E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
A group of hawkish Republican senators announced new legislation Wednesday to prevent billions of dollars of defense cuts called for after the supercommittee failed to reach agreement.
GOP Sens. Jon Kyl (AZ), John McCain (AZ), Lindsey Graham (SC) and Kelly Ayotte (NH) said this morning they will introduce legislation in January to keep the commitment to find $1.2 trillion more in government savings, but sparing defense funding in the meanwhile by looking to other parts of the government to slash spending.
"We will have a plan, we'll have it in January and I hope our colleagues would heed the words of our Secretary of Defense, of our service chiefs and every military expert that I know that cuts of this magnitude will put our nation's national security at risk," McCain said at a press conference on Capitol Hill.
Sen. Jon Kyl said it would be "impossible" to cut $600 billion from the Defense Department without harming national security.
"We wanted to make it clear what our intention is so that there is absolutely no doubt in anybody's mind that the across the board [cuts] to defense spending will not have to happen," Kyl said.
Whether the legislation advances is another story. And even if it did, President Obama has threatened to veto any attempt to undo the so-called "sequester" of cuts contained as part of the supercommittee agreement.
Sen. Graham called the idea of across-the-board defense cuts as the consequence of the super committee failure "ill-conceived". Sen. McCain called it "idiotic".
"It offends the hell out of me," Graham said, "these men and women have really gone out of their way to protect all of us."
"When you get Congressional leaders saying lets gut the military, put thousands of people at risk in terms of being kicked out. If you are going to fire anybody, fire us! And keep the soldiers," he said.
The senators said that the Defense Department is already planning for $450 billion cuts over the next ten years as a result of the debt ceiling deal and they could not absorb another $600 in cuts.
Where would they find the savings to replace the defense cuts? Kyl said there were savings identified by the supercommittee and by the Biden group that might go into the legislation. He said he was hoping this would be a bipartisan exercise.
Ayotte said, "We shouldn't subjugate our national security for our failure to do our jobs."
Leave a Comment:
Here ya go senators ...write your personal checks or shut the frig up ! Lets see about 43 billion to start ..its your move ! Show America how patriotic you all are !
Where would they find the savings to replace the defense cuts? Kyl said there were savings identified by the supercommittee and by the Biden group that might go into the legislation.''
Anybody want to bet $10,000 that those cuts come out of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security?
While discussing this matter we should try to keep in mind that these cuts were the result of Republicans taking the country hostage via the debt ceiling vote. Also too, the debt ceiling hostage taking was unprecedented in American history.
Another factoid we should all remember: The United States spends as much on defense as the rest of the world combined.
The President has already said he would veto any attempt to modify the automatic cuts and they take effect before a new congress or a new President (not likely) takes office.
There is no way there are enough votes to override his veto and wouldn’t this be a reversal of Conservative desire to reduce the deficit and long term debt. It would show they are not serious about deficit reduction {period}.
Silly posturing.
Economic reality, like being broke, sucks.
I hear the new Omnibus for next year raises the amounts spent, and therefore the deficit.
They don't get it. None of them apparently.
Everything, including defense [or perhaps, especially defense] needs to be cut way back.
You simply cannot live forever so far beyond your means. Not on a personal basis. Not on a business basis, and not on a national basis.
Besiedes it time for Germany, now that it is the boss of Europe, to start paying for its own defense.
Man, 2012-2016 is going to be an ugly time.
May the dear Lord forgive me for what I am about to say. Spanks, you are rrr, ahem, rrrrr, okay one more try, rrright about the cuts - and possibly Germany and the European Union taking more responsibility.
Time for my medication now.
Quick someone get me a weather report from Hell. I actually agree with Spanky.
Holy crap Spanky, that was a remarkably well thought out post. And no, I'm not being sarcastic.
LOL, Spanky is Right on that one. what is our mission in Germany? Drink German beer? WWII is over (I think). :)
Given that the odds the supercommittee would fail were huge, why did Kyl let Boehner and McConnell make the deal in the first place?
And why has he waited till now to start crowing about it?
I'll tell you why. It's because they wanted to be able to use "national security" to drive a wedge in order to force agreement on cuts to "entitlements."
If anyone ever felt more "entitled," than the military industrial complex, I would be surprised.
But I sincerely doubt that concern over national security has much of anything to do with it.
