Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Sewer That Is The GOP: With All The White Supremacists, Conspiracy Nutters, And Other Malicious Whacko Subgroups, How Does It Get Fixed?


Jumbo

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:


Ive very clearly not advocated across the board cuts (and specifically said we should pay soldiers/sailors/airmen more) so why even go here?  C’mon man. 


 

 

6 hours ago, tshile said:

I didn’t read it that way. 
 

I read his posts as acknowledging what you said, then speaking the broader issue of cuts. I read it as him adding to the conversation in general, not trying to call out your posts. 
 

 

 

Because next comes the third order effects.  That waitress (let's be honest, probably stripper) that is married to the young Sailor and just lost her job.  And now because of cuts, we are deploying our personnel more often.  Now while he is deployed, she is getting evicted and can't afford to feed the baby.

 

This isn't some **** I'm pulling out of my ass.  These are real world situations I've dealt with.  BRAC amplified it.  

 

PB I was making overly general statements.  Go remove JSF and all of its supporting jobs from Pax River and see what happens.

 

I'm all for big cuts and systemic change.  That was one thing that excited me about Mattis.  We shouldn't be spending $30k on walkie talkies.  But people just arbitrarily calling for huge numbers with no thought of the broad domestic effects or the geopolitical effects like freedom of navigation are not adding any quality to the conversation.   *I'm guilty of this also, what happens to the employees who male those $30k radios.

Edited by TheGreatBuzz
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

 

Because next comes the third order effects.  That waitress (let's be honest, probably stripper) that is married to the young Sailor and just lost her job.  And now because of cuts, we are deploying our personnel more often.  Now while he is deployed, she is getting evicted and can't afford to feed the baby.

 

This isn't some **** I'm pulling out of my ass.  These are real world situations I've dealt with.  BRAC amplified it.  

 

PB I was making overly general statements.  Go remove JSF and all of its supporting jobs from Pax River and see what happens.

 

I'm all for big cuts and systemic change.  That was one thing that excited me about Mattis.  We shouldn't be spending $30k on walkie talkies.  But people just arbitrarily calling for huge numbers with no thought of the broad domestic effects or the geopolitical effects like freedom of navigation or not adding any quality to the conversation.   *I'm guilty of this also, what happens to the employees who male those $30k radios.


This is also true for pretty much every other area of discretionary spending, all of which are open to cuts except the military, which is by far the largest and probably most wasteful chunk. Any cut (or increase) to anything will have third order effects, they aren’t a special feature of defense spending. Saying that some poor sailor who knocked up a stripper, to use your example, will have a harder time if the country doesn’t keep wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on some ****show of a project isn’t all that great of an argument. 😂 

 

Also, the stripper/wife of the sailor is subject to a lot of legal protections while hubby is deployed. 
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/consumer-tools/educator-tools/servicemembers/the-servicemembers-civil-relief-act-scra/

Edited by PleaseBlitz
  • Like 1
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Military spending should be for actually defending the country and not for propping up the local economy of where a military base is or where there’s a manufacturing plant for military hardware.

 

 

We should pull out of South Korea, let them defend themselves. Also, we should cut our NATO forces. If the Europeans can’t defend themselves against Russia, then let fall under Russian rule. 

  • Thumb down 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 88Comrade2000 said:

Military spending should be for actually defending the country and not for propping up the local economy of where a military base is or where there’s a manufacturing plant for military hardware.

 

Agreed

 

Just now, 88Comrade2000 said:

We should pull out of South Korea, let them defend themselves. Also, we should cut our NATO forces. If the Europeans can’t defend themselves against Russia, then let fall under Russian rule. 

 

Strongly disagree.  

 

Just for example, you think we should expect SK (and Japan?) to defend themselves from China?  

 

  • Thumb up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

Military spending should be for actually defending the country and not for propping up the local economy of where a military base is or where there’s a manufacturing plant for military hardware.

 

Delicious Tasty GIF - Delicious Tasty - Discover & Share GIFs

3 minutes ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

 

 

We should pull out of South Korea, let them defend themselves. Also, we should cut our NATO forces. If the Europeans can’t defend themselves against Russia, then let fall under Russian rule. 

 

Gross GIFs | Tenor

  • Like 1
  • Haha 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:


This is also true for pretty much every other area of discretionary spending, all of which are open to cuts except the military, which is by far the largest and probably most wasteful chunk. Any cut (or increase) to anything will have third order effects, they aren’t a special feature of defense spending. Saying that some poor sailor who knocked up a stripper, to use your example, will have a harder time if the country doesn’t keep wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on some ****show of a project isn’t all that great of an argument. 😂 

 

But they don't have the same effects as defense cuts.  And you haven't addressed the sudden withdrawal of massive amounts of funds from local communities or our diminished role as world police.  The poor Sailor just puts a face on the affects.  You bring up JSF but don't address the fact that we do need a next gen fighter and the systems designed around JSF (namely the supply system) should actually save money over time because our allied countries will now use the same parts.  So if there is WW3, we aren't constrained by our own supply capabilities. 

