Eccie members that have served in the military

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by waverunner234

Here is the difference:

The college grad has the future, the veteran has the past.

But you are way too stupid to understand that.

You are ridiculously stupid if you believe a veteran cannot be a college graduate.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You are ridiculously stupid if you believe a veteran cannot be a college graduate.

Particularly in the past 10 years or so. We have reached into the Guard and Reserve ranks repeatedly in which there exist a high % of college graduates. I call them vets.

Not to mention the "recruiting" pitch for "education."

[JD Barleycorn]

Wavy Gravy has that 1960s, Soviet mind set about the military. I had an instructor several years ago who was titled Doctor. He was also titled Master Sargeant. He talked about after the fall of the Soviet Union and he was assigned to escort a former Soviet, now Russian, general around Germany. At one stop over he was going through his books and notes. The general seemed interested. The sargeant explained that he was working on his Masters Program thesis. The general, like wavy gravy was amazed that an enlisted man actually had a degree much less was working on his masters. Wake up Wavy Gravy, the 21st century is knocking.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

"peace dividend"?

Does that translate to a reduction in military spending?

We can discuss the "peace" in another thread!

Then we can discuss the distinction between "allocation" and "expenditure" ... because during the 2nd Clinton term there were many "authorizations" through allocations for expenditures for which no funds were released by the administration ... and I'm not talking just about military ...

I also take issue with JDB on the "readiness" of the U.S. military in 2001 ... we were not adequately equipped for urban intrusions and not adquately trained for the tasks of house-to-house, neighborhood-to-neighborhood patrolling and searching. We had to improvise additional plating and guards to try to protect our personnel, civilian and military.

Sorry you don't know what the "peace dividend" (which is a repub term) refers to or the impact on military spending, base closures, etc. Austin's airport used to be Bergstrom AFB. Until you educate yourself (and I don't mean at jd's school of fun facts) you have to sit at the little people's table.
Strange how you like sitting with the 12 and 13 year old boys.

Per wiki;
Peace dividend is a political slogan popularized by US President George H.W. Bush and UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the early 1990s, purporting to describe the economic benefit of a decrease in defense spending. It is used primarily in discussions relating to the guns versus butter theory. The term was frequently used at the end of the Cold War, when many Western nations significantly cut military spending.

Like I said, Carter didn't cut military spending. Do you take exception to jd for saying that he did? Obviously without the slightest concern for the truth.

Which brings us to the second part of the statement I made. Many of the cuts during Clinton's first term were mandated by Congress.
You tell me I'm wrong, offer no proof, and then say we can discuss it later, "in another thread!".

Nice try you little douche-bag. I was responding to something in this thread. You were responding to something in this thread.
Why not here and now? Got an appointment to have your nails done at kayla's exclusive Vietnamese house of nails?

I guess from all the nonsensical bullshit you just gushed forth, bullshit without any facts, you don't have a real response to my statement.
As usual.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I know you will squeal but here is the chart I found

Military spending under Carter is flat while overall spending went up by over 25%. Remember, I served under Carter. I have some idea how bad things got if you were not a photo op unit.

You show a chart with no specific numbers detailing defense spending as proof of your statement against detailed numbers that show an increase in spending every year of his Presidency using numbers provided by the CBO.
Can you count? Compare numbers?
Do any-fucking-thing? Once again the numbers.

97,241 1977
104,495 1978
116,342 1979
133,995 1980
157,513 1981
Looks like more than a 50% increase between 77 and 81.
Flat huh? Like your head?
And oh yeah, you served under Carter....in a job you could perform that left you enough time to perform an overall analysis of total defense spending to the degree where you can say he spent less. And you talk about people in photo-op units.

Everything you say belies your claims of any possible honor or accomplishment.
This latest example of sheer stupidity, obviously spurred on by marshall and whirly since you don't have it to dare it on your own, shows how lacking you are. In everything..

You are not a douche-bag, a lowly device with a valid function.

You are the webbing between some kid's toes.
Something to trimmed away and discarded.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Sorry you don't know what the "peace dividend" (which is a repub term) refers to or the impact on military spending, base closures, etc. Austin's airport used to be Bergstrom AFB. Until you educate yourself (and I don't mean at jd's school of fun facts) you have to sit at the little people's table.