Bombs! Bombs! Bombs! We want more and more of them! Nothing for the citizens of this country! Nothing for the country's infrastructure. Bombs! Bombs! Bombs! Give us more! To hell with the deficit! Bombs 'R Us!
Any one want to share in the meds? We are in agreement with the Spanksters!
Ah, Christmas is a magical season.
Didn't y'all hear? Presidential Wanna-Be Michele Bachmann says that Russia is part of a "New Axis of Evil"!
Besides, we still need Germany to launch bombers and tend to the wounded if the Neo-Con Chickenhawks get their way and start the party in Iran!
I too, had to hold my nose and give Spanky an up vote, maybe we've converted him.
Spanky, repeat after me... "I love President Obama, he's doing the right thing by sticking to his principles."
After all, it was the Republicans that got us into the debt ceiling debacle in the first place, then decided to continue the hostage taking in the super committee.
nisl, good points.
This was agreed to by republicans and democrats as part of the GOP manufactured debt-ceiling crisis which had they simply raised it, we wouldn't be discussing $650 billiion in "forced" defense cuts. Then the GOP again refused to compromise and raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires to avoid it--these GOP yahoos made their own bed, and now they want to un-do what Boehner and pals said was 99% of what they wanted. The GOPTP has no shame.
Holy smoke, Spanky--well said!!!!
Why do they not even consider any increases in taxes to pay for additional defense? And why did they not press the Super Committee to reach an agreement? The Democrats have made compromise offers---why can't they?
phancy,
I thought your suggestion was to play nice next Wednesday!
Oh, well, it's the holiday season.....
I have a good friend in the Air Force that has been stationed in Germany for quite a while. He loves it, especially the beer!
I'd love to say we should close down this base or that base, but I'm no military expert. I've heard that some of the bases actually pay for themselves, but I find that hard to believe. Does anyone know of a nonpartisan source for information regarding the costs of our overseas bases and the rationale for said bases?
@chilled
Just getting some practice in now, I guess! LOL
@nisl
Another question is how many bases do we have in Europe now, and how many, legitimately do we need? I do know the base in Sardinia (it was a NATO base) is now closed and they made it into a national park (Mr. phinephancy was stationed there - wonderful place)
Wow! I just agreed with and voted for something Spanky wrote! I guess Hell is going to freeze over next!
Now back to our regularly scheduled programing.
Gee, Spanky, with all these compliments you must be feeling tingly all over! ("I did it! I did it! I did it! They love me over there at FR!"). Seriously, it's a good point, and I'm glad there is at least one thing we're in agreement on.
Let's take phinephancy's request seriously and go for more!
My guess? The rationale is probably mostly old treaties, and the desire to ensure that countries like Germany and Japan did not re-arm themselves. And any expansion of our presence in Europe was no doubt cold-war driven.
Spanky, are you feeling okay? That was very "Progressive" of you.
Obama's own Secretary of Defense, when asked if the cuts would be equivelant to us shooting ourselves in the foot, replied no ... its equivelant to shooting ourselves in the head.
And all the libs cheer!
Debt ceiling hostage?
Coming from the party can't even do a budget .... lol.
Btw - Seems that there is something in the Constittuion about the role of the federal government... is there something in the Constitution that comes before National Defense?
Free birth contol for Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian come before that?
And besides who needs for our guys to have the best equipment and training?
See Spanky? That wasn't so hard, now was it?
...c'mere ya big oaf...nuggies coming your way, counselor...
...back off booby...we're having a moment...
Another numbered Bob is NOT feeling the holiday cheer. :(
Suddenly, these chicken hawks, along with the senile McCain, realize that boxing in a budget just might not be a good idea. Will that revelation have a lasting impact to the extent that these same dolts recognize that a balanced budget amendment is an incredibly stupid idea? Might they understand there is a reason the government must have flexibility?
The defense budget must be cut. There is absolutely no defense for continued production of the F-35, the ill-conceived fighter/bomber/recon/interceptor/AND it mows-your-lawn aircraft. We don't need more aircraft carriers, more submarines, more bases on foreign soil.
Moderate right, moderate left, and center, all know the budget must be cut and that revenues must be raised. Let these warmongers roast in the fire they built - cut, cut, cut. We will all be better off in many ways, when we start hacking the defense budget, and there's plenty more to go.
