The debt ceiling, cuts, etc...

• derek bomar

  

  A lot of discussion last night by MSNBC and Laurence O'Donnell about will Paul filibuster the vote to raise the debt ceiling, or will he simply vote no...they were arguing that on principle he would have to filibuster, but if he did there'd be all kinds of bad shit that'd happen (we default, gov'ts around the world go into chaos...
  
  When they would bring this up to any R that came on, they basically skirted the question and said that they hope to cut spending...blah blah blah. Problem is, like O'Donnell pointed it out, it's not a what-if scenario. The vote will happen in the next year, and it will need to be passed.
  
  I find it both interesting to see what he (Paul) and the Tea Party ilk will do with this and sad to know that we have to continually raise the debt ceiling every year or so...What really kind of pissed me off last night was when Marsha Blackburn was on last night (kinda hot btw) and Matthews was asking her what she planned on cutting to do anything significant to the debt, and she said "across the board cuts" with discretionary spending, but said she wouldn't touch entitlements and defense. So basically she was saying she and the R lead House and those in the Senate won't really accomplish anything in terms of lowering the debt or getting it under control.
  
  Why the fuck can't I find some politicians with a spine who will straight up tell us what specifically they'll cut to get the house in order? Discretionary spending cuts are fine and dandy, but they're relatively insignificant. I want someone to come in and say "we're closing x # of bases, tweaking these entitlement programs, and taxes are going to have to go up to where they were during Clinton", and I want him/her/them to be listened to. Where are these people? In two years, when the debt keeps expanding, the Tea Party better be willing to vote out the Rs they just voted in....nameen?
  
  Cool story bro.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I will be fine with raising taxes if spending is cut across the board, including entitlements and military.
  
  However, I would also want changes made, not just spending cuts. Lots of reform to do out there to keep our public servants busy and earn their keep.
  
  Let's not let them get comfy anymore!
  
  Oh and... cool story bro!
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  I think Writer made a compelling argument for raising the debt ceiling this one time yesterday. It is fine now, since it is relatively soon, but it must come with promises/ strings to reform and deep cuts in other areas.
• QuakerOats

  Where has Lawrence O'Donnell been for the past two years; why did he not get so beligerent in asking the very same debt ceiling question to the radical liberals who have been responsible for deficit spending into the trillions???!!!???!!!
  
  He made a complete fool of himself and I only wish Eric Cantor had said exactly that --- where have you been, jackass ???
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Republicans, I have found, are far too nice in these types of confrontational interviews -- for the most part. They never take the interviewers to task for their own hypocrisies.
  
  Any Democrat who dares question raising the debt ceiling in the near future, should be smacked down with having to explain their own actions and the damage they've caused all of us with the failed stimulus and related wastes of billions.
  
  On the other hand, I want to hear clear, concise plans coming from the Republicans about how they are going to bring down the deficit over the next 2-4 years, and expect it to include cuts in ALL phases of government, including entitlements and the military. And if it means drawing military forces back home (mostly) and closing a lot of European bases -- then let's start the process.
  
  At least some of those troops should be redeployed along the southern border of the US as a show of force to Mexico that we won't tolerate incursions by drug cartels -- and we reserve the right to go after threats to the safety of US citizens, even if it means pursuits into Mexico itself.
• derek bomar

  

  Writerbuckeye;543528 wrote:Republicans, I have found, are far too nice in these types of confrontational interviews -- for the most part. They never take the interviewers to task for their own hypocrisies.
  
  Any Democrat who dares question raising the debt ceiling in the near future, should be smacked down with having to explain their own actions and the damage they've caused all of us with the failed stimulus and related wastes of billions.

  I dont think he was questioning raising it; he was asking how they're going to vote (and specifically Paul) on it. O'Donnell knows it's going to be raised and has to be. I don't think that was the point - but I get what you're saying.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Writerbuckeye;543528 wrote:At least some of those troops should be redeployed along the southern border of the US as a show of force to Mexico that we won't tolerate incursions by drug cartels -- and we reserve the right to go after threats to the safety of US citizens, even if it means pursuits into Mexico itself.

  
  It will never happen. Remember, our President sides with Cheron in the belief that we're nothing but racist bigots when it comes to illegal Mexicans, crime and so on.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Oh you are no doubt right, Center -- but I'd love to see legislation authorizing such a troop deployment make its way to the presiden't desk, and force him to veto it outright. I know he's Commander in Chief so Congress may not be able to authorize such a thing. But I'd sure like to see them try so he'd be forced to say no in a very public way.
• majorspark

  

  Writerbuckeye;543528 wrote:At least some of those troops should be redeployed along the southern border of the US as a show of force to Mexico that we won't tolerate incursions by drug cartels -- and we reserve the right to go after threats to the safety of US citizens, even if it means pursuits into Mexico itself.