Your presumptuousness is remarkable, and not in a good way at all. You failed to answer my question as to "peace dividend" equaling a reduction in military spending.

Based on your immature level of posting I have no doubt that I passed through Bergstrom before you were born, ass wipe. It was a SAC base then.

And I sit at whatever table I chose to occupy. You are neither qualified nor old enough to give me direction or education as to location or process.

You have a nice day now, and tomorrow also. "Peace-nik" ass wipe....unless you are one of those Austin-Maggots that became Austinites a month after they arrived from arm-pit USA. Then you don't even qualify for "ass wipe."

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...9_military.png

Just to refresh your recollection from "studying" history:

Carter = 1977-1980*

Clinton = 1993-2000*

* I didn't count the 20 days of "January" after the elections.

If you are having a struggle with reading a bar graph when the bar gets shorter that means there is less spending as the bar gets shorter and then as the bar gets taller that means that there was more SPENDING ...

... to help you out there was less spending during the Carter years and Clinton years in comparison to other programs ... like the "entitlements" and even though those two guys failed to improve the financial condition of Social Security (even though Clinton had a "surplus" on the books) they did not improve the condition of the military* ... Carter because he was driving submersibles which is of little use in freeing hostages and Clinton because he was treating assaults on the U.S. as a "law enforcement" matter ... and neither one of them needed a military ... they had a "peace dividend" ... or in Clinton's case a "PIECE DIVIDEND"....

... don't bother to get up out of the high chair chld.

*The lack of preparedness on both their parts was documented by the utter failure of Carter to employ and orchestrate a freeing of the hostages, Clinton's failure to stop the consistent attacks on the U.S., and the admitted inability to launch an attack into a foreign country without a "beach" upon which to drop off "boots"! (Putting aside the FACT that Bush II was able to deploy "boots" on the ground in Afghanistan without a "beach" and Bush I was able to invade Iraq without a "beach" before Clinton arrived).

"peace dividend" ... a dismantling of the military by allowing repairs, upgrades, and replacement materiel to degenerate and become outdated and out of service. Ala a lack of adequate protective plating on vehicles and no equipment to "de-mine" roadways and detect phone-radio controlled explosive devices.

... just remain the high-chair child....it's safer for you there.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You are ridiculously stupid if you believe a veteran cannot be a college graduate.

Actually I'd be ridiculously surprised if I found out you were either!

DIPSHIT!

[JD Barleycorn]

You have five years of numbers and Carter served four. Can you tell me that the 1981 numbers are the holdover from Carter or the first Reagan budget in October of that year?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You have five years of numbers and Carter served four. Can you tell me that the 1981 numbers are the holdover from Carter or the first Reagan budget in October of that year?

Budget is meaningless as to the President's "appreciation" of the value of a ready and able military. Spending is the issue, and when doing comparisons one must factor in the comparative value of the dollar ... from 1981 to 2012, etc. The other factor is what was purchased in the spending ... for instance, Clinton bought "lids" from China. Carter had to pay for items already "purchased" and the "order" being completed on his watch.

A good example: Obaminable didn't have money in the DOS to pay for security at the facilities in Libya, but he had money to buy "electric" cars to "Green Europe" from our DOS facilities there ... even had a "coming out" party for the "Greening of Europe"! It was "State's" spending. On what? Making Europe Green and MORE BAILOUT of his electric car bullshit to help the unions with more tax dollars!!!

We had private individuals and law enforcement agencies sending body armour to our troops in 2002-3. Why? Where was the "build up" for the "mightiest military ever assembled" or whatever the bullshit was when Bush II took over? No friggin vests? No plate on vehicles? Inadequate urban training ... had to borrow equipment to "de-device" roadways! Even under Bush I had to borrow mine clearing vehicles ... from Israel.

Since the President takes office late January, I give him the year he takes office through the year of the election before he leaves office. Obaminable will have 09, 10, 11, and 12, if he is not re-elected. If he is re-elected he will get rhough 2016.

Carter was sworn in 1977 and out 1980 = 4 years. Clinton in 1993 and out 2000.

