WaPo's Robinson: Solve Deficit With Tax Hikes, Defense Cuts and Universal Healthcare
Eugene Robinson's column in Thursday's Washington Post should have been placed in that paper's funnies section rather than the opinion page.
His solution to our nation's deficit would be laughable if it wasn't so gosh darned scary:
Do progressives care about reducing the national debt? Of course they do, no matter what the White House might believe.
So innocently began Robinson's "A Little More Revenue Could Go A Long Way."
Unfortunately, readers are going to need a spoonful of sugar to help his medicine go down:
Start by allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for households making more than $250,000 a year to expire; this would cut deficits by about $700 billion over a decade. Add in the revenue that would be gained by closing the tax loopholes that Obama keeps talking about — eliminating some deductions for high earners, requiring hedge fund executives to pay taxes at the same rate as their chauffeurs, eliminating the tax break for corporate jets and so on — and soon you’re in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars.
The nominal corporate tax rate of 35 percent is a joke, since big corporations don’t actually pay that much; those loopholes, too, could be eliminated. Then we could look at measures that would have broader impact — say, hiking or eliminating the income cap for Social Security payroll contributions.
I hope you swallowed that sugar first, or that had to taste pretty darned sour.
Our nation is currently teetering on a double dip - Friday's awful numbers out of the Labor Department concerning the unemployment rate having risen to 9.2 percent in June following disappointing May numbers is extremely cautionary - and this former Post editor wants to not only raise taxes on the top one percent of wage earners, he also wants to lift the payroll tax ceiling which will impact folks making as little as $107,000.
Is that a good idea given the current economic environment? And what happens if we do raise the payroll tax limit? Do such contributors get more benefits for their additional contributions?
They'd better, or Social Security becomes a wealth redistribution program and not the retirement insurance plan the Supreme Court said was Constitutional in the '30s.
But Robinson wasn't done (readers are advised to take another spoonful of sugar right about now):
If we could trim the Pentagon’s spending by 15 percent — I know I’m dreaming, but humor me — we’d save another $1 trillion over 10 years. [...]
It’s impolitic to mention this fact, but other developed nations manage to produce better health outcomes for roughly half of what we’re paying. They do this through single-payer health systems, many of which deliver care via private health insurance companies.
Add it all up, and Robinson's deficit cure is raising income and payroll taxes, cutting defense spending, and creating a new healthcare entitlement program for every single citizen.
There's not enough sugar on the planet to get that medicine down the throats of most Americans.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
IOW,
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 11:07am.
if Robinson would have his way, tax it if it moves, surrender to anyone who wanders by, make sure the healthcare system becomes adept at denying coverage to anyone and everyone, and voila', we're there, Utopia. Or Greece x 10.
Robinson
Submitted by iveseenitall on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 11:32am.
Just another half-baked silly little "liberal" journOlist (who happens also to be a racist). But hey, he has a right to make a fool of himself--- and he's so good at it.
BTW---Right, those who make $107,000 will soon be taxed under any Democrat plan. And the tax burden will just keep increasing for the disappearing "middle class" ( but not for those in the welfare state who pay no taxes at all).
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal" ( progressive)
I shake my head everytime I
Submitted by inquiringmind on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 11:26am.
I shake my head everytime I see him on Morning Joe. His lack of anything insightful or deeply thought through is amazing. I wonder why Joe continues to have him on or Tina Brown for that matter.
Well I do know why Joe has these two on. 'nuff said.
Right On...
Submitted by iveseenitall on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 11:37am.
Eugene and Joe --- ebony and ivory in their lack of intelligence and honesty. But at least Robinson, most of the time, doesn't try to hide it.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal" (progressive)
So tiresome
Submitted by StarAZ on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 11:48am.
Dictionary--word "hack"--Gene's picture.
Don't forget, "Affirmative action hire" and...
Submitted by Red Jeep on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 12:11pm.
....token black. (BTW Jonathan Capeheart = token black homosexual.)
