Talk Politics

Comment

Comment by Charles on August 15, 2012 at 9:41pm

http://www.dishonorabledisclosure.com/index.html

Just visited this web site and watched the video. Subject is OPSEC.

Comment by Charles on August 14, 2012 at 9:37pm

Jamie Dimon from JP Morgan had to go in front of Congress because they lost $4 Billion of the companies money. This was not client money. Now that we find out that the taxpayer's are going to loose $25 Billion on an $85 Billion auto bail out.....who is going to go in front of Congress for that? 

Comment by Kirk Brooks on August 14, 2012 at 11:22am

I don't post a lot but since the political battles are heating up I thought I'd jump in with a little of my own opinion on the current state of US politics. They are a travesty. Neither the Dem's or the GOP have any concept of critical thinking. It's all posturing and political gamesmanship. I feel that most people, whether they consider themselves Dem's or Repub's, are generally pretty moderate in our views. We don't like our tax dollars being wasted on ridiculous social programs, but we don't want to see kids starving in the streets either. This asinine concept of "If it helps just one person...." is the road to stupidity. This is why every major election is a battle for the middle. When I look at our presidential options, I feel like asking my doc for anti-depressants. Obama is essentially a clueless, spineless, joke and Romney has all the voter appeal of soggy cardboard. Ryan would be better on the top of that ticket. It's really sad when the Libertarian Party actually has the closest thing to a realistic thinking platform. I used to be a registered Republican but after they were silly enough to run Bob Dole against Clinton I dropped them and went unaffiliated. One of my proudest moments was when I cast my first ever Presidential vote for Ronald Reagan. He's probably spinning in his grave today. I'm not sure how I'm going to vote this election. It won't be for Obama, that's a given. So do I vote for Romney simply to vote against Obama or do I pick a third party and vote against both out of protest? Time will tell, but I'm not expecting anything impressive out of either camp. End of rant.

Comment by JDad on August 14, 2012 at 8:33am

Hooyah Navy Dads.  Please click on this link for a great piece by the military historian Victor Davis Hanson.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/313242/obama-never-never-lan...

Comment by JDad on August 13, 2012 at 2:21pm

Jack Flash:  That is exactly correct--"something" has to be done so that there is "something" there down the road.  My sense is that the Democrats will continue to tell the big lie about Romney/Ryan "taking away Medicare" in order to frighten people.  Spread the word--the Democrat's way of doing nothing, offering no alternative, guarantees a bankrupt future.

Comment by Jack Flash on August 13, 2012 at 1:46pm

Hi Joseph,

I just turned 50 myself some are in the same boat. I'd frame it slightly differently however... It's not that we will be missing out on the Medicare program since we are younger than 55. Rather, the changes Romney/Ryan are proposing are necessary to ensure that "something" will be there when we retire. The fact is that the Democrats have not offered any alternative, and doing nothing now ensures that the will be nothing there in less than 12 years at the present rate of over spending. I applaud Paul Ryan for the steps he's taking toward getting the problem under control and securing the future in spite of being demonized by those who have no solutions