The republican party is all guns and no butter. They never were serious about the economy, were they? That party is a national disgrace, the party for the wealthy, not the suckers who vote with them.
Mickey,
That was the funniest thing I've read all day!
Defense does need to be cut and it's the corporations that have created the problem. When your allowed to "low bid" the contract and then jack it up with change orders and cost over runs.
we don't need the F-35 Stike Fighter - it's already out of date - when China got the plans for it. For the price of one F-22 Raptor, you can have a complete combat squadrons of F-16s and F-18s and their still far better than anything China has on the drawing board. When it comes to a shooting war, having an airplane that takes two years to build and parts made all over the world isn't going to be good.
Same with the "Super Carriers" at any giving time three of them are out of service (standing down for over haul cycle, in overhaul cycle or training up for deployment) Need smaller carriers that can deploy faster. Yes one carrier with 100 combat planes is impressive off the coast of Iran, but two carriers with 50 planes each, allows you to cover Iran and deploy to any other crisis that pops up.
As to the comment "Our troops having the best equipment...." the contract isn't based on whos sells the best equipment, but who has the best lobbyist and birbing which Congressmember, er, I mean contributing to that congressmember's campaign.
Absolutely right, the good fairy will take care us .... and besides we all know all you have to do is toss a bucket of water on an evil witch and she will melt faster Feisty folding to a JAS1 reply.
Really David?
Because it is Peace on Earth on time?
Over 3,000 of years of warfare and it is all hunky dory now that libs say they don't like war?
Cool ...... Super Duper Cool.
@Al,
There are also new versions of the F-15 that were designed for the export market but would work for our airforce as well. The Airforce is driving a lot of tired old airplanes right now that need to be replaced, but I agree, the F-35 isn't the answer. More F-15's is not much of a compromise. They have never been shot down by the enemy air to air and have always come out on top against enemy planes. We need new planes but we have to be practical about what is affordable as well.
Yep, the F-15 is pretty cool.
I love 1967 Mustangs too.
Is the stuff on the Russian and Chinese drawing boards 45 year old technology?
Hey, Bob,
If I say "right", you'll say "left". If I say "up", you'll say "down". If I say "over there", you'll say "over here". If I say "night", you'll say "day".
Do I have that right?
@Bob
When the price of a weapon system is cost prohibitive and you can only afford a few copies of them, it is an ineffective weapon system. Exhibit one is the F-22, and exhibit two is the F-35. If we can only afford few hundred planes it will not do the job.
Just for the record, if you had read Spanky's comments regarding the economy and deficit for the past several months you would realize that this is the same thing he has been saying all along.
Spanky, I know you wouldn't say it, so I did.
I've said for a while now that I bet we agree on more things than most here think.
Spending more than you take in is an easy one. It doesn't make sense
The hard part is one side thinks we should spend less, the other side thinks we should take in more.
Problem is taking in more has a cap. Spending less does too.
Must be somewhere to meet in the middle.
In a "real air war" and if your replacements take 2 to 3 years to make - your screwed. For the price of one F-22 raptor, you can have a full combat ready squadron of NEW F-16s or F-18s and still match or exceed any other air force in the world.
The equipment that really needs to be looked at and upgraded is the M-1 Battle Tank (30 years old) artillery and air defense weapons.
Well actually WCA I would say it.
And it kinda shows that for all our agruing, we are far more alike than not. And that's why we can avoid the Europe hole.
Listen gang I'm glad you all liked or agreed with my post, but I fear it is only because it addressed the defense budget.
What I said was not progressive in the least. In fact it is about as conservative as you can get.
Me, I can not about social issues. In fact I'm of the Lil Wayne camp - if it's in my cup it ain't any of your damn business. You leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. It's why I'm far more apt to agree with Ron Paul than Bachmann.
But this stuff [at least the stuff I care about] are fiscal issues. We must start spending less than we bring in. So hell yes let's cut defense, but we are going to have to cut everything else, including all entitlement programs.
My simple solution is to say we got $2.5 trillion, We will therefore spend $2.2 Trillion. Everything gets cut.
See - all those fuzzy warm feeling are gone now, right?
I posed this last week, but went home before I got an answer - if the gov were to magically raise $4 trillion next year, how much would they spend?
