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.

 AustonT wrote:

Bromsy wrote:Yeah, it was the army air corps, then their britches got too big after the old dubbya dubbya two.

There's an argument to be made they needed to get away from the Army, I would opine they needed a separate budget but needed to remain more closely related to the Army to meet its needs without overlapping the Army's organic air component...or you know making it so the Amry didn't need it. But that's a long time gone.

Yeah, I think we'd have been better served by a Marines/Navy relationship than a new separate branch of snobbish dickholes who get substandard living pay for staying in the same room I did in AIT, except they had two people instead of eight. Plus we still have the army aviation, marine aviation, and navy aviation because interfacing with said snobbish dickholes is too much trouble.

I'm in the AV branch and to be honest the stick grabbers are the best of the bunch. It's the gakheads who don't fly that get my goat for various reasons. But we were in pretty constant communication with our drone counterparts( just the take off and land crew) and the fighter guys sharing information and cross pollination of ideas all the time. But the Mq-1 ground crew, I wanted to throat punch and skull feth every one of them. That's normal...right?

 Bromsy wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

Bromsy wrote:Yeah, it was the army air corps, then their britches got too big after the old dubbya dubbya two.

There's an argument to be made they needed to get away from the Army, I would opine they needed a separate budget but needed to remain more closely related to the Army to meet its needs without overlapping the Army's organic air component...or you know making it so the Amry didn't need it. But that's a long time gone.

Yeah, I think we'd have been better served by a Marines/Navy relationship than a new separate branch of snobbish dickholes who get substandard living pay for staying in the same room I did in AIT, except they had two people instead of eight. Plus we still have the army aviation, marine aviation, and navy aviation because interfacing with said snobbish dickholes is too much trouble.

I always enjoy it when you guys whine because you went into the wrong recruiters office.

 AustonT wrote:
I'm in the AV branch and to be honest the stick grabbers are the best of the bunch. It's the gakheads who don't fly that get my goat for various reasons. But we were in pretty constant communication with our drone counterparts( just the take off and land crew) and the fighter guys sharing information and cross pollination of ideas all the time. But the Mq-1 ground crew, I wanted to throat punch and skull feth every one of them. That's normal...right?

Are you referring to the AF ground crews? Why was that? When would you interact with them?

Pre/Post Flight checks depending on the aircraft

AV and AF have very different meanings in Japan.

Only look it up if you are over 18.

 Frazzled wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
I'm in the AV branch and to be honest the stick grabbers are the best of the bunch. It's the gakheads who don't fly that get my goat for various reasons. But we were in pretty constant communication with our drone counterparts( just the take off and land crew) and the fighter guys sharing information and cross pollination of ideas all the time. But the Mq-1 ground crew, I wanted to throat punch and skull feth every one of them. That's normal...right?

Are you referring to the AF ground crews? Why was that? When would you interact with them?

When? Every day. One of the wonderful perks of flying off the same field and sleeping in the same racks. See those mother fethers in the shower, at the chow hall, walking around the base like they were on vacation carrying around bags from the px, coming out of the pool and the movies theatre when we drove to pick up parts. And nut just all AF knuckle draggers in general the same individuals. Like teenagers at the mall in the middle of a war. I can't say the specifics of why in particular our AF sister unit raised my ire, but suffice to say it was petty and surreal when it happened.

I'm hearing a surprising numbe rof people that donot fear the fiscal cliff, but actively want us to go over it.

I heard some pundit getting a cute and referring to these people as cliff divers. He interviewed a few of them, and suffice it to say most had no real idea of the potential consequences of going over the cliff.

They just felt in their guts that somethign had to change and that the status quo was no longer sustainable.

It isn't always a misunderstanding of the situation that drives people, it is more often probably overestimating their ability to adapt to unknown situations. Everyone assumes they will be Mad Max or Lord Humungus, not the guy strapped to the front of the car.

For people that are in poor economic conditions I imagine they don't see it being that much of a change, and they may not be wrong; being poor before and after isn't a huge swing.

