Shocking News!- Supercommitee Fails

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Kilkrazy**

Jihadin wrote:
US military spending has nothing to do with protecting the US, and nothing to do with taking on military rivals, neither real nor theoretical.

I actually thought it was to give us the technical edge over any and all adversary. Example will be night vision equipment.

US military spending has everything to do with giving the US the ability to have an absolute say in world events because if worst comes to worst, the US can drop a carrier group into the region to resolve the issue.

I see the threat of the US military really working on Iran or say Russia? Use of military force is a is decided by the politicians for the US. Implementation of the force is decided by DoD/Joint Chief of Staff once ordered by POTUS. That happens after POTUS exhaust all methods to deal with the issue at hand. Besides dropping a carrier group in the Indian Ocean to ensure say...North Korea arms trade. (Just throwing it out there as an example)

In the more formalised, alliance based situation of the cold war this was an immense boost to US trading relationships. Nowadays I kind of doubt it gives anywhere near as much as value to their trading power, and just ends up looking like a giant drag on the budget and economy as a whole.

Military Tech trade? or trade in general? I'm going for trade in general. Isn't trade a private sector thing? Think economic reforms might be in order here. Military budget needs some common sense cuts which in effect will cut into economy. Do the cut down but do it gradually.

So out of the 9 congress men/women I wonder what their degree's are lol

A lot of it is just pork barrel.

I have read that over 200 members of the current Congress have degrees in Law.

**Melissia**

Indeed, quite a bit of it is. Industries that get a foothold in government spending like to claw for every dollar increase they can get.

**Jihadin**

So down grade the military from state of the art weapon tech? Go to iron sights? Lose the ability to own the night? To maintain air superiority in a armed conflict?
A military contract is awarded to a corperation which in turn produce the desire item it was contracted for. Who makes the items are union workers. Do know a contract goes to the lowest bidder for the same service right? Someone going to bring up KBR which is not part of the military budget. KBR and other contract coorperation in theater is an entire different animal

**Easy E**

LordofHats wrote:
(If you think Iraq and Afghanistan aren't ultimately about stabilizing the Mideast to preserve the availabilty of oil, you may be deluding yourself.)

Yes. Because a country with no oil is absolutely vital in assuring the availability of oil...

I believe it maybe more of an issue regarding the transport of Oil, or pipeline rights. That or I'm confusing real life with a James Bond movie I saw.

Regarding Defense cuts:

A portion of U.S. Military spending is simply Corporate Welfare in another name and subsidizing the Southern economy.

**AustonT**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
So out of the 9 congress men/women I wonder what their degree's are lol

I have read that over 200 members of the current Congress have degrees in Law.

@KK I'm not exactly surprised, laywers making laws, then arguing about them in front of another lawyer judging them...
I also wouldn't be surprised if the proportion of all past president who are lawyers is even higher.

@Jihadin
Senate Democrats
Patty Murray (Co-Chair)- Physical Education
Max Baucus- Economics and Law
John Kerry-Political Science and Law
Senate Republicans
Jon Kyl -"undergraduate degree" and Law
Rob Portman- Anthropology and Law
Pat Toomey- Government
House Democrats
Xavier Becerra- Economics and Law
Jim Clyburn- History
Chris Van Hollen- Philosphy and Public Policy
House Republicans
Jeb Hensarling (Co-Chair)-Economics and Law
Fred Upton-Journalism
Dave Camp- "Bachelor's degree" and Law

Yeah...a lotta law in there.

**Jihadin**

See someone on their toes

So three IMO could have actually worked something out

**Easy E**

I wonder if we have any law-makers with a GED?

New rule, all house seat candidates are now filled via draft. It's like jury duty, but for law-making. Then the public votes for one of the randomly selected people after their views are heard. When your two-years are up, you go home. The Senate can stay as is.

On topic: I love that the automatic budget cuts won't go into effect until 2013. That way there is plenty of time to legislate them away!