See, I have no doubt it'd be $4.5 trillion. They just cannot help it.
bob 180:
Bob, you simply must keep up with the news. Larry Craig is no longer in the senate and Sharon Angle simply self-destructed - no need for water.
Now, as both Wayne and Al have correctly pointed out, the cost of the super-duper F-22's and F-35's are cost prohibitive. They didn't mention the down time that will result from an inadequate supply of spare parts and a serious drop in the proficiency of support personnel.
The idea that China would attack the U.S. is laughable. First, we owe them some serious bucks, and secondly, they would be destroying a great deal of their collateral. Hello bob, anybody home? No national power has any interest in serious warfare.
Oh yeah, check out Jack at 1.34. He's got your number.
Wayne and Al,
I completely understand your points, sorry if I sounded harsh.
In WW II, while the P-51 could not compete with the high tech Me-262, we had such numbers advantage with P-51s in the air that we could sit on their airfields and shoot the jets down when they were most vulnerable - as they tried to land or take-off.
The Sherman was no match for the German Panther, Tiger or Royal Tiger. Yet we prevailed because of the simplicity and low cost to build the Sherman. He out built Germany and overwhelmed them with sheer numbers - had enough Shermans to find the rear of the Panthers / Tigers.
Both cases support your positions.
But it is very tricky.
What would have happened if Hitler had put the Me-262 into service earlier, if we had not been able to gain air superiority, if we had not been able to drain their oil supply / destroy the manufacturing of the Panthers and Swallows?
Our military superiority is based on incredible, well trained individuals and employing vastly technologically superior systems.
Too abandon technological advances would doom us, or at the very least - a great number of service members.
Btw - the Abrams M1A2 is being upgraded with TUSK and I believe the M1A3 is in development.
Spanky, the fuzzy feeling is still there, because in fact, you are right! They made the promise of automatic cuts and now they reap what they sow. Nobody and I mean NOBODY wants to accept cuts to their budget, I wasn't happy about my 2 year pay freeze, but I voted to accept it (through my evil union) because it was better in the long run...less pink slips. Make a promise, keep a promise.
@David Walker,
Thanks for pointing out my omissions. You are right. This is not WWII where we could pour out thousands of planes a year. The F-22 was built by contractors in almost every state, complicating the source of spares as well as increasing the price. It was a tough program to kill politically though.
[Just for the record, if you had read Spanky's comments regarding the economy and deficit for the past several months you would realize that this is the same thing he has been saying all along.]
Yes, but you miss the point that it was WITHOUTthe obligatory snipe. We can all do without that.
[See - all those fuzzy warm feeling are gone now, right?]
Not at all. There is something to be said for keeping things civil...
Bob,
The problem is that the numbers of aircraft they are speaking of procuring is too low due to high unit cost. It is unfair to bring up WWII aircraft as a comparison. The unit cost of any of them, jets or prop jobs is not remotely comparable to what we are talking about today with the F-22 and F35. Apples and oranges.
Good one Spanky. You got my vote on that.
Does 'anyone' want a bottle blonde fellatrix as First Lady?
Hummnnn. Thought not, well 'cept Newt, who can always find another or borrow one.
well, Spanky, I think we do the 'Belgium'.
Congresses not in session can't spend money. Send them all home, for a few years and let the country run on autopilot. Everything expires, and lo and behold the debt crisis resolves itself :) Just like in Belgium.
David,
Pretty good.
The fact is that the only thing capable of defeating the next generation air defenses - of gaining air superiority - is the F-22.
Funny, the F-35 monitors itself, diagnoses a problem and will order a part before the plane lands.
Yea they are very expensive, freedom ain't cheap - have to make tough decisions.
The generation of fighters will obviously be drones, but they aren't here.
You are right, just like they were about Japan - when Japan felt we threatened their interest in the Pacific.
Btw - you are not aware of their development of ballistic carrier-killing missiles (what country is kinda big into carriers), their lauching new carriers (updatde for Dav - they have never had a carrier before), testing of their F-22 knock-off ... bad crap happening Dav.
Here the one about them telling the navy to get ready for war?
What do think about Putin and Russia? They sure have been fuzzy little bears lately, huh?
Spoken like a true lib, Neville.
Jack in TheMouth has - 1805084?
Nice talking to you Dav. Btw- About ready for some regulations stuff?
I've worked with those planes before!