Thank you Eugene for giving
Submitted by Reaver on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 12:03pm.
Thank you Eugene for giving us the liberal orthodox debt solution. Raise taxes, cut defense spending and not only leave entitlements untouched but create a massive new one single-payer government health care. What could possibly go wrong with that plan?
Robinson solution is spoke
Submitted by jkwtrading on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 12:09pm.
Robinson solution is spoken like a true "taker"
Not a nanogram of original thought in Eugene's screed.
Submitted by drsamherman on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 12:10pm.
I am baffled that anyone would consider Eugene Robinson to be an informed journalist. Everything he says is repeated word for word from Jay Carney's office. Going to the grocery store with Eugene would probably be an exercise in futility. Confronted with such free choice and such a lack of originality, he must depend on lists to the point where he only sees what others dictate for him to see.
Robinson has a Pullitzer Prize . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 7:31pm.
. . . but then, Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize.
The poverty of low expectations.
Putting the government in charge
Submitted by JeffC... on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 12:39pm.
The only thing the government can do when it is put in charge is to destroy things. The post office, GM, home mortgages, etc.
That includes the military, but that's their job, and they do it well.
I.E.
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 1:01pm.
Healthcare rationing . Obama will only wheel old ladies off a cliff after committee review and risk analysis.
Solve deficit? Trim your budget. Cut out things that don't work.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 1:16pm.
Dept of Education improving education? No. Close it.
Department of Energy making us independent of foreign energy? No. Close it
Department of ...? Not working? ...Close it...
Basically cut all the non-vital Departments of this and that that past Presidents created. like Jimmy Carter to make us feel like the Government is doing something...helping.... and ultimately are costing a hell of a lot of money we don't have.
Amen, brother.....
Submitted by nonncom on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 4:31pm.
If it can't be justified, eliminate it.....problem is, they refuse to even look at all the different departments....as long as they have their blinders on, they don't have to do anything and big government survives in all it's glory.....the circus has broken out, because the clowns are definitely running the show in DC....thanks to whoever said that....
Eugene Robinson metioned cutting the Pentagon's budget but
Submitted by lrgon on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 2:29pm.
queerly didn't say a darn thing about ending those three costly overseas neo con/ liberal hawk wars that have racked up the cost to nearly 4 trillion bucks. FIGHTING WARS REQUIRE
GENERALS KEEPING THEIR HEADS COOL
A former Pentagon official's estimate that the cost of air conditioning for U.S. personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan runs to more than $20 billion a year.
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/8083-wars-cost-pegged-at...
That "is more than NASA's budget. It's more than BP has paid so far for damage from the Gulf oil spill. It's what the G-8 has pledged to help foster new democracies in Egypt and Tunisia."
A/C
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 2:40pm.
When we went over the first time we didn't have any A/C - figures!
Don't you want to question that $20b number or does it agree with your ideology too much to question?
Don't let your partisanship get in your way of thinking clearly
Submitted by lrgon on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 12:01am.
My ideology is to question the entire idea of sending troops to defend Iraq's border and leaving our souther border wide open to drug cartelists and terrorists.
The amount the US army is spending on air conditioning is one thing but this "war on terrorism" has gone on longer than the combined time US troops spent winning WW One and WW Two.
Your hero Janet Napolitano says Americans need to accept the idea of the war on terror going on forever.I'm sure you think we have the bucks to throw away on no win wars forever but saner people question that looney idea.
Does it not bother your "ideology" to see what this "war on terror" has done to our nations airports, where TSA goons violate passengers' Bill of Rights?
In case no one told you...
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 12:19am.
You may not be aware of this, because you clearly want the United States to be as weak and as whiny as possible, but we lost 3000 or so people on 11 September 2001 in a series of terrorist attacks. By going on offense, a strategy you clearly despise, the terrorists see that the United States is to be messed with at their great personal risk.