Just like people always think they will be the guy killing all the zombies instead of being a zombie?

 d-usa wrote:
Just like people always think they will be the guy killing all the zombies instead of being a zombie?

Yah.

 d-usa wrote:
Just like people always think they will be the guy killing all the zombies instead of being a zombie?

hey thats win win. Either you're a zombie killing machine, or you end up part of the winning team, and who deosn't want to be #1?

What wrong with looking on the sunny side of things?
I'd rather be the driver than the trophy in distopian Austrailia.

And the republicans offer nothing. http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/03/politics/fiscal-cliff/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Washington (CNN) -- House Republicans offered their own proposal Monday in the heated battle to avert the so-called fiscal cliff, but it was quickly rebuffed by President Barack Obama's administration for not demanding more from the nation's wealthiest taxpayers.

The GOP plan promises $2.2 trillion in deficit savings over the next decade, including $800 billion from tax reform, $600 billion from Medicare reforms and other health savings and $600 billion in other spending cuts, House Republican leadership aides said. It also pledges $200 billion in savings by revising the consumer price index, a measure of inflation.

House Speaker John Boehner called it a "credible plan that deserves serious consideration by the White House."

The move follows spitting back and forth in recent weeks, with each side claiming the other isn't sincere about striking a deal to avoid automatic tax increases and spending cuts in January, a scenario many economists say would hurt the U.S. economy.

Senior Obama administration officials slammed the Republican plan, calling it a step backward in negotiations and not worthy of its own counteroffer because it isn't serious enough.

White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer criticized it for not meeting "the test of balance." Another Obama spokesman, Jay Carney, earlier said the president "will not sign a bill that extends those tax rates for the top 2%," as the GOP proposal would do.

"Until the Republicans in Congress are willing to get serious about asking the wealthiest to pay slightly higher tax rates, we won't be able to achieve a significant, balanced approach to reduce our deficit," Pfeiffer said.

Republicans offered the plan amid pressure for a House vote -- which Boehner has so far prevented -- on a measure already approved by the Senate to extend tax cuts for families making less than $250,000 a year and to allow rates to return to Clinton-era levels for wealthier households. Lower tax rates set in 2001 and 2003 were extended for two years as part of budget talks in 2010.

In line with his stances during his first term and re-election campaign, Obama's deficit-reduction plan would increase tax revenue by almost $1 trillion over 10 years, a significant cut of a $4 trillion overall deficit reduction goal. In addition to adding a $50 billion stimulus package, his proposal closes loopholes, limits deductions, raises the estate tax rate to 2009 levels and increases tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

et Republicans, led by Boehner, have objected to any increase in tax rates, even for the wealthiest Americans. They have said an agreement must include major reforms of entitlement programs such as the Medicare and Medicaid government-run health-care programs for senior citizens, the disabled and the poor.

Their plan offered Monday proposed $800 billion in deficit savings through tax reform, including an unspecified amount of revenue raised by eliminating tax deductions and loopholes.

The GOP letter said the offer is based on a framework proposed last year by Erskine Bowles, a Democrat and one-time White House chief of staff who co-chaired a bipartisan deficit reduction panel appointed by Obama in 2010.

"This is by no means an adequate long-term solution, as resolving our long-term fiscal crisis will require fundamental entitlement reform," the letter said. "Indeed, the Bowles plan is exactly the kind of imperfect, but fair middle ground that allows us to avert the fiscal cliff without hurting our economy and destroying jobs."

n his response, Pfeiffer said the Republican proposal "includes nothing new and provides no details on which deductions they would eliminate, which loopholes they will close or which Medicare savings they would achieve."

"Independent analysts who have looked at plans like this one have concluded that middle class taxes will have to go up to pay for lower rates for millionaires and billionaires," he said.

And Bowles denied any direct connection to the GOP proposal, saying it reflected his view of a middle-ground approach a year ago but "circumstances have changed since then."

"It is up to negotiators to figure out where the middle ground is today," Bowles said.

Recent posturing on both sides -- such as Boehner saying this weekend he was "flabbergasted" by Obama's plan -- reflects mistrust built up over two years of deficit wars that have left Congress with a reputation for dysfunction.