Let me give you a skinny so you can go beat your wardrum to someone who won't call you on it.
The F-22 was discontinued because it breaks. Every time you fly it. It breaks. It's crap.
F-35 has the same problem. We've yet to perform a positive test with the same plane twice.
Freedom apparently isn't worth something that 'works'.
China is more worried about us than we need to be about them. They don't have a rocket system which can deposit a thermo-nuclear warhead in the US with any degree of accuracy. we do. We also have quite a bit in South Korea and Japan, and a derelict but still useable set of bases in the Philippines. If I didn't know better, I'd think they were afraid of being encircled...
The Chinese Jengdu J-20 (the 'F-22 knockoff') is even worse than our F-22. The one that can't stay in the air and breaks? That one. Their state-run media will have you believing all sorts of craziness if you let them(there's one born every minute, yeah?)
Putin and Russia are barely staving off famine while holding 'fair' elections. If protests weren't ripping their country apart right now, you might have something to stand on.
Bottom Line?
Go elseware, pundit, and take your fear-mongering and drumbeating with you.
Thanks Teknishan. That should be the end of that strand.
Wayne,
You don't think the politics of that decision doesn't contribute to the fantastic price?
Asinine.
We can't afford politicians and their pork games anymore. Get rid of these guys and put in guys that can manage the country - not their re-elections.
The numbers they are talking about procuring are too low due to the high cost?
Really?
How many F-117 squadrons do we have?
How many Americans would have been killed trying to carrying out the 117 missions?
What are we going to be flying in 30 more years?
How much will they cost?
Btw - the P-51 / Sherman analogy was spot on in supporting your argument, sorry you missed the point.
Oh well Teknishan,
It should have been the end of that strand.
F-22s break everytime you fly one?
That sounds credible.
Does Japan know the F-35 cannot do 2 positive tests in a row?
I thought I heard they just bought a bunch.
Maybe you should contact them on their Facebook page.
Perhaps Japan can sell them on ebay.
Wow. Okay, I'll keep smacking you down on this thread, then.
JAPAN DOESN'T HAVE F-35's.
They're making the decision on whether to even join the plan next week. Holy cow, at least be credible with your arguments!
Unlike the other nations, which have 'yet to receive their order'.
Uk, Italy, Netherlands, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Turkey, Israel, Singapore
It hasn't shipped yet, kimo-sabi(see what I did there, where you brought up japan? Totally threw in something japenese-ish).
That should do it, but.....................
tontoshan,
The Ft.Worth dealership has them in what ever color you want.
Tell them to ask for Rick.
I've posted these stats before, but they are salient to the topic being discussed.
Our defense budget is roughly the same as the amount spent by the rest of the world combined on their military budgets. We would be able to cut our defense spending by 25% and we would still match the spending of the next 10 countries combined.
We cannot afford...and more importantly, we do not need...such a gigantic military machine.
http://www.globalfirepower.com/defense-spending-budget.asp
Well stated Wayne. As was shown during WW2, the volume of vehicles makes a far greater impact than having the most expensive weapon, but only a small amount of them. The Russian T72 and the Sherman tank both, were vastly less "sexy" than the Panthers and Tigers of the Nazis, but were far more effective just by sheer volume alone.
The USA and USSR were able to defeat German technology just by strength of numbers. A handful of superior weapons may look good, but is far more costly to both produce, and lose in battle.
The F16/18 is still able to hold its own, even with its dated technology, just because of the vast quantities still in service. Faster to produce, cheaper, ease of repair, and service life, mean far more than a few billion plus dollar stealth bombers are worth. It may be exceptional at what it does, but is extremely lacking when it vies against other aircraft in the "best bang for the buck" category.
Our military budget could be cut by over 70% without endangering the USA. Cutting the MIC and the politicians who profit from it, wouldn't hurt the military hardly any, if we weren't constantly out sabre rattling and empire building. Any politician from ANY party, who tries to undo the automatic budget cuts to the military, should be booted from office and investigated for criminal activities that include both possible bribes/donations and possible war mongering.
"The Russian T72 and the Sherman tank..."
The T-72 entered production in 1970. I believe you are referring to the T-34.