Oh, sure, we COULD get this done faster, but you don't have the stomach for what is needed to end things expressly. And neither does most of the public. If we were to get the thing done faster, the things we would be required to do you make you SCREAM and SCREAM and SCREAM.
We have the tools right now to deal with the southern border (something I sorta kinda care about being 200 miles from it). It's just a matter of political will. Turning the United States into a whiny, isolationist ostrich isn't going to help matters much.
Are you aware that what has been going on at our nation's airports has been going on since the late 1960s-early 1970s?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Faster, yes Please, like a shock and awe-2
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 1:10am.
My personal theory is that Iraq shock and awe was, so very successful, 25,000 targets, obliterated, in 3 days ..
Just do that in iran....
No reason to make this Viet Nam 2...back then shipments came in from USSR and China... both nuke powers with millions of square miles on manufacturing area to ship arms from.
iran is a rat assed sized country, the targets have been known for years and years and years..Please send them to the 6 century first.
Come on have a light bulb moment, iran declared war on us first, sumthum like 30 years ago.
You Didn't Build That.
no gov. goons at airports in the "60's and 70's"
Submitted by lrgon on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 1:28am.
It's amazing that you embrace the entire government concept that a left wing socialist paper hanger used in Germany to terrorize the people at train depots. The gestapo would ask Germany citizens for "your papers please," and they had no choice but to submit to government goons of that period. The government terrorized its own citizens but apparently you think that's ok for America?
Where in your 'fraidy cat' statement does one find TSA goons in the "60's and 70's" intimidating and abusing 95 year old ladies? The TSA was created by congress in the 21 st century not in the 20th. People used to board their planes on the tarmac with no sniff dogs around all during the war in Vietnam.
Your statement: "Are you aware that what has been going on at our nation's airports has been going on since the late 1960s-early 1970s?"
Terrorists have been around since the fifties in the USA. In the sixties and seventies we had hi-jackings of airliners by Black Panthers; there were bombings by Weather Underground terrorists. Bank robberies were carried out by the likes of the Symbionese Liberation army.
Dr. Claire Sterling did an extensive study of the world-wide terror network and documented it in his book. I have that book in my library. http://www.amazon.com/Terror-Network-Claire-Sterling/dp/0030506611
In Germany and Italy there was the Baader Meinhoff gang and Red Army faction. In South America terrorist there cooperated with terrorists in all of the continents like Yasser arafats PLO and the Egyptian Brotherhood.
The communist internationale held meetings to coordinate their terror campaigns on the "capitalist nations." Their ties were to Moscow back then and the ties to Moscow have not been severed. So yes, I am aware of terrorism in the "60's and 70's," but there were no government goons at the airports violating my 4th amendment rights,nor telling folks that the BOR do not apply at airports.
The goals of terrorism is to get a reaction form the target populations of the various countries to accept a paradigm shift in their thinking from being free citizens to accepting ever more controls over their lives from their own government.
There is no way terrorist can overthrow large nations like the USA and the European countries so they don't try; they simply use terror tactics to get a reaction from citizens who trade their freedom for security.
Ben Franklin said that those people who trade freedom for security deserve neither. And they certainly aren't patriots since patriots fight for freedom, they don't give it away to be safe like fraidy cats.
If the Bill of Rights do not apply at airports then someday they will not apply at shopping centers, stadium and concert halls.Or maybe someday they'll be TSA goons checking your papers as you enter your neighborhood. Is that what you want for security?
I choose freedom because the Minutemen didn't fight and die so that we could whine like skeered rabbits in a hole.
"Isolationism." We have always had embassies and free exchange of ideas and cultural and business relations with civilized nations. It has been between citizens. The myth that bringing troops home will lead to isolationism is a myth. In fact war breeds the isolationism you accuse others of supporting. We need to defend America's soil not Iraq's or Libya's or the rock called Afghanistan.
Its interesting that your
Submitted by MichaelPaladin on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 3:02am.
Its interesting that your post reminded of a poem I hear back several years ago. Thought I would share it with everyone.