  This.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Writerbuckeye;543570 wrote:Oh you are no doubt right, Center -- but I'd love to see legislation authorizing such a troop deployment make its way to the presiden't desk, and force him to veto it outright. I know he's Commander in Chief so Congress may not be able to authorize such a thing. But I'd sure like to see them try so he'd be forced to say no in a very public way.

  
  I'd be interested to see/ hear how the Pentagon Brass and SECDEF Gates would react.
  
  I'm for troop redeployments, especially in Europe, but also have to take the generals view into consideration. Also, American withdraw could have some negative impact on our allies-ie Japan, South Korea, Turkey.
• derek bomar

  

  ptown_trojans_1;543623 wrote: I'm for troop redeployments, especially in Europe, but also have to take the generals view into consideration. Also, American withdraw could have some negative impact on our allies-ie Japan, South Korea, Turkey.

  
  Honestly...who cares?
• BGFalcons82

  

  Huh..let me see if I've got this right. Chris O'Donnell and his brethren on the Left are demanding specifics on how to not raise the debt ceiling? Why hasn't he asked his Progressive elitists in the Congress this very question before last night? Who is he to suddenly be worried about the debt? Hippocrite doesn't even come close to describing him. He's a bomb thrower who doesn't even know how to remove the pin properly.
  
  Derek Bomar -- Are you looking for a spine in Congress? Do you know that deficit-reducing plans have already been submitted in the House and spat upon? The plan to cut the deficit has already been enumerated, but since the Progressive Koolaid dulls the mind and causes complete and utter ignorance, they just deny it exists. Well...it did exist until it got tossed into the round can by Pelosi .003 nanoseconds after she received it. The plan to reduce the debt and spur growth was put together by Wisconsin's Paul Ryan. Here's the link if you want to read or equal EX-SPEAKER Pelosi's time spent looking at it - http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/Plan/
  
  That felt really good to type....EX-SPEAKER. Wonder if she'll fly on her quarter-million dollar/trip private airship on the taxpayer's expense anymore? You want deficit reduction? Congressmen fly on commercial aircraft or drive. NO MORE FREEBIES!
• derek bomar

  

  BGFalcons82;543683 wrote:Huh..let me see if I've got this right. Chris O'Donnell and his brethren on the Left are demanding specifics on how to not raise the debt ceiling? Why hasn't he asked his Progressive elitists in the Congress this very question before last night? Who is he to suddenly be worried about the debt? Hippocrite doesn't even come close to describing him. He's a bomb thrower who doesn't even know how to remove the pin properly.
  
  Derek Bomar -- Are you looking for a spine in Congress? Do you know that deficit-reducing plans have already been submitted in the House and spat upon? The plan to cut the deficit has already been enumerated, but since the Progressive Koolaid dulls the mind and causes complete and utter ignorance, they just deny it exists. Well...it did exist until it got tossed into the round can by Pelosi .003 nanoseconds after she received it. The plan to reduce the debt and spur growth was put together by Wisconsin's Paul Ryan. Here's the link if you want to read or equal EX-SPEAKER Pelosi's time spent looking at it - http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/Plan/
  
  That felt really good to type....EX-SPEAKER. Wonder if she'll fly on her quarter-million dollar/trip private airship on the taxpayer's expense anymore? You want deficit reduction? Congressmen fly on commercial aircraft or drive. NO MORE FREEBIES!

  
  No - you have this all kinds of back asswards
  
  They werent looking at all for specifics on how not to raise it in the upcoming cycle, they said it has to pass and will pass or else we face some otherworldy chaos. They wanted to know how Paul and other tea-party people would vote on it given that they vowed not to raise it, but must pass the vote in order to maintain order in the free world. FFS
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  derek bomar;543675 wrote:Honestly...who cares?

  
  Our allies.
  Japan and South Korea are afraid that a U.S. withdraw from the region will allow China to dominate, thereby limiting their government's ability to implement policy free of Chinese influence. My boss went to Japan earlier this year to talk to Japanese defense officials and they were really concerned about the U.S. commitment to the region and the fear China would dominate. Oh, yeah, there is also a potential leadership change in North Korea.
  
  In Europe, removal of too much U.S. presence will really put Turkey in an interesting position. If the Turks see the U.S. withdrawing their presence too much, they may, in response to Iran, take their own independent policy and perhaps build their own nuclear weapons and leave NATO.
  Not to mention our Eastern European allies, whop provide logistics in Afghanistan, fear a U.S. withdraw will allow Russia to sweep in and take back influence lost in the 1990s.
  
