Okay, Bryan was paraphrasing, but that is basically what the General said to the Sot.
The SF Gate also covered this, you can read it all, but this is the all you need to know:
“The days of a free lunch are over,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
RobertCrockumentary…
SashaI think the categories would be: Best Mockumentary Best Lying Sack
snowy egretI suppose they nominate it for a oscar since its nothing but left-wing propeganda
Fred Daweswithout going on and on about our system which will make it to the other side of this little rat obama time...
joyceThis is getting ridiculous — it does not matter to this government to be throwing all this money around...
SashaThe timing does suck, but the subsidy doesn’t bother me too much. The long-term strategy behind the...
RobertWell now that just makes so much sense—Michigan, in financial trouble and struggling to keep its head...
snowy egretWe birds are happy about that now maybe they,ll seriously consiter nucular power and tell those jerks from...
RobertThey don’t care about existing laws, they always want to to do more, to get more control over everything....
The Pink FlamingoUPDATED: It has recently come to my attention that there are indeed two John Brimelows in this...
SashaA nice idea, except for the fact that the alternative fuel sources have to be backed up by the more reliable...
Fred DawesA guy who is in this business said we need 50 million just to have 3 percent of this nation power needs.
SashaI’m amazed this could be found on CNN, tv and website. All this when truck related fatalities are actually...
PamWe are or did enact a ban on texting while driving..Mi was going to ban the use of cell phones for kids between 16...
Tom FlaneganI love this?.lol
snowy egretToo bad liberal airheads but the parties over and you lost the pin the tail on the donkey contest becuase...
The Pink FlamingoYou want proof of a double standard? It’s right here. It is quite acceptable for rappers to...
Right Voices Information By Abouthere to read the rest: Study: Cell Phone Laws Don't Reduce Accidents | Right...
AngryD“The President’s speech lasted 70 minutes and, to me, sounded just like everything else he says. A...
aboutmore here: Study: Cell Phone Laws Don't Reduce Accidents | Right Voices tags: all-been, facebook, mobile,...
November 16, 2007 - 01:22 AM on November 16th, 2007
Gee I guess when you cut the Army from 900,000 to 500,000 under a President who “Loathes” the military, you end up with an undersized, under equipped and undertrained military. When you cut military spending which creates jobs in favor of funding welfare programs that create nothing but a bunch of welfare slugs sucking at the public teat it does reduce the military’s ability to keep up it’s combat capabilities.
If I were the RNC chairman, I’d be having a field day with today’s military spending debacle. The war is going to continue despite whatever the Dems do short of totally defunding it which they will not do because of the political fall out. The Sec of Defense has said that since the Dem Congress will not pass a supplemental defense spending bill without putting a bunch of strings that interfere with the CinC’s (President’s) Constitutional mandate to run the war, the DoD will start laying off 200,000 civilian employees at bases across the country. Were I the RNC chairman, I’d run ads in every hometown paper for every base that has layoffs, explaining how the Dem Congressmen have voted to cause the unemployment of over 200,000 government and contract employees across the country naming the names of EVERY Democrat that votes for it. I’d also add in how the pending foreclosures will cause home values to drop costing the people who don’t lose their jobs to lose thousands in equity more than they have already lost. Let the people see how the insane rhetoric of the left is costing people their livelihood. Bring it right down to the personal level. If they can find a worker who lost his job who actually voted for one of the Dem Vermin, that would be even better. The question to ask the person would be simple, “If you knew that the rhetoric of the rabid leftists in the Democratic party was going to cost you your job and home, would you have still voted for them?”
November 16, 2007 - 03:30 AM on November 16th, 2007
…and the military spendings in the 2000’s have brought the US economy in the state it is currently in…
http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=EUR&amt=1&t=5y
November 16, 2007 - 06:17 AM on November 16th, 2007
What is wrong with our economy Matthias…and where did you come up with defense spending as a bad thing? Could welfare have anything to do with it? How about pork spending?
November 16, 2007 - 07:57 AM on November 16th, 2007
3- I am actually not surprised that you did not notice that your currency lost about 40% of its value during the last seven years. When I tried to get some charts (for my post) displaying the exchange rate on some US websites I was surprised to hardly find any of those. On any German business or stocktrading website you will immediately find a whole range of exchange indices (pound, yen, etc.)…
“Could welfare have anything to do with it? How about pork spending?”
Could be… in any case it was the Bush government that sat on the money tap. And it did your bucks no favor…
PS: Did you hear that story about Gisele Bündchen, who does no longer be paid in Dollars? Man, how disgraceful regarding that she (together with the other model bimbos) just got a star in Hollywood..
November 16, 2007 - 08:00 AM on November 16th, 2007
PPS: To most of you this probably looks like “ours is better than yours” boasting, but as I still have in my portfolio a (still) 4-digit amount of stocks that were purchased at a much higher dollar value, I am really concerned.
