracter bull**** that gets passed down the line in the name of jobs is disgusting. We could have those same people making water purification setups for small villages in africa for a fraction of the cost, resulting in the same level of jobs.

This.

[Ben Kenobi]

In Ben Kenobi land, if Congress decides not to increase entitlement spending until it consumes the entire budget it's a "cut".

Hrm? You've got me mistaken for Lindsey Graham. I hear he's hiring for his upcoming campaign.

[Aeson]

Less money spent on billion dollar jets and hundred million dollar tanks that get built by a lot of americans in podunk districts that the representitives fight tooth and nail to preserve, cause of jerbs. honestly, the amount of bull**** defense contracter bull**** that gets passed down the line in the name of jobs is disgusting. We could have those same people making water purification setups for small villages in africa for a fraction of the cost, resulting in the same level of jobs.

... and it would probably make us safer, due to building goodwill worldwide rather than building hatred and resentment.

[MrFun]

Cutting defense while piling on unconstitutional entitlements is a recipe for disaster.

Even without Obamacare - entitlements already consume more than everything else (military, etc), combined. by 2058 assuming no Obamacare, and average growth rates, entitlements will consume everything. Debt servicing not included.

If you include debt servicing, you get 2030 as the 'drop dead rate', and that was before Obama piled on 100+ percent debt to GDP in just 5 years. After?

The problem isn't defense. The problem is domestic spending on entitlements. The good thing is that cutbacks are now inevitable. Cuts are coming. No matter how much you nibble at the edges.

Obamacare is like buying a Volt. It makes everything you do more expensive and it drains your bank account at the same time. And the worst part - it doesn't even operate when you need it to.

I thought the spending in defense and military in United States is clearly the highest category in the budget.

[MrFun]

By the way, it looks like the House Republicans are refusing to even speak with President Obama.

What happened to "let's talk," Boehner?

[Alexander's Horse]

I've noticed an uptick in my favorite FPS sites since the shutdown.