  I'm for limited withdraws, but the U.S. power and the strategic stability of Europe and Asia are linked to U.S. commitments overseas.
• derek bomar

  

  ptown_trojans_1;543693 wrote:Our allies.
  Japan and South Korea are afraid that a U.S. withdraw from the region will allow China to dominate, thereby limiting their government's ability to implement policy free of Chinese influence. My boss went to Japan earlier this year to talk to Japanese defense officials and they were really concerned about the U.S. commitment to the region and the fear China would dominate. Oh, yeah, there is also a potential leadership change in North Korea.
  
  In Europe, removal of too much U.S. presence will really put Turkey in an interesting position. If the Turks see the U.S. withdrawing their presence too much, they may, in response to Iran, take their own independent policy and perhaps build their own nuclear weapons and leave NATO.
  Not to mention our Eastern European allies, whop provide logistics in Afghanistan, fear a U.S. withdraw will allow Russia to sweep in and take back influence lost in the 1990s.

  
  And why is that our problem? If we leave, and shit happens, we can step back in...but I see no reason whatsoever we have to be everywhere at every second defending everyone against boogie men that may or may not exist.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  derek bomar;543695 wrote:And why is that our problem? If we leave, and shit happens, we can step back in...but I see no reason whatsoever we have to be everywhere at every second defending everyone against boogie men that may or may not exist.

  
  Short answer: This is not 1941 and the loss of American influence in economic and strategic areas like Asia and Europe has long term U.S. diplomatic, economic and strategic implications. Strategic stability, especially with a rising China is important. Maintaining Japan as a counterweight to Chinese power is very important and the Japanese feel that U.S., not just forces, but dialogue, joint exercises, etc. is really, really important to them.
  
  In Europe, Turkey has expressed in NATO meetings, strong language on U.S. commitment to NATO, especially against Iran.
  
  Reducing forces, like the U.S. base in Okinawa slwoly may be one answer, but the U.S. cannot and should not step back completely from those regions. For the sake of long term geopolitical American security, it would be unwise to remove U.S. influence.
• derek bomar

  

  ptown_trojans_1;543754 wrote:Short answer: This is not 1941 and the loss of American influence in economic and strategic areas like Asia and Europe has long term U.S. diplomatic, economic and strategic implications. Strategic stability, especially with a rising China is important. Maintaining Japan as a counterweight to Chinese power is very important and the Japanese feel that U.S., not just forces, but dialogue, joint exercises, etc. is really, really important to them.
  
  In Europe, Turkey has expressed in NATO meetings, strong language on U.S. commitment to NATO, especially against Iran.
  
  Reducing forces, like the U.S. base in Okinawa slwoly may be one answer, but the U.S. cannot and should not step back completely from those regions. For the sake of long term geopolitical American security, it would be unwise to remove U.S. influence.

  
  So...Asia is a strategic area because why? We expect China to invade someone? You really think they're gonna do that? Economically, we can fucking teleconference people. It's the 21st century. Negotiations can take place via a muffuckin computer.
  
  We really can't afford to be everyone's baby sitter. We have a deterrent already for Iran not fucking with people...it's called we'll bomb you if you do. We don't need to have a base in the area to do that.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  derek bomar;543767 wrote:So...Asia is a strategic area because why? We expect China to invade someone? You really think they're gonna do that? Economically, we can fucking teleconference people. It's the 21st century. Negotiations can take place via a muffuckin computer.
  
  We really can't afford to be everyone's baby sitter. We have a deterrent already for Iran not fucking with people...it's called we'll bomb you if you do. We don't need to have a base in the area to do that.

  Invade, probably not, but slowly exert force and influence Japan, probably. Just look at the the recent island controversy between Japan and China.
  
  I know we can't afford it and I think we can influence in other ways other than just troops, say exercises, consultations, defense agreements, etc.
  Iran, yes we can exert deterrence, but we don't want Turkey to get the bomb and they may if they feel the U.S. is withdrawing.
  
  It is something that DoD officials constantly bring up if you listen to the lower department heads, like Michael Schiffer Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for East Asia.
• derek bomar

  

  ptown_trojans_1;543776 wrote:Invade, probably not, but slowly exert force and influence Japan, probably. Just look at the the recent island controversy between Japan and China.
  
  I know we can't afford it and I think we can influence in other ways other than just troops, say exercises, consultations, defense agreements, etc.
  Iran, yes we can exert deterrence, but we don't want Turkey to get the bomb and they may if they feel the U.S. is withdrawing.
  
  It is something that DoD officials constantly bring up if you listen to the lower department heads, like Michael Schiffer Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for East Asia.

  
  I bet you 1000 internets Iran doesn't do anything stupid that can be linked back to them if we leave
  
  Seriously though, you can't really be arguing that in order to prevent China from influencing our allies, we have to borrow from China to protect our allies, are you?
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  derek bomar;543785 wrote:I bet you 1000 internets Iran doesn't do anything stupid that can be linked back to them if we leave
  
  Seriously though, you can't really be arguing that in order to prevent China from influencing our allies, we have to borrow from China to protect our allies, are you?