November 16, 2007 - 08:08 AM on November 16th, 2007
5, Mattias, you live in a welfare state. Don’t you trust your government to take care of you?
November 16, 2007 - 08:08 AM on November 16th, 2007
4- Where did you get the idea that I hadn’t heard of the dollar falling?
What benefits to the U.S. economy and deficit is a falling dollar? Do you know?
Based on the way you answer questions and make statements, you better make sure you are not the one managing your portfolio…
November 16, 2007 - 08:14 AM on November 16th, 2007
7- That is the fear of the European Union, that a weak Dollar is a threat to its exports, but honestly: One should not mix up cause and reaction!
And obviously (apart from the rising oil price and defense industry shares): War is a non-profitable business for the majority of the people. Destruction is the opposite of production.
November 16, 2007 - 08:37 AM on November 16th, 2007
[...] General Casey To Teddy: Democrats who cut the military’s budget in the 1990s have put the Army in … [...]
November 16, 2007 - 08:42 AM on November 16th, 2007
8- I am talking about the U.S…no other country..
What benefits to the U.S. economy and deficit is a falling dollar? Do you know?
War isn’t profitable? Really? How so?
Now you have 2 questions….
P.S. The second question is rather tricky so go slowly in answering it…
November 16, 2007 - 09:16 AM on November 16th, 2007
10.
The falling dollar value has absolutely nothing to do with military spending- whoever makes that assertion has no concept of economics. The falling dollar is linked to two thinks primaily:
1) Our trade debt with other countries, primarily China.
2) The poor fiscal responsibilty of our governement- our budget deficits. We do not run a balanced budget, and thus the cost of interest alone hamstrings the value of the dollar.
But I disagree- ther are not really too many pros to a weakened dollar. One can take a “silver lining” approach if they wish, but they problems created far out weight benefits. What my dollar could buy ione year ago, it can onlt buy 60% of that now. When the dollar weakens, the real cost of imported items rises.
To the topic: Casey is absolutely accurate as is FAO. Spending for welfare programs now outpaces spending on defense in America. If we continue at pace, in order to simply MAINTAIN those welfare programs American will have to be taxed at the average rate of 70-75%.
We need to refocus on fiscal responsibilty and a strong defense. The damage done to the military in the 1990’s by Clinton was devasting, as we are an all volunteer army. It will take decades to build our army back to the troop levels we once had.
November 16, 2007 - 11:11 AM on November 16th, 2007
Thank you, general casey, for publicly saying what many of us have known for years: there ain’t no free lunch, and the Klinton “budget surplus” was done by compromising our future.
hey why don’t some of the ace reporters, next time Al Gore is doing a “save the World” eco appearance, ask Gore about how on his watch the U.S. Gov’t sold the Elk Hills Naval Oil Reserve (oilfield) to Occidental Petroleum for a bargain price (which Occidental is now making money hand over fist on)? And how Al Gore just happened to have stock in Occidental at the time, on which Gore has made a tiody profit? Hmmm, Mr. Save the Earth Stop Global Warming Nobel Prize Ecofraud?
November 16, 2007 - 12:46 PM on November 16th, 2007
I was driving on the Massachusetts turn pike one day. I was trying to change the radio station because the old one faded out. Unbeknownst to me, I was swerving in the lane. It was in no time flat some of Massachusetts finest law enforcement was behind me and pulled me over. The officer asked for my license and registration. Seeing I was from Ohio, he asked me if I knew what the penalty was in Massachusetts for drunk driving. I responded, “Being elected to Congress?”
November 16, 2007 - 01:45 PM on November 16th, 2007
November 16, 2007 - 02:30 PM on November 16th, 2007
13, Ted, what did the cop say to that? Also, a swerve is not evidence of inebration without a sobriety test.
Sounds like the cop was a few tickets short of his quota and figured you being from Ohio wouldn’t come back to fight a bogus ticket.
November 16, 2007 - 06:03 PM on November 16th, 2007
When soon can they be sent to the spice mines of kessel?
November 17, 2007 - 01:14 AM on November 17th, 2007
Actually military spending is directly related to production. At least as long as we’re not outsourcing our military armament contracts to other countries. Military spending creates JOBS. That is a good thing. Entitlement programs in this country take over 50% of the national budget. As for the US economy being bad, obviously someone needs to take a look at what’s actually going on. We have near total employment, The Dow is at near record levels, per capita production levels are the highest in the world. If we’d stop the idiotic pork barrel spending for a couple of years, drop tax RATES another 3%, and partially privatize Social Security, the influx of extra capital into the economy, combined with the reduced wasteful spending would result in a balanced budget in only 3-5 years as well as an economic boom that would carry forward for decades. The resulting increased tax REVENUES would be monumental, dwarfing the currently record high revenues to the country.
