Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

So you favor extending the tax cuts, increasing spending, and you also favor cutting the deficit?

You'd think Paul Ryan would be too busy to post here.

[Nadaka]

Having grown up in a military family, studied a fair amount of history and working on the development of military systems, I do appreciate the value of a strong military. Which is why I absolutely do not advocate slashing the budget, in the same way that many other liberals insist, especially in the face of the conservatives attempting to voraciously consume and destroy everything that isn't military spending.

How much of that budget is funneled into boondogles for the districts served by random congresspersons vs going towards meeting mission requirements? Could we be better served at a lower cost if congress was not in the position to make demands on funding for specific projects? Are the current mission requirements what we should really be aiming for? Could we freeze the growth of the military budget? Could we trim it slightly, a percent or two a year? Maybe it is something to consider.

[Trollheiming]

So you favor extending the tax cuts, increasing spending, and you also favor cutting the deficit?

how's all that meant to work?

And with this magical austerity package, somehow it'll grow the economy rather than causing a double-dip recession, like in every other country which ever implemented an austerity package (i.e. Europe right now) because "America".

So wait, you charge Romney with lying just because his numbers a re slightly off, then I post about Obama knowingly and outright lying about sequestration in the debate and then telling the Des Moines Register something else...

And you deflect by bringing up other shit? I'm not a number-cruncher, but did you know that the tax rates since 1950 have varied widely from 85% to 35% top rate, but total tax revenues have varied in a small band from 15% to 20% of GDP?




Back to the stuff you're deflecting: are you going to continue calling Romney a liar when Obama blatantly lied to millions of viewers, changed his tune within 24 hours, then rushed to get the Register to keep it off the record?

[Frumple]

... what does Romney lying have to do with Obama lying? They both are pretty deceptive in their own ways. Same with pretty much every other major politician in the American system these days, it seems.

[Strife26]

Having grown up in a military family, studied a fair amount of history and working on the development of military systems, I do appreciate the value of a strong military. Which is why I absolutely do not advocate slashing the budget, in the same way that many other liberals insist, especially in the face of the conservatives attempting to voraciously consume and destroy everything that isn't military spending.

How much of that budget is funneled into boondogles for the districts served by random congresspersons vs going towards meeting mission requirements? Could we be better served at a lower cost if congress was not in the position to make demands on funding for specific projects? Are the current mission requirements what we should really be aiming for? Could we freeze the growth of the military budget? Could we trim it slightly, a percent or two a year? Maybe it is something to consider.

Yeah, that's what probably needs to happen, but I can't even imagine how much political capital it'd take to deboondogle the military-industrial-political complex these days. Especially when we *need* to start drawing down from our war time highs (at least in the army, from what spec4 Strifey sees) without utterly pillaging the experienced, high value soldiers, while simultaneously making the whole, bloated thing somewhat more efficient.

[Lord Shonus]

One relatively easy way to save some cash down the road would be to replace some carriers with smaller ones (most supercarriers don't carry anywhere near their full air wing, as the modern multirole doctrine allows the same aircraft to carry out most missions, rather than having one aircraft type for bombing, one for escort, and another for fleet CAP,) as they are retired instead of only building Ford class supercarriers. That wouldn't reduce the combat capability of the Navy much, but would greatly reduce the manning requirement.

[DJ]

Are carriers really the way to go when manned aircraft are on their way to becoming obsolete?

[Lord Shonus]

First, drone aircraft with the same range and capabilities as the manned version would still require a carrier. Second, unmanned aircraft have serious tactical flaws (for one thing, making them truly autonomous beyond "make everything in this area dead" is literally impossible, so you will always require a command link, which means that sufficient jamming or destroying a single satellite or installation causes the opposition to win the war) , so the notion that they will soon replace manned combat aircraft is, to be charitable, idiotic. They have some use for interdiction operations, or the destruction of a high-value, heavily defended target such as an AWACS or HQ, but there's no chance that manned combat aircraft will disappear.

[DJ]

I imagine drone carriers would be a lot cheaper to run, since they could be smaller and wouldn't need nearly as many men. But you could also make drones with a LOT more range than manned aircraft - the only reason nuclear powered aircraft were abandoned was the inability to properly shield the crew from the radiation.

As for electronic warfare, I reckon the modern manned aircraft are almost as vulnerable to it.

[Eagle_eye]

Modern aircraft do rely a lot on electronics, but I'm sure they're well shielded, at least to the point that you couldn't practically interfere with them from the ground.

[Aqizzar]

Thread is rapidly turning to armchair milwank shit, which is my least favorite kind of shit.

I'm sorry I've ignored you for so long thread, you deserve better than this.  You deserve an updated first post, and some internal moderation, and maybe a poll or two I dunno.  I've neglected you terribly.  Perhaps you just came into this world too early for me.

[kaijyuu]

I've neglected you terribly.  Perhaps you just came into this world too early for me.

Maybe you should've aborted the thread rather than making it


(oh cod I'm so sorry please don't kill me)

[Rose]

And which is the overly bloated entity that...

Oh wait, it's you talking, nevermind, I'm not gonna bother.

Typical liberal. When something pops your cocoon, plug your ears and chant "I'm not listening!" over and over.

No, I just know when not to waste my breath with people that won't listen.

[mainiac]

Thread is rapidly turning to armchair milwank shit, which is my least favorite kind of shit.

I'm sorry I've ignored you for so long thread, you deserve better than this.  You deserve an updated first post, and some internal moderation, and maybe a poll or two I dunno.  I've neglected you terribly.  Perhaps you just came into this world too early for me.

Can a thread get aborted?

[kaijyuu]

When does it actually become a thread? In the authors head, while it's being written, or only when the "post thread" button is pressed?