A Visitor from the Past
by Thelen Paulk
I had a dream the other night, I did not understand
A figure walking through the mist, with a flintlock in his hand
His clothes were torn and dirty; As he stood there by my bed,
he took off his three cornered hat. And speaking low, he said,
"We fought a revolution to secure our Liberty
We wrote the Constitution, as a shield from tyranny
For future generations this legacy we gave
In this, the land of the free and the home of the brave
The freedom we secured for you, we hoped you'd always keep
But tyrants labored endlessly, while your parents were asleep
Your freedom gone - Your courage lost You're no more than a slave
In this, the land of the free and the home of the brave
You buy a permit to travel, and a permit to own a gun
Permits to start a business or to build a place for one
On land that you believe you own, you pay a yearly rent
Although you have no voice in choosing, how the money's spent
Your children must attend a school, that does not educate
Your Christian values can't be taught, according to the State
You read about the current news in a regulated press
You pay a tax you do not owe, to please the IRS
Your money is no longer made of silver or gold
You trade your wealth for paper, so your life can be controlled
You pay for crimes that make your nation turn
from God in shame You've taken Satans number,
as you traded in your name
You've given government control to those who do you harm,
so they can padlock churches, and steal the family farm
And keep our country deep in debt, put men of God in jail,
harass your fellow countrymen While corrupted courts prevail
Your public servants don't uphold the solemn oath they swore
Your daughters visit doctors, so their children won't be born
Your leaders ship artillery and guns to foreign shores,
and send your sons to slaughter, to fight other peoples wars
Can you regain your freedom, for which we fought and died,
or don't you have the courage or the faith to stand with pride
Are there no more values for which you would fight to save,
or do you wish your children, to live in fear and be a slave
Sons of the Republic, arise and take a stand
Defend the Constitution, the supreme law of the land
Preserve our great Republic, and teach each God given right,
and pray to God to keep the torch of freedom burning bright..."
I like the poem
Submitted by lrgon on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 11:16am.
especially this part: "Sons of the Republic, arise and take a stand
Defend the Constitution, the supreme law of the land
Preserve our great Republic, and teach each God given right,
and pray to God to keep the torch of freedom burning bright..."
Hliarious
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 7:00pm.
That's funny. You like that part of the poem? I don't know why; you are embarrassed and ashamed of people who actually swear to support and defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
The Constitution does not continue to exist out of the kindness of people's hearts. It must be fought for and protected, and defended; and sometimes the best defense is a good offense.
Pearl Harbor didn't happen because the United States was too powerful.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Um, before there were "TSA
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 6:57pm.
Um, before there were "TSA goons", there were all manner of "goons" that searched people at airports. This began in earnest in the 1960s and 1970s. The only difference now is that they are called "TSA". They were federalized after 2001 after 11 September 2001 because President Bush felt he needed to look like he was "doing something". I'm all about airport security. I bet we'd actually agree on a great deal of things on that score. But you are already assuming a hostile stance when it isn't necessary.
Not to mention your condescending attitude, talking to me about a subject I have been forced to study at length for years primarily because I lived in Europe and had to deal with the threat of groups like the Red Army Faction, the Fighting Communist Cells, etc etc etc.
And there is the cliched citation of Ben Franklin. Got it. I see. Basically you are one of those people who throw an absolute fit over virtually any attempt at law enforcement. Again, i have zero problem with airport security. In fact, I say we should ask Israel how they do as their security record for air transportation is near flawless. Among the many books I have read on the subject I have read Benjamin Netanyahu's writings on the subject.
By the way, thanks for indicating you absolutely refuse to understand how the world works. By killing terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, we prevent them from coming over here and killing people. Unlike you I prefer to take the fight to THEM on their soil. You seem VERY comfortable with the prospect of sitting around and waiting for the terrorists to come over here and blow up some public businesses, public venues, or perhaps mow down some crowds; at which point you will then demand action. Of course, YOU think clearly that terrorism, when targeted at the United States, is the result of what the United States did. You haver a "blame America first, last, and always" attitude that makes even hardened Leftists look like genuine patriots.