In 2011, Republicans demanded major budget cuts before they authorized a hike in the federal debt ceiling, a fight that contributed to a U.S. credit rating downgrade.

The end of that crisis was a temporary fix that set up the current crisis, which sets the stage for sharp and widespread tax increases and the start of budget cuts of $1 trillion over 10 years if there is no agreement.

Experts have said failing to reach a fiscal cliff deal and devise a framework for a broader deficit reduction package to be negotiated when the new Congress is seated in January will cause economic turmoil and threaten the U.S. credit rating. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center estimates that middle-class families would pay about $2,000 a year more in taxes without action.

According to a CNN/ORC International Poll released last week, 56% of respondents said higher taxes were a fair tradeoff if it helps lower-income people, while 36% said taxes should be kept low to create jobs.

Another survey, by ABC News and the Washington Post, showed two thirds of respondents support Obama's call for holding down tax rates for everyone except the wealthiest Americans.

So what happens next? Senior Obama administration officials said Monday the GOP's plan was a nonstarter, primarily because they said it would actually lower tax rates for those in the top 2% income bracket and was too short on specifics.

But even with no more offers officially in the works, both sides will keep talking, the officials said. That may happen as soon as Monday night, when all members of Congress are invited to a holiday reception at which they can talk to, among others, the president himself.

Not seeing how that is "offering nothing."

I'm sure you actually believe that the presidents plan to raise 1.6T in taxes is ONLY going to come from those evil 1% super rich right? Especially when in return he's only proposed .4T in cuts.
/slow clap
The republicans offered .8T in taxes and 1.2T in cuts
What a shocking fething suprise that you call actually making more cuts than taxes "nothing" in a government spending more than it makes. I mean fethballs if you put the two together we can have 1.6T in tax hikes AND 1.2T in cuts and actually solve the debt crisis. I mean let's forget about how you'll have less money and less government services.
But the republican offer is hardly nothing. In fact by the WH's math thier plan would relieve the debt to the tune of .6T more than the presidents plan.

Indeed, it's not nothing, just not the desired thing.

My advice to the president would be to do nothing. He'll have the tax hikes he wants anyway; the GOP will be blamed for it - specifically, they'll be (accurately) painted as having allowed taxes to go up on all Americans because they couldn't prevent them on the very wealthiest.

At that point, Obama will be able to lobby for a tax cut package for <$250k, at which point they GOP will likely try and block it (cause Obama) at which point they'll come off even worse. And eventually have to capitulate, I imagine.

Truthfully I don't know why we're even calling these "negotiations" per se. The Republicans really don't have anything in their hands to bargain with.

The GOP has quite possibly the most epic negotiating position. The House. If they really want to troll Obama, and they do, they take his plan keep all the tax hikes, add some "fees" to things they don't like, and add in thier own desired tax cuts. More revenue just like you asked Mr. Barry. What the problem is?

What they are offering is nothing new. It's the same crap. I think the cuts are fine, but taxes still need to be raised on the top 10% and additionally on the 1% while cutting loopholes and deductions from the tax system. This "new" proposal only sticks it to the lower and middle class. The republicans need to stop worrying so much about the ultra rich or they are going to lose all support form the working and middle class.

 AustonT wrote:
The GOP has quite possibly the most epic negotiating position. The House. If they really want to troll Obama, and they do, they take his plan keep all the tax hikes, add some "fees" to things they don't like, and add in thier own desired tax cuts. More revenue just like you asked Mr. Barry. What the problem is?

Except they don't have the Senate or the Presidency, so all they have is a roadblock.

As Ouze said, the President has all the cards this time, no matter what House Repubs do; they lose. They either raise taxes on core consitutents; or get blamed for tanking the economy by not doing anything.

Just think the Repubs walked right into this one on their own. I don't believe the hype that the Pres is playing multi-dimensional chess while everyone else is playing tiddly-winks; but he clearly outmanuevered them on this one.