Carry on.
phinephancy-4252115 @#1.4
AWWW Phine... I'm proud of ya girl!!:-)
Please don't take too much that stuff can kill ya....;-)
I thought the comparison between the Sherman and Tiger to be a good one..... however it doesn't take into account the vulnerability of the "high tech" of today's equipment. Everything relies upon multiple computers, "fly by wire" and satellite GPS coordination. Which China could render useless with nukes, but not striking the US, but setting them off in the atmosphere and space, the created EMP (electromechanical pulse) would fry electronics, crash our power grid and take out our "high tech" advantage. There are other ways to create the EMP without nukes, but the nukes are the easiest to use if you have them.
The point is, defense still needs to be cut and we need to get the most "bang for the buck" when you have congress being "wined and dined" by defense contractors, you not getting the best for our troops.
Yes, China has an aircraft carrier, still not a real threat to the US Navy for the next 5-10 years as they still have many years of learning about combined air /sea operations and tactics and there is at least one US sub shadowing it when it puts to sea.
The defense budget could be cut 10 to 15% and if done wisely - it wouldn't hurt our security. But contractors would rather cut soldier's pay then to see their "pet project" get scrapped.
But enough of my rambling.
they will do anything to protect the monies they recieve from the military complex, but they will do nothing for all of our suffering citizens? yes this is the republican party!
Instead of strutting around like a preening peacock, Kyl should ask John Boehner and Mitch McConnell exactly why they made that deal in the first place.
After all, it was Boehner who said he got 98 percent of what he wanted out of that deal.
You don't suppose he was being disingenuous, do you?
Okay, Anna Molly. Where would YOU put the orange man in the Shakespearean theatre?
Too easy. Falstaff. Those whom he believed to be his friends have all abandoned him to drink alone.
And Eric Cantor in the role of Henry Hotspur Percy, but without the honor.
Bravo! Bravo! AM, if you want to give up your day job, you could always go into central casting!!!!
Sorry but, these has been old vultures are out of gas!
Psst... Lindsey, you & your ilk with your political posturing offends the hell out of me!
Mr. President, make sure your VETO pen is handy! ;o)
Feisty,
These are the same guys that never met a war they didn't like! And if they can't find an exisiting war, well, heck, let's just go start a new one!
"If you are going to fire anybody, fire us! And keep the soldiers"!
Great idea Lindsey...'cause ya'll aren't worth it, with those salaries 3 to 4 times what the average soldier makes!...
Oh, for the power of the Donald, to go up to these guys and say "You're Fired!" (But without having a squirrel on my head.)
"It offends the hell out of me," Graham said, "these men and women have really gone out of their way to protect all of us."
It offends the Hell out of me that Boehner and the Republicans walked out on budget talks with Obama that had the potential to cut over $4 trillion from the deficit simply because they wanted to protect their tax breaks for the oil companies, corporate jets and luxury yachts. It offends me that they want the middle class and seniors to do all the heavy lifting while refusing to have the 1%ers pay the same tax rates they had under Clinton in which they did pretty well under. So Lindsay, either get to the table with a balanced approach to cutting the deficit or man up and eat your peas and accept the sequester.
Attention FR fans. Next Wednesday morning on First Thoughts I propose a cease fire for the morning to exchange PLEASANT holiday thoughts. Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, winter solstice or dancing naked in the full moon, people during the end of the year try and spend a few minutes together pleasantly. It is a tradition that has been going on as long as time.
So, if you approve, just let me know!
That'd be Festivus.
Nice intent, but if you did that there would be many here that would be unable to post at all.
And where's the fun in that phinep?
Festivus!
Please try. For one morning. Promise it won't hurt too much.
I have my unadorned aluminum Festivus pole proudly displayed on my front porch. It must be aluminum because of its impressive strength to weight ratio.
phinephancy, sounds good to me.
Chucky, please bring your aluminum pole to the party. Makes a nice addition to my electric Flamingo - named Clarence.
Very nice phancy!
Next Wednesday, it is..
....Practice Random Acts of Kindness!
Will do phancy.
Well... I not sure about the random acts of kindness but..."dancing naked in the full moon" I could go for that!
Actually it sounds good to me. I'm in.
I would suggest naked dancing in a warm weather climate, though. Certain things can shrivel up in the cold climates!
...count me in...but NO GUNS!
No guns, only flamingo and people dancing naked around aluminum poles (unless you live in a cold weather climate - the shrivel factor)
Tell me about it. I used to live in Southern California and now I live in South Eastern Michigan...