"Patriotism", it has been written, "is the last refuge of a scoundrel." You surely are proving that point to be true. You howl and scream about how your rights are being trampled upon when you board a plane, and talk about how much a patriot you are because you're not a "fraidy cat". Yet, when it comes to the United States defending itself by taking the war to the terrorists, you throw a temper tantrum. You hide behind patriotism but you are most definitely not a patriot. Not one who wishes to engage in any critical thinking anyway.
"When we protect freedom in Berlin, we protect the freedom of London and New York as well." - John F. Kennedy
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
responding to your lame rebuttal
Submitted by lrgon on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 12:01pm.
"...you clearly want the United States to be as weak and as whiny as possible, but we lost 3000 or so people on 11 September 2001 in a series of terrorist attacks. By [going on offense], a strategy you clearly despise, the terrorists see that the United States [is to be messed with] at their great personal risk."
Apart from the public school "grammar" your assumption that I want the United States to be "weak and whiny" has no basis.
One of America's strengths is to be free to criticize government policies especially when they fall outside the confines of the Constitution.
Citizens have guaranteed rights under the Constitution that are protected to speak out anytime a rogue president or congress violates that sacred document. Obama did it most recently with his illegal attack of Libya. The strange part of that story is that the Federal Reserve bank has been making loans to Ghadaffi's bank for years and now we are helping the Egyptian Brotherhood (terrorist organization) and some al-Qaeda cadre fight the same man US bankers were supplying with US cash! Doesn't that strike you as strange?
Going on the offensive is good on the field but we fight wars that are brought to us and we carry on a defensive war. That has been the tradition of America which held true until we joined the UN and Truman began using (misusing) US troops, not to win wars but just to be at war.
Truman sent troops to Korea to fight North Koreans and Chinese but didn't allow them to win the war! Then the idiot Truman fired McArthur who could have erased communism from all of China!
McArthur had guts! That man had them but the CFR dominated state department hamstrung him as did the Defense and Pentagon. Had Mcarthur been allowed to win the war we wouldn't have to send troops to Viet Nam. Truman stopped McArthur's offensive in Korea.
The world would be different without the evil that the communists have brought onto this planet. Today we cooperate with Russian communist Putin and Chinese communist and their surrogates in Afghanistan and Iraq to "fight a war on terrorisim!" Those people are the chief sponsors of terror organizations. They created them.
It takes "guts" to look at the world the way it really is not the way the major media tells you things are!
McArthur had guts as did Patton and most US generals who fought in both great world wars. Since Korea all US involvement in regional ,and now this idiotic no-win world-wide war on a tactic, is being used to sap our resources and destroy the few remaining freedoms we have.
McArthur told Americans that a US president and people in the State department had no intention of allowing him to be victorious against communism and so he spoke out. He had the guts to speak out but too few generals today don't have the will to tell the American people the truth that this "war on terrorism" is a phony war; that it does not take an army to kill a few terrorists in Afghanistan or elsewhere but it takes using the Constitution as it was intended and bring anyone who attacks America to justice.
We must quit partnering up with nations like Russia and China that sponsor terrorism!And we must get out of the UN.
Actually, the statement
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 1:05pm.
"Truman stopped McArthur's offensive in Korea" is not quite accurate. MacArthur's offensive was stopped by 4 Communist Chinese armies, consisting of roughly 200K troops. Chinese troops who had begun showing up all along the front, and who's presence MacArthur completely ignored.
"Those people are the chief sponsors of terror organizations. They created them". If you're referring to the Russians, Chinese and the Taliban and their predecessors, you might want to recheck your facts. Actually, the CIA is the agency who helped them fight the Russians. It was the ignorance and isolationism inherent in the careerists in the DoS, that cause the US to walk away from Afghanistan after the war, that led to the religious extremists' take over there.
Two things (for starters)
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 7:19pm.