 

I'm gonna bold this next part because I feel like it may be getting missed.  I'm for smart, systemic changes but just complaining that we spend as much as the next nine countries without addressing the fact that we have created entire economies that rely on that waste is not a real discussion. 

Also, I just realized what thread we are in and we are so far off topic we all should get banned for life.  So I'll stop now.

Edited by TheGreatBuzz
Forgot to finish thought
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

But they don't have the same effects as defense cuts.  And you haven't addressed the sudden withdrawal of massive amounts of funds from local communities or our diminished role as world police.  The poor Sailor just puts a face on the affects.  You bring up JSF but don't address the fact that we do need a next gen fighter and the systems designed around JSF (namely the supply system) should actually save money over time because our allied countries will now use the same parts.  So if there is WW3, we aren't constrained by our own supply capabilities. 

 

They have the exact same effects, just a smaller scale because defense spending is so enormous compared to everything else aside from social security and medicare/medicaid.  That also makes it a good place to make actual cuts since, for example, cutting 10% of the IRS annual budget would save $1.4 billion dollars, about the cost of one (1) Virginia class submarine.  One boat.  Just to build it, not even to operate it.  Not to mention additional IRS funding MAKES the country money, but that is a different topic. 

 

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

I'm gonna bold this next part because I feel like it may be getting missed.  I'm for smart, systemic changes but just complaining that we spend as much as the next nine countries without addressing the fact that we have created entire economies that rely on that waste is not a real discussion. 

 

Also, I just realized what thread we are in and we are so far off topic we all should get banned for life.  So I'll stop now.

 

It's not getting missed.  "Smart systematic changes" i take to be a euphemism for "cutting the waste" which is what people always say when they don't want to actually make any meaningful cuts.  If you really mean that the defense budget should be on the table (which it currently is not) and people that have for-real expertise in defense spending pick the precise areas to make actual significant cuts (as opposed to dumb****s like me on an internet message board), then I totally agree with you.  Considerations for those cuts should not be "well it props up the local economy" or "IN THEORY this thing would be great to have."  It should be "this program does not ACTUALLY make us better prepared to fight a war/demolish another country/defend our territory in a way that justifies the cost."  I brought up the JSF as one example of a program that we've dumped a bajillion dollars into and it hasn't moved the needle for any of those considerations, and so the enormous cost is not justified.  Yet we continue to throw good money after bad, and a absolute ton of it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

They have the exact same effects, just a smaller scale because defense spending is so enormous compared to everything else aside from social security and medicare/medicaid.  That also makes it a good place to make actual cuts since, for example, cutting 10% of the IRS annual budget would save $1.4 billion dollars, about the cost of one (1) Virginia class submarine.  One boat.  Just to build it, not even to operate it.  Not to mention additional IRS funding MAKES the country money, but that is a different topic. 

 

 

It's not getting missed.  "Smart systematic changes" i take to be a euphemism for "cutting the waste" which is what people always say when they don't want to actually make any meaningful cuts.  If you really mean that the defense budget should be on the table (which it currently is not) and people that have for-real expertise in defense spending pick the precise areas to make actual significant cuts (as opposed to dumb****s like me on an internet message board), then I totally agree with you.  Considerations for those cuts should not be "well it props up the local economy" or "IN THEORY this thing would be great to have."  It should be "this program does not ACTUALLY make us better prepared to fight a war/demolish another country/defend our territory in a way that justifies the cost."  I brought up the JSF as one example of a program that we've dumped a bajillion dollars into and it hasn't moved the needle for any of those considerations, and so the enormous cost is not justified.  Yet we continue to throw good money after bad, and a absolute ton of it.  

 

Details should go in several different threads but I mean addressing the way things are done from top down.  How government contracts are given, cutting out the factory that makes those $500 screws when a $.50 one would do (but then realizing you probably have to spend more to soften the blow to the community).  Change the way deployments are done to put less strain on resources, encouraging (bullying if needed) other countries to either compe sate us more or provide more protection of areas that benefit them.  But also realizing the brilliance of the JSF as a system would in fact save so many resources.  VTOL makes us less dependent on carriers and thus reducing the money spent on them.  P-8 using what are essentially civilian airline engines has drastically reduced costs by having common engines with good supply vs having to produce space parts that only serve on old platform.  

 

You're right that JSF was just one of many possible examples. Make the other examples and we can debate their merits in the appropriate threads.  But there is often things that civilians just aren't aware of (not in the secret sense, just the exposure sense).