Talk about a shock to the system!!!!
[...people dancing naked around aluminum poles...]
phine, here in the northeast we rarely dance naked around anything metal in winter...the odds of having a stuck body part increases exponentially as the temperature drops (think "A Christmas Story", only much more...ummm...personal).
I'm in, phine. Maybe one of our moderators will throw out a holiday-related story for us all to comment on in a nice way!
@Mickey
OUCH! The thought of that hurts me! (And I wouldn't want certain parts of Mr. phinephancy stuck like that, don't ya know)
Phinephancy, Sound good to me.
OK with me phine, but you better talk to Mark and Domenico. It's gonna take a lot of "Tongue Biting" from the left here to not go off on a tangent with the first Newt or MItt gaffe of the day headline.
Maybe they can just post feel good stories that day?
I'm in Festivus for the Rest of Us! I live in Southern Florida I will see if my husband will join me at the beach in a Festivus Dance............only half naked!
This would be a nice gift to the Vine.... Count me IN, Merry Christmas everyone...
Wasn't this part of the deal that made Boehner so happy, getting 99% of all he wanted?
Egads Chucky! Do you suppose the Orange Man (gasp) told a FIB?
Someone needs to measure his nose.
LOL Two thumbs up for that one, Chucky!
Agent Orange wouldn't be happy if the President and the Dems caved in and gave them everything they wanted.
Let me guess, the GOP Hawks will be happy to cut medicare, medicaid, social security, infrastructure spending, public services jobs unrelated to defense, PEL grants, education, school lunch programs, etc etc etc. They will gladly slash and burn every other government program, especially those aimed at the poor, the disabled, the disenfranchised, because not one of these GOP Hawks would consider raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires to cover their deisres--which makes them Chickenhawks. In their feeble, tiny, selfish, pea-sized minds, sacrifice is only for those who cannot afford a good lobbyist.
Don't forget Jody, to cut the taxes for the 1% and start another war. That would make these guys REALLY happy.
Wasn't fast to the edit button, that should be...."billionaires to cover their DESIRES".
My mind is in the gutter (killing time by reading a romance novel). The picture of a billionaire "covering" a girl named Desire. Oh dear.
Wow. The couple in this book are like teenaged rabbits! How much boinking can these folks do? Yes, I know that the GOP/TP boink the American people quite a bit, but, wow!
Hey now, Equal time girl, (psst in those books, there is no such thing as time off for good behavior)
The Dems have sure done their share of boinking the electorate also....
The Congress is a despicable lot of corporate whores who will gladly dismiss promises made to the citizens of this country in order to keep their bribe checks coming in. The "devastating" cuts that the greedy bastards are crying about are not "cuts" in the first place, they are reductions in the amount of "increase" in the military budget over the next ten years for Christs sake, why doesn't the lame ass media frame them as what they actually are? The government of this country is an absolute disgrace, and becoming damn dangerous to it's own people. The United States of America needs a strong defense alright, a strong defense against it's own corrupt government.
The hardest part of defending against the actions of congress in terms of defense spending is that the MIC has its tendrils wrapped firmly around both parties.
I will try my very best to behave. I PROMISE!! (just like any good politician, I've got my fingers crossed. just in case.)
How did I end up in #9? response is to #6
Stupid Computer ( or operator)
That's okay fuzzy, I found you! Keep those fingers crossed. Bring a flamingo if you wish. (I am bringing Clarence, my electric flamingo, he loves Christmas good cheer and civility)
Kyl and McCain voted FOR the debt ceiling increase bill that required these cuts, if the super-committee could not come to an agreement. They are now reversing their positions. Graham and Ayotte voted AGAINST the debt ceiling increase and are, at least, being consistent.
The Senate vote on the debt ceiling increase and the agreement for automatic cuts, if necessary, was 74-26. On the Republican side, 28 voted in favor, including the Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnel. Nineteen Republicans voted "no," and five Democrats voted "no."
$37.00 for a single screw,
$7,200.00 for one coffee maker,
$640.00 for one plastic toilet seat,
$435.00 for one sixteen ounce hammer,
Yeah, I'm pretty sure they can find lots of things to cut IF they look for them.
$37.00 for a single screw - Where did that screw come from?? What kinds of quality testing needed to be done to make sure that screw did what it was suppose to within the given requirements per the contract?? What kinds of testing needed to be done on it to find out how long it would do what it was supposed to?? How many screws does it take to build whatever?? Now you need to make sure to get enough of them to do your testing, and still have enough to build whatever.., and have enough to build more if need of whatever. This is ONLY a fraction of the stupidly that is required.
$7,200.00 for one coffee maker, - See Above – change screw to coffee maker
$640.00 for one plastic toilet seat,- See Above – change screw to toilet seat
$435.00 for one sixteen ounce hammer, - See Above – change to hammer
Yeah, I'm pretty sure they can find lots of things to cut IF they look for them. – Yes I agree that it is sooooo stupid to have to pay that much for everyday items. It is how contracts are written. How they must follow intense testing and retesting. Sometimes they are required to be purchase by one company in the world that only makes this one type of screw, and the company can charge anything they want for it. This is why contracts for the government cost the taxpayers so much.
"If you are going to fire anybody, fire us! And keep the soldiers," Ok Senator Graham and buddies, "You're Fired!" Now go away already.
Yeah, and just make sure you take McCain, McConnell and Shelby with you!
I seriously think the hawkish GOP should all go get cat scans on their heads, then dog scans too! We have kids sleeping in cars, more Americans in poverty than ever before and they are already foaming at the mouth itching to start another war in Iran. Iraq was 4400 American lives and a whooping 3 trillion dollars, all for the military industrialists and the defence contractors and lobbyists who must be making these idiots rich to want yet another war! Enough is enough!
For Anna Molly-The Queen of Bleeding Hearts.
Anna, it’s one thing to accuse me of posting a “poorly reasoned” response; it is, however, something else entirely to PROVE that my post is “poorly reasoned”, which is something that you have not done, and frankly Anna, after reading many of your posts here, I don’t think you’re capable of doing it. And as for being “mean-spirited”, I think YOU should read David Walker’s post of: Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:27 am EST. If anyone is “mean-spirited”, it’s Walker, and in case you haven’t noticed, he also disparages YOUR intelligence along with everyone else’s; he doesn’t single you out and give you a free pass. As far as he’s concerned, you’re just as stupid as everyone else here.
Anna, in many ways, I think you and David Walker are a lot alike, i.e., you both assume that many things are true, when in fact; you can’t possibly know what the truth is with absolute certainty, because you haven’t asked, and makes you look very, very foolish. With every silly and immature post you submit here, you lose more and more credibility.
Anna, I respectfully suggest that you re-review my response to David Walker. If you do so I’m sure you will recognize that it is a text focused, semi academic critique of his Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:27 am est., post. I say semi academic, because I didn’t observe all the rules; after all this is only an Internet forum, and not a university forum. I’m not grading you, promise.
After you re-review my response, you will find that I can only argue against Walker’s objective remarks. I’m sure you’ll agree, or at least I hope you’ll agree that to argue against someone’s subjective opinion is folly, which brings me to skip Nicholson’s, Andy Rooney imitation.
Anna, I’m sure you find Nicholson’s ramblings very impressive; I don’t. I’ve read better cultural insight from second year anthropology students. His observation that “This country has not been this divided since the American Civil War,” was especially amusing (apparently skip is too young to remember the 60’s). Clearly, Mr. Nicholson has no background what-so-ever in political science, or political history or he’d know that, the “vitriolic tone of the discussion”, “the rhetoric” (meaning the angry rhetoric, I guess), “the name-calling”, etc, etc, has been part and parcel of American politic for almost 200 years.
Anna, I wrote in response to David Walker: “Obama does not possess the people skills necessary to facilitate compromise between Democrats and Republicans. He does, however, possess the skills to polarize people, which is plain to see from your original post and this response”.
Anna, this is a subjective opinion, and I had hoped that anyone with half a brain would recognize it for what it is, and just laugh at it and leave it be, but you challenged it. Tsk, tsk, tsk…..Anna, it is a subjective opinion, leave it alone and it will go away. OK?
WOW!!!
All I am say is, someone has WAAAAAY too much time on their idle little hands...
Better luck next time Bucky! v lmao!
At least the British Prime Minister had the guts to cut the military if he was also going to demand austerity from the British people. The GOP wants to trade aircraft carriers for food stamps.