[JD Barleycorn]

A president gets to submit a budget for the year in October (except Obama who hasn't had one yet). So Carter got to submit a budget in 1977 and the country was running on his budget until 1981. So that is my question; are the 1981 numbers the end of Carter's term or the beginning of Reagan's. It can't be both. I remember getting a 23% pay increase from Reagan.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

A president gets to submit a budget for the year in October (except Obama who hasn't had one yet). So Carter got to submit a budget in 1977 and the country was running on his budget until 1981. So that is my question; are the 1981 numbers the end of Carter's term or the beginning of Reagan's. It can't be both. I remember getting a 23% pay increase from Reagan.

Theoretically the "budget" was submitted by Ford prior to Carter being sworn in 1977 and Carter submitted the budget for 1981, which was prior to Regan taking office. But, I repeat, a "budget" does not equal MILITARY SPENDING for two reasons: Not all budget items are "spent" AND there can be and often is, SUPPLEMENTAL DEFENSE bills that are not budgeted. Also, there are items that are not purely military, but they are DEFENSE expenditures, R&R, for instance.

My point about SPENDING is that long range investments and projects must reflect changes in dollar value and inflation during the life of the project .. as well as cost overruns that are far too prevalent in the industry. As a consequence the actual dollars paid out are not necessarily reflective of readiness and improvements. An incoming President "takes over" existing projects through completion in his term .. e.g. an aircraft carrier .. fighter development and order completion .. and those projects and investments do not necessarily reflect his attitude toward military growth, improvements, and readiness. It reflects those views of a previous President. It will still be counted as "his spending" on military, even though it was not really reflective of his attitude toward the military.

For instance during Bush I the modification of dumb bombs into smart bombs was what amounted to a "cottage" industry from the standpoint of R&R and application. That was not a "budgeted" item, but it was an expenditure that added value to readiness and improvements that were immediately applied. Off budget items.

Look at comparative spending during Carter and Clinton years ... military vs. entitlements. That is reflective of their atittudes and priorities with the backing of Congress.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Theoretically the "budget" was submitted by Ford prior to Carter being sworn in 1977 and Carter submitted the budget for 1981, which was prior to Regan taking office........................ That is reflective of their atittudes and priorities with the backing of Congress.

For someone who has never served in the military, LL seems to have posted as much, or more, than anyone in the "Eccie members that have served in the military" thread. Perhaps he wanted to join in the fun but his "nerdy" glasses were too thick!

LL always had a bad habit of sticking his nose where it doesn't belong!

Not to worry, if Obama wins LL will probably ride off into this evening's sunset! See ya in 6 to 8 months!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

For someone who has never served in the military, ...

And you acquired your information from where .... ?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Spending is the issue, .

Not when it comes to the military. You selfish bastards want to spend all our SS/Medicare savings on Defense. You do not want to pay higher taxes.

The math does not add up in relation to your so called Patriotism. In fact you guys are killing this country with your "More spending on Defense" and you "Cut Taxes" BS.

Any military proponents that want to take old people's saving to pay for their VA and college benefits is either really a low life or has no understanding of how the math is. Pay higher taxes if you want to double Defense spending like we have in the last ten years.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

Not when it comes to the military. You selfish bastards want to spend all our SS/Medicare savings on Defense.

Creating straw-men again, are you?

Or just chasing windmills with BT?

2 peas in a pod.

Defense spending before the "peace dividend" kicks in is less than 1/2 of the medicare, social security, and medicaid combined. The percentage of defense to total spending is less than 5% in recent years ...

defense spending creates jobs and puts people to work ....

social entitlement programs encourage people not to work and generates subsequent generations of people who learn how to "game" the system and provide themselves with the ability to survive without having a job.

You and others want 10% of the people in this country to support the other 90% in entitlement programs .. and that is where you are heading if you don't stop the bleeding.

And defense is not the "bleeding" ... nor is Social Security, if one eliminates those who paid little or nothing into the SS, but are seeking disability with insurance coverage to support themselves. I would be delighted if the government would right me a check for the contributions I have made to SS (and still making BTW) plus average interest on my money for the life of my contributions, which exceed your life time.