Edited by TheGreatBuzz
Spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:


citation needed

This'll keep you up a few nights.
The Kill Chain: Defending America in the Future of High-Tech Warfare
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=kill+chain+christian+brose&i=stripbooks&hvadid=580696632202&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9007689&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=11922344189084043752&hvtargid=kwd-996086464502&hydadcr=22566_13493360&tag=googhydr-20&ref=pd_sl_3utak94to_e

But i didnt get it from Amazon. I read it from the lending library in the Navy's F-18 program office. They seem to take it seriously enough.

And shoot, beyond that..  look at the panic it caused when a pipeline for fuel was shut off for a weekend a couple years ago. Capabilities already exist, and they sell to the highest bidders.
Googling "China Cyber Warfare" or "China Cyber Spying" will show you even more. Not much of the news is good. The potential for them to do grievous harm to the chain of command and American infrastructure before we can stop them is very serious.

 

~Bang

1 hour ago, @DCGoldPants said:

 

When he's dead and gone, I hope she is reminded of her toadying as someone with zero self respect. 

Nah, lets go the ancient route and bury his slave girls with him.

 

~Bang

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

P-8 using what are essentially civilian airline engines has drastically reduced costs by having common engines with good supply vs having to produce space parts that only serve on old platform.  

 

Recall for a while there, people were pointing out that for the price of a C-5, you can buy three cargo 747s.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Then go demand the results for the money spent, not just write it off as lost and move on.


The later is far cheaper and easier, which makes it the better option. If you “demand results” from Lockheed, they say “okay, just give us another $500 billion (but no guarantees).”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PleaseBlitz said:


The later is far cheaper and easier, which makes it the better option. If you “demand results” from Lockheed, they say “okay, just give us another $500 billion (but no guarantees).”

 

And that right there would be part of my systemic change.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US spends far too much on military hardware it doesn't need, like tanks rotting in desert storerooms and B2 bombers...things the military no longer asks for but Congress puts back into the budget; BUT, it doesn't spend nearly enough on things like artillery, cyber warfare development, research, personnel protection, etc. because fewer jobs are dependent on it, and it's not as sexy.  So, build a fleet of $2billion "stealth" bombers that are actually detected by old radar systems and can be brought down by a $40k manpad, while soldiers go out in personnel vehicles that didn't get protective plating against mines.

  • Like 2
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotta enjoy these tailgate conversations about how military spending can't be cut because the strippers what work the clubs around military bases will go hungry. Classic. 

 

Cut the defense spending and relocate the strippers to Tampa and Vegas. Maybe even include some subsides for them as well. 🤣

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Captain Wiggles said:

Gotta enjoy these tailgate conversations about how military spending can't be cut because the strippers what work the clubs around military bases will go hungry. Classic. 

 

Cut the defense spending and relocate the strippers to Tampa and Vegas. Maybe even include some subsides for them as well. 🤣

 

Pretty sure the strippers that currently work near military bases would go hungry if they tried to relocate to Vegas and be strippers.  

 

NOT THE VARSITY IS WHAT IM SAYING. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Pretty sure the strippers that currently work near military bases would go hungry if they tried to relocate to Vegas and be strippers.  

 

NOT THE VARSITY IS WHAT IM SAYING. 

 

There's always Onlyfans. 🤷‍♂️

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Totally agree it was a train wreck that it was but a vast sum of that money would still have been spent if the project and theory worked as planned.  So not so much of a saving as a better spending.

 

At least you're honest.  Care to justify your reasoning?  I'm curious if you understand the system or not also.


I was actually joking. I have no issue with you or have any desire to cut military benefits and disability. 
 

however, I will add, you certainly don’t appear to be struggling so if a hard conversation ever needed to take place, in a vacuum, I’d prefer taxpayer money be spread more evenly so if someone has to live slightly less comfortable so others that are actually struggling can eat, I’d make that trade 

 

But there are plenty of other far better places to get that money from, in the military and otherwise 

Edited by Momma There Goes That Man
  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:


I was actually joking. I have no issue with you or have any desire to cut military benefits and disability. 
 

however, I will add, you certainly don’t appear to be struggling so if a hard conversation ever needed to take place, in a vacuum, I’d prefer taxpayer money be spread more evenly so if someone has to live slightly less comfortable so others that are actually struggling can eat, I’d make that trade 

 

But there are plenty of other far better places to get that money from, in the military and otherwise 

 

I totally get what you're saying, especially considering the face I put forward on ES.  But there are lots of things that make me earn my money.  FWIW I'd give up every penny to be able to run more than 10 yards.  Or to remember what I did 20 minutes ago.  There are a lot of reasons we get compe sated the way we do.  I got 100% P+T my first time up amd still had numerous claims that weren't even factored yet.  Anyone who knows the system will tell you that you have to be ****ED up for that.  Just no reason to share it here.  If you'd like to meet me at a grocery store and you can experience it first hand, let me know.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...