  
  Well, it depends. I mean Iran could do a lot of things in the near and medium terms, both in terms of symmetric and asymmetric responses. I doubt they will, but in terms of foreign policy wise, it would be foolish to not establish a defensive perimeter that involves conventional deterrence with allies in the region. That can include U.S. forces, but also U.S. defense contracts to say Saudi Arabia and a reassurance to Turkey that if things go bad, we have their back and they don't need nukes.
  
  As to China, I'm saying we need to maintain some sort of strong presence in the region. Now, we can reduce our forces slowly, but naval bases, exercises and efforts like the Proliferation Security Initiative need maintained.
  
  Broader picture of defense spending, it does need to go down, by a lot. But, most of that spending is DoD healthcare and personal spending (around 60-70% according to Jaques Gansler), so fixing the DoD healthcare structure and reducing forces overseas, slowly, is one way to lower costs. Also, then we can start to implement the policies that Gates articulated at the start of the year.
  
  Force reductions I'd support right now-most of the ones in Germany, most of the ones in South Korea, most of the ones in Japan, all in Latin/ Central America, and most around the Persian Gulf, save the Navy.
• derek bomar

  

  ptown_trojans_1;543797 wrote:
  As to China, I'm saying we need to maintain some sort of strong presence in the region. Now, we can reduce our forces slowly, but naval bases, exercises and efforts like the Proliferation Security Initiative need maintained.
  
  Broader picture of defense spending, it does need to go down, by a lot. But, most of that spending is DoD healthcare and personal spending (around 60-70% according to Jaques Gansler), so fixing the DoD healthcare structure and reducing forces overseas, slowly, is one way to lower costs. Also, then we can start to implement the policies that Gates articulated at the start of the year.
  
  Force reductions I'd support right now-most of the ones in Germany, most of the ones in South Korea, most of the ones in Japan, all in Latin/ Central America, and most around the Persian Gulf, save the Navy.

  
  Why though? Why do we care if they exert influence? Isn't that what we are doing? Who says we can be the only ones allowed to do that? And seriously, borrowing from them in order to prevent them from doing something is about as dumb a "strategy" as I can think of. We're literally giving them the power to exert influence over us instead of our allies in the name of helping our allies. It's fucking re-tar-ded
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  derek bomar;543807 wrote:Why though? Why do we care if they exert influence? Isn't that what we are doing? Who says we can be the only ones allowed to do that? And seriously, borrowing from them in order to prevent them from doing something is about as dumb a "strategy" as I can think of. We're literally giving them the power to exert influence over us instead of our allies in the name of helping our allies. It's fucking re-tar-ded

  
  If you can find a way or propose a way to reassure he Japanese and South Korea that China exerting political, military and economic influence is not a bad thing, then great. But, the reality of the geopolitical situation there is the U.S. is needed to bolster against Chinese influence. No one, and I mean no one, in the region wants a more aggressive China. Just over the weekend, the U.S. and Vietnam (Vietnam!) are going to sign military cooperation and nuclear energy transfer agreements because the Vietnamese fear China more than the U.S. The Japanese are scared to death of what a rising China means to the Pacific and the world economy.
  
  Why should we care? Because, it has the potential to upset the very nature of the geopolitical and economic foundation established in the last 50 years. A world which China has more power in the region, is a China the U.S. and other regional states do not want to even think about.
  
  Therefore, the policy is to firm relations and reassure allies in the region, both with limited troops and limited maritime exercises.
  
  Yes, the policy of borrowing money is awful, and we do need to really start reducing it. But, we need to multitask as well. It is a complex issue.
• derek bomar

  

  ptown_trojans_1;543824 wrote:If you can find a way or propose a way to reassure he Japanese and South Korea that China exerting political, military and economic influence is not a bad thing, then great. But, the reality of the geopolitical situation there is the U.S. is needed to bolster against Chinese influence. No one, and I mean no one, in the region wants a more aggressive China. Just over the weekend, the U.S. and Vietnam (Vietnam!) are going to sign military cooperation and nuclear energy transfer agreements because the Vietnamese fear China more than the U.S. The Japanese are scared to death of what a rising China means to the Pacific and the world economy.
  
  Why should we care? Because, it has the potential to upset the very nature of the geopolitical and economic foundation established in the last 50 years. A world which China has more power in the region, is a China the U.S. and other regional states do not want to even think about.
  
  Therefore, the policy is to firm relations and reassure allies in the region, both with limited troops and limited maritime exercises.
  
  Yes, the policy of borrowing money is awful, and we do need to really start reducing it. But, we need to multitask as well. It is a complex issue.

  
  we leave, china influences things...if we stay, they eventually influence things anyway, just not right now. Right?
• I Wear Pants

  Not that simple.