Same ole same ole in congress....I say go for it. Lets jump the cliff. We be screaming at first but it'll die down

 Jihadin wrote:
Same ole same ole in congress....I say go for it. Lets jump the cliff. We be screaming at first but it'll die down

Well... that might be Obama's/Democrat plan all along...

'cuz, the screaming and hollaring would get so loud due to the expiration of the Bush's tax cut...that the new Congress would cut taxes retroactively on the middle-class. And the prez comes out on top.

Not bad Mr. Prez... not bad.

With the Bush cuts in effect on all of us it means we all are not paying our fair share in taxes. Swan dive with a half gainer

 Ahtman wrote:
It isn't always a misunderstanding of the situation that drives people, it is more often probably overestimating their ability to adapt to unknown situations. Everyone assumes they will be Mad Max or Lord Humungus, not the guy strapped to the front of the car.

For people that are in poor economic conditions I imagine they don't see it being that much of a change, and they may not be wrong; being poor before and after isn't a huge swing.

Yeah, I think that is a large part of it. People just blindly figure that they'll have the smarts to get through the unknown.


The other part is that you have a hell of a lot of people raised on political rhetoric. They honestly believe that the end game is to beat the other political side, and that doing that is winning. The idea that the first goal should always be stable, consistent government doesn't seem to occur to them even a little.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Not seeing how that is "offering nothing."

It isn't nothing. It's just offering up a deal that obviously the Democrats aren't going to accept.

And in response the Democrats call it nothing, and insist on some movement before they'll even begin to negotiate.

Both sides laying out their early positions, framing the boundaries of the upcoming debate. Politics 101 from both sides, really.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
My advice to the president would be to do nothing. He'll have the tax hikes he wants anyway; the GOP will be blamed for it - specifically, they'll be (accurately) painted as having allowed taxes to go up on all Americans because they couldn't prevent them on the very wealthiest.

At that point, Obama will be able to lobby for a tax cut package for <$250k, at which point they GOP will likely try and block it (cause Obama) at which point they'll come off even worse. And eventually have to capitulate, I imagine.

Truthfully I don't know why we're even calling these "negotiations" per se. The Republicans really don't have anything in their hands to bargain with.

The tax cuts aren't the only thing on the table. There's also all the cuts to discretionary programs, the extension of unemployment benefits would automatically end, as would the delay currently in place on cuts to Medicare. The tax cuts are the biggest thing, fiscally speaking, but all that other stuff matters a lot to Democrats.

The bigger issue, though, is that suddenly pulling all that money out of the economy, in new taxes and increased spending, would be disastrous for an economy still struggling through a fairly weak recovery. No sensible person would actually let it happen, but then there's a portion of the Republican party, led by Eric Cantor, that frankly aren't that sensible. And while it isn't fair, it turns out that holding the economy hostage works pretty well when people think you really are crazy enough to pull the trigger.

If ya'll want some fireworks... have the GOP just pass a bill to make Bush's tax cut permanent and dare the Prez/Senate not to pass it.

Or, pass the Simpson-Bowles in it's unedited entirety and dare the Prez/Senate table it.

But, alas... ain't gonna happen. Something will pass and everyone will claim that they've "won" and the other guy got "reamed".

Get the popcorn out...

You know that if they can keep this peace thing up it will be the first time in 500 years that a new century hasn't been inaugerated with a Europe shattering war?

 Ratbarf wrote:
You know that if they can keep this peace thing up it will be the first time in 500 years that a new century hasn't been inaugerated with a Europe shattering war?

How is this even tangentially related to American fiscal policy?

If America were to go over that fiscal cliff, I think we would end up keeping the tradition.

So you're saying America is holding the European utopia together?

 whembly wrote:
But, alas... ain't gonna happen. Something will pass and everyone will claim that they've "won" and the other guy got "reamed".

Get the popcorn out...

Well, maybe both sides will claim victory. But supporters of both sides will claim their leadership has caved and weakly given in to the other side


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratbarf wrote:
If America were to go over that fiscal cliff, I think we would end up keeping the tradition.

The GFC hit and no-one took up arms. Why would this be any different?