November 17, 2007 - 01:52 PM on November 17th, 2007
PCD, it’s a joke.
(!)
Derrrrr!!
November 17, 2007 - 01:57 PM on November 17th, 2007
FAO “Military spending creates JOBS. That is a good thing.”
———————-
Be careful.
Heed the words of Republican President and General Dwight D. Eisenhower, back in 1961.
Regarding the Military Industrial Complex:
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
November 17, 2007 - 11:19 PM on November 17th, 2007
Yes SFL, I know about Eisenhower’s speech about the military industrial complex. I also know the history of this country prior to WWII wherein our military was so undersized and military stores so inadequate that we sent men through basic training with broom sticks because there weren’t enough rifles for training. There is also a HUGE difference in this country versus 1961. Military contracts have been the impetus for incredible advances in technology that weren’t even dreamed of in 1961. Same can be said of the space program.
If you do a lot of camping, you can almost bet that at least some of your gear was developed to meet a need expressed by someone in the military, primarily Spec Ops who are constantly trying to develop new ways of doing things. Likewise, a lot of stuff that is currently in use on the civilian market would be prohibitively expensive were it not for the economy of scale resulting from the large military contracts. For those who don’t know, economy of scale is the term for the manner in which producing large quantities of an item reduces it’s individual item cost by spreading the fixed overhead costs over more items. For an example we’ll say a pair of pants. While the cost of materials and labor may be the same for each pair, when the cost of renting the workspace, and buying a sewing machine is factored in, the overall per item cost rises when you make fewer pairs. If you’re rent and sewing machine cost $1000 and you only make one pair of pants, those are some expensive pants. However if you make 1000 pairs of pants, the cost of rent and the sewing machine only adds $1 to the cost of producing them. Now that pair of pants that costs $10 in material and labor can be sold profitably for $12 versus before they would have to be Armani, Versace, or some other designer who charges $1100 for a pair of pants.
As for undue influence, the people to look to on that are the people who insist on issuing military contracts in a PC manner. The Beretta FAILED the 9mm tests in a potentially fatal way, while the Smith and Wesson entry failed through a minor, non dangerous way. Due to political pressure, Beretta (now headquartered in the Democratic bastion of Maryland) was given a waiver for a potentially fatal flaw, while Smith and Wesson was denied one for a flaw that could be repaired in the field with 12 inches of duct tape. That’s how Sig Sauer (who was the only entrant to PASS the trials) was passed over due to cost, Smith and Wesson was passed over due to a cracked grip panel, while Beretta was given the contract for 100,000s of pistols despite the back half of the slide separating during firing and the US having to adopt 9mm ammo that was loaded to significantly lower velocities than European 9mm cartridges. It is also the reason why, despite requests from troops on the frontlines to return to a 45 caliber handgun for the increased stopping power, the trials for a new 45 caliber handgun was stopped and another few hundred thousand Berettas were ordered. BTW the DEMS were in control of the House and Senate when the initial decision to award the contract to Beretta was made. Personally, I preferred the 45, but the high capacity 9mms are great as long as you can load them with hollow points. Unfortunately, hollowpoints are a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
November 19, 2007 - 05:44 AM on November 19th, 2007
10- “What benefits to the U.S. economy and deficit is a falling dollar? Do you know?”
I DO know- no question.
But a “falling dollar” means that every good and every figure that was purchased with a strong dollar is now less worth than it used to be. As I said you have to distinguish between cause and reaction, which means that the US economy has now a good opportunity to get investments from foreign countries because goods and manpower are cheaper than they used to be. But on the other hand that situation (if reached intentionally) sounds like “if you are struck to the ground there is only the way up left”…
If you like the idea of being at the bottom… I don’t!
“War isn’t profitable? Really? How so?”
I did not say it is not profitable. I wanted to say that it is on one hand only profitable to a small share of the population. To the rest e.g. the taxpayers or the disabled veterans, war is absolutely not profitable. So there is an imbalance which is only one reason, why war is (obviously) such unpopular.
You could similarly ask, if or why drug dealing is (or is not) unprofitable.
November 19, 2007 - 05:56 AM on November 19th, 2007
11- “2) The poor fiscal responsibilty of our governement- our budget deficits. We do not run a balanced budget, and thus the cost of interest alone hamstrings the value of the dollar.”
That is a problem that also affects a lot of European countries. Just one of the many reason why I don’t trust (nor like) politicians, they spend money which is not theirs with an esteem as if they know that it is not theirs but nevertheless not really caring!!!
November 19, 2007 - 08:08 AM on November 19th, 2007
20.
Sig should have received that contract. I owned and own several Berettas. They are great handguns, better than the Smiths IMO- however there is a better choice.
If the military were serious about a high grade combat side arm, they’d be getting the .40 S&W Sig. It has the benefits of sufficient stopping power plus higher capacity. IMO, the best production combat side arm made.