Obscene $4 TRILLION Budget with continuing MASSIVE DEFICIT and ADDED DEBT.

2seaoat wrote:Most of it he got right.  Bottom line is wrong.  How do you get the bottom line right.  Cut military funding further.   Everybody knows the answer.  However, not one dime reduced.....he added to the budget.   President Obama can talk about theoretical ten year reductions, but fiscal year cuts in military spending are real, tangible, and immediate.   We can not set our nation on a course of prosperity spending twice as much as needed on military adventurism.   Yes, Isis is a threat, but that threat could come from thirty people in Finland meeting in the backroom of a bar who planned to kill 3k Americans......Money spent on intelligence gathering is well spent, but 11 aircraft carriers.....could we get by with 8 carrier groups?

KarlRove wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Most of it he got right.  Bottom line is wrong.  How do you get the bottom line right.  Cut military funding further.   Everybody knows the answer.  However, not one dime reduced.....he added to the budget.   President Obama can talk about theoretical ten year reductions, but fiscal year cuts in military spending are real, tangible, and immediate.   We can not set our nation on a course of prosperity spending twice as much as needed on military adventurism.   Yes, Isis is a threat, but that threat could come from thirty people in Finland meeting in the backroom of a bar who planned to kill 3k Americans......Money spent on intelligence gathering is well spent, but 11 aircraft carriers.....could we get by with 8 carrier groups?

The military has borne the brunt of sequestration. Folks like you whine and cry about beating our swords into plowshares, but every time we do, we get caught with our pants down and humiliated by an enemy. Korea comes to mind after WWII. You won't be here for the next big war Seaoat, so you don't care what happens.

Wordslinger wrote:

KarlRove wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Most of it he got right.  Bottom line is wrong.  How do you get the bottom line right.  Cut military funding further.   Everybody knows the answer.  However, not one dime reduced.....he added to the budget.   President Obama can talk about theoretical ten year reductions, but fiscal year cuts in military spending are real, tangible, and immediate.   We can not set our nation on a course of prosperity spending twice as much as needed on military adventurism.   Yes, Isis is a threat, but that threat could come from thirty people in Finland meeting in the backroom of a bar who planned to kill 3k Americans......Money spent on intelligence gathering is well spent, but 11 aircraft carriers.....could we get by with 8 carrier groups?

The military has borne the brunt of sequestration. Folks like you whine and cry about beating our swords into plowshares, but every time we do, we get caught with our pants down and humiliated by an enemy. Korea comes to mind after WWII. You won't be here for the next big war Seaoat, so you don't care what happens.

That's idiocy.  Seaoat was right on target with his point -- isn't 8 carrier groups enough?  The A-10 is a beautifully designed perfect ground to air attack aircraft, about to be replaced by the F-35 which can't stay in a combat area for more than a few minutes, and is much more vulnerable to AA fire.  And the A-10 costs not even 20% of what an F35 costs.

We need to cut military spending by no less than 50%.  We don't need to pay for 2,000 A1 Abrams per month, which are being mothballed because there is no use for them.

KarlRove wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

KarlRove wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Most of it he got right.  Bottom line is wrong.  How do you get the bottom line right.  Cut military funding further.   Everybody knows the answer.  However, not one dime reduced.....he added to the budget.   President Obama can talk about theoretical ten year reductions, but fiscal year cuts in military spending are real, tangible, and immediate.   We can not set our nation on a course of prosperity spending twice as much as needed on military adventurism.   Yes, Isis is a threat, but that threat could come from thirty people in Finland meeting in the backroom of a bar who planned to kill 3k Americans......Money spent on intelligence gathering is well spent, but 11 aircraft carriers.....could we get by with 8 carrier groups?

The military has borne the brunt of sequestration. Folks like you whine and cry about beating our swords into plowshares, but every time we do, we get caught with our pants down and humiliated by an enemy. Korea comes to mind after WWII. You won't be here for the next big war Seaoat, so you don't care what happens.

That's idiocy.  Seaoat was right on target with his point -- isn't 8 carrier groups enough?  The A-10 is a beautifully designed perfect ground to air attack aircraft, about to be replaced by the F-35 which can't stay in a combat area for more than a few minutes, and is much more vulnerable to AA fire.  And the A-10 costs not even 20% of what an F35 costs.

We need to cut military spending by no less than 50%.  We don't need to pay for 2,000 A1 Abrams per month, which are being mothballed because there is no use for them.

An F-35 doesn't fly in the WEZ of any AA fire. If you are talking SAMs, it does as does anything that flies in the air. The F-35 is a multi-role attack platform. The A-10 is not. All the A-10 is, is a flying cannon. I agree that it is stupid to get rid of it, but the AF brass has tried to cut items only for Congressmen to balk at losing those aircraft in their districts. The F-35 won't get cut for the same reasons the A-10 won't either.....Congressmen in 49 states have one part of the supply procurement system for the F-35 in their state and that means jobs. Congressmen don't get elected when their districts lose jobs. Mothballed tanks will eventually be needed. We always cut because of whiners like you and end up in a Korean type stalemate. The military took the brunt of sequestration. Cut unneeded SS benefits or the welfare given to illegals. There is where your cuts need to come from....

Wordslinger wrote:

KarlRove wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

KarlRove wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Most of it he got right.  Bottom line is wrong.  How do you get the bottom line right.  Cut military funding further.   Everybody knows the answer.  However, not one dime reduced.....he added to the budget.   President Obama can talk about theoretical ten year reductions, but fiscal year cuts in military spending are real, tangible, and immediate.   We can not set our nation on a course of prosperity spending twice as much as needed on military adventurism.   Yes, Isis is a threat, but that threat could come from thirty people in Finland meeting in the backroom of a bar who planned to kill 3k Americans......Money spent on intelligence gathering is well spent, but 11 aircraft carriers.....could we get by with 8 carrier groups?

The military has borne the brunt of sequestration. Folks like you whine and cry about beating our swords into plowshares, but every time we do, we get caught with our pants down and humiliated by an enemy. Korea comes to mind after WWII. You won't be here for the next big war Seaoat, so you don't care what happens.

That's idiocy.  Seaoat was right on target with his point -- isn't 8 carrier groups enough?  The A-10 is a beautifully designed perfect ground to air attack aircraft, about to be replaced by the F-35 which can't stay in a combat area for more than a few minutes, and is much more vulnerable to AA fire.  And the A-10 costs not even 20% of what an F35 costs.

We need to cut military spending by no less than 50%.  We don't need to pay for 2,000 A1 Abrams per month, which are being mothballed because there is no use for them.

An F-35 doesn't fly in the WEZ of any AA fire. If you are talking SAMs, it does as does anything that flies in the air. The F-35 is a multi-role attack platform. The A-10 is not. All the A-10 is, is a flying cannon. I agree that it is stupid to get rid of it, but the AF brass has tried to cut items only for Congressmen to balk at losing those aircraft in their districts. The F-35 won't get cut for the same reasons the A-10 won't either.....Congressmen in 49 states have one part of the supply procurement system for the F-35 in their state and that means jobs. Congressmen don't get elected when their districts lose jobs. Mothballed tanks will eventually be needed. We always cut because of whiners like you and end up in a Korean type stalemate. The military took the brunt of sequestration. Cut unneeded SS benefits or the welfare given to illegals. There is where your cuts need to come from....

The AF plans to also use the F35 for tactical air to ground support -- so it will have to fly low. The problem is, it can't fly slow.  Nor can it remain very long over a target zone because of its fast fuel burn rate.  It will not do the job the A10 does nearly as well.