One, when you have nothing to attack other than "public school grammar" you have pretty much lost the argument. Two, my allegation that you want America to be as weak and whiny as possible is 100% justified and has in fact a basis. Namely, your whining over the United States taking the fight to the terrorists directly for a change. This indicates to me that you are not happy with the ability and will of the United States to go on offense in the name of defense.
You have indicated to me and others here that you want us to sit like sheep waiting to be slaughtered and wait for the next terrorist attack to happen. And when it does happen, should we do anything about it? Nah. Why, that's being a "fraidy cat". We are just supposed to grin and bear the loss of lives and property.
Do you have any evidence of this involving the Federal Reserve? I'm not taking your word for much of anything. I know the idiot in the White House has lent His support to people I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, and that's just idiotic, Federal Reserve or no. But then, we have a President who dislikes America's ability to project power as much as you do.
Strange how you mention we traditionally fight wars that "were brought to us." Really? Can you point out what Germany did to us in WWII other than declare war, which is nothing more than a diplomatic gesture? Sure, they sunk our shipping in the Atlantic, but we tolerated this for close to three years before declaring war on Germany in WWI. The Germans did nothing like Pearl Harbor. And last I checked, WWII wasn't fought "defensively" either. D-Day was a fairly offensive operation, was it not?
And reading your history of the Korean War (I have NO idea what brought that on) - which you should not like in the slightest, anyway - you reveal yourself to be a Conspiro. I for the life of me will never get this whole "CFR" thing. They publish a mag, and if you bother reading that mag, you'd see that those pencil-necked geeks couldn't run a phone booth, much less the State Department and the Department of Defense. They want to TALK about everything and ENGAGE people. That's not a recipe for effective foreign policy for anybody.
And I hate to break it to you, but we are in Afghanistan because of what happened on 11 September 2001, not because of Russia or China (and yet again we are simply supposed to take your word for it; you word is the Holy Writ around here apparently). The UN doesn't bother me quite as much as you. But then, I'm not a Conspiro; I can actually see how the UN can be used by the United States to achieve our ends. What we DO need to do is to kick the UN out of the United States. Have them go to Geneva or wherever else; turn the current HQ building in NYC into a badly needed parking garage.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Also, ellergon---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 8:06pm.
Truman "fired" McArthur because McArthur forgot his place in the hierarchy and bad-mouthed Truman knowing he would be heard.
Good general or not, he had it coming.
MD
Two words, Irgon,
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 8:53pm.
Posse Comitatus. Look that up, then get back to us on why there aren't troops on the southern border. Although the law has been bent, folded and mutilated on occasion, do you not think that the Federal Courts, who currently forbid a state from enforcing their own laws on illegal residents, would immediately enjoin the federal government from using troops for law enforcement duties?
Don't forget the unicorns
Submitted by ckc1227 on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 4:20pm.
Feeding them has to cost at least $20 billion, if not more.
You have to put down UFO books and children's fairy tales
Submitted by lrgon on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 2:00am.
They won't serve you in carrying on an adult dialogue.
Irony meter pegged
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 7:21pm.
I love it! A Conspiro who attacks posters for using "public school grammar" is scolding and lecturing others on "adult dialogue".
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Huh?
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 9:59pm.
Bigoted, much?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
AC for soldiers
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 10:07pm.
I have no problem paying for AC for the soldiers fighting in the mid east.
I have no problem getting the he11 out of Libya though.
The ACs need fuel to make them run
Submitted by lrgon on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 12:12am.
Getting it to the tents is costing lives. The Taliban and others wait for the convoys to pass carrying the fuel and according to this article that's when lots of guys are getting hit.
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/27/u-s-spends-20-billion...
According to Steven Anderson a former Brig. General "
"When you consider the cost to deliver the fuel to some of the most isolated places in the world — escorting, command and control, medevac support — when you throw all that infrastructure in, we're talking over $20 billion,"
Anderson served as chief logistician for Gen. David Petraeus in Iraq. Anderson's $20 billion figure, disputed by the Pentagon, includes the cost of building and maintaining roads in Afghanistan, as well as securing and maintaining security operations for those roads, which are doubtless used for more than transporting fuel for air conditioning. But the cost, in both dollars and lives, of transporting that fuel is, nonetheless, staggering.
To power an air conditioner at a remote outpost in landlocked Afghanistan, fuel must be shipped into Karachi, Pakistan, then driven 800 miles over 18 days to Afghanistan on roads that are sometimes little more than "improved goat trails."
Anderson says it requires a lot of fuel to cool free-standing tents in temperatures of 125 degrees or more. The retired general estimates more than 1,000 troops have been killed in fuel convoys, prime targets for enemy attacks.
The obsessive devotion to...ACs?
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 12:21am.
Um, LOTS of things need fuel to run. You need diesel generators just to keep the lights on, to say nothing of the ACs you are so neurotically obsessed with.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Keeping the lights on in the USA
Submitted by lrgon on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 1:42am.
is far more important than trying to "democratize" nations that don't want to be democratized, either by using cruise missles or air conditioners.
During the Battle of the Bulge our Troops WWII troops were freezing to death yet they managed to turn back the nazi offensive without fuel to heat tents or barracks.
If you have a problem with me bringing up costs of coolers take it up with the general who compiled these figures or be quiet about it.
These wars in Iraq,Afghanistan and Libya are no win wars designed to bankrupt us and the air conditioning price tag is something that is just part of the total package of 4TRILLION Dollars which again I quoted from General Petraeus's chief of Logistics, General Steven Anderson.
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/8083-wars-cost-pegged-at...
"If you have a problem
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 1:20pm.
etc etc, or be quiet about it".
Seriously, who made you the NB moderator? If your name is on the ownership of NB, you can set the rules of debate, if not, bugger off.
When one lives in a world of pure theory...
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 7:31pm.
Thanks for reaffirming the fact you are a hard-core isolationist in your first paragraph. Unfortunately for you, by going on offense and taking the fight to the terrorists, you get to enjoy the freedom you think is just there for the asking.
It is clear to me you have never spent a nanosecond in the military. When I was deployed in the desert and the generators went low, we weren't thinking of the AC. (We had plenty of water on pallets outside.) We had bigger concerns when the generators ran low. In many places the AC isn't used just for people. But then, you'd rather live in the world of theory. Maybe this explains your fixation on AC.
It's nice you quote incessantly from a logistician. I happen to be one. Hence I can discuss the subject at length if you wish. But the first thing you must learn when conversing with me is that barking orders at me is a BIG no-no. Oh, sure, you can do it, but you forfeit any respect I can have for you.
We didn't ASK for this conflict, sadly for you. They aren't designed to bankrupt us; they don't HAVE to, but since you and other refused to demand the government be as efficient as possible with its money, we run deficits and have a national debt.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Uns, apparently
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 1:31pm.
Irgon, besides not wanting the troops to be safe from heat stroke, doesn't want them to have radios to call in medevacs, or fire missions either. After all, those radios are powered by generators, also.
Crying shame, Up
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 7:53pm.
Used to be, the rest of the country got behind is Son's and Daughter's. Now a certain faction wants to abandon them at home, and abroad.
Instead of trying not to lose our own kids, we worry about the aggressors, and call it the high road? Weather it be our troops in conflict, or the kids at home having to compete in a lopsided unskilled job market dominated by illegals. The
libtards are still whining we dont sacrifice enough, even though they dont sacrifice at all.
GPS?
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 1:29pm.
What you say may be true, but your source is suspect, to say the least. CNN and Time?
And,you're arguing apples when the subject is oranges. The troops are there right now, they won't be out tomorrow, no matter when Obama or Ronpaul wants to surrender. They have to be supplied, or would you let them starve because they haven't left with the speed you desire?
And Steven Anderson, of VoteVets.org? That Steven Anderson? Really? The guy who insists that Congress must "Pass a clean energy climate plan that makes us more secure... or let America keep paying the price"? Is that who you're telling us is the be-all, end-all authority here?
Those great grand children we talk about when discussing
Submitted by lrgon on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 2:05am.
Obama's and the Dems and Repubs deficits and unbalanced budgets will be paying for these unnconstitutional wars.
Naivete on parade
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 7:39pm.
We can completely eliminate the Department of Defense - a move which would no doubt make you very happy - and maybe reduce the current deficit by 1/3. $14 trillion more of debt to go.
And unfortunately for you Iraq and Afghanistan were not unconstitutional - Bush sought the authority of Congress and got it.
Save it. I do not want to hear "it has to be a declared war". Because if you do, I will take that as "to hell with John Adams and Thomas Jefferson", presidents - Founding Fathers, no less! - who engaged in conflicts without declarations of war.
America is not attacked by others because it is too strong.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
these unnconstitutional wars.
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 7:39pm.
What wars?
These?
But then, I guess a King is more powerful then a room full of Knights, and Rooks, eh?
Neo con's? Not so much
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 7:23pm.
neo con/ liberal hawk wars that have racked up the cost to nearly 4 trillion
As far as I am concerned, this is a false statement.
When the dimwits took over congress in the 06 election, the wars (on for almost 4-5 yrs) were still under 400 billion bucks. Then the dimwits started packing the war budgets with pork.
The dimwits do one thing well, spend other folks money. They have taken elitism to a whole nother level
Oh, and I should also mention
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 7:27pm.
Despite the far greater budgets, our troops are getting killed at a greater clip now.
Notice, there are no stories about Armor plating, better vest, or reckless operation managing.
I disagree with "Geno's" opinion...
Submitted by bigdaddy on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 2:32pm.
...Does that make me a "racist"?
We need a *new* BRAC
Submitted by Free Stinker on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 2:51pm.
Bureaucracy
Realignment
And
Closure
That's what we really need.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Exctly, Free.
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 8:58pm.
Let the Feds submit every Federal agency to a BRAC hearing, and let's see what survives on their side of the ledger.
And, no bureaucrats on the committee, just regular citizens.
I keep asking myself...
Submitted by retrocon on Fri, 07/08/2011 - 4:23pm.
I keep asking myself, can the so-called journalists on the left really be this stupid?
And the answer is always the same - yes.
Or perhaps, it's "insanity." or just "evil."
But according to all the bozos on the left, the more you tax, the better the economy. Their end-game is 100% taxation = perfect economy.
They say that the more the government spends of your money, the better the economy. Their end-game? take 100% of my money and have bureaucrats spend it for me and the economy will boom!
And of course, the one thing the government shouldn't spend on according to the left? Defense. So, take defense spending, money that spawns innovation, ensures peace and security, and creates trickle down employment (exec, white, and blue collar workers), money directed at an activity that the feds are actually supposed to do constitutionally, and redirect it to fixing roads, giving abortions, building bridges, and saving frogs in S.F. Temporary jobs with zero innovation feeds.
What am i missing?
Ok, they really are that stupid.
"It's the agenda, stupid."
Submitted by lrgon on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 2:16am.
No one can be that stupid. They have an agenda and it's what Rush Limbaugh has charged is behind Obama's policies: to bankrupt America any way he can and to take away our freedom anyway he can.
Being stupid is one thing and I must agree with some theorists that perhaps G.W. Bush really was a very stupid person, a village idiot as the bumper stickers exclaimed. But even he must have known that he was following an agenda to bankrupt the USA and to transform America into a country that our fore fathers would never forgive us for allowing to happen: a stinking socialist dictatorship.
Robinson is just parroting a socialist line and admiring Obama as he slowing and methodically is hoodwinking the congress ( especially Boehner and Cantor) in eroding our economy and our liberty faster than the village idiot from Texas could.
Huh?
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 11:07am.
I guess being a Conspiro is easier than using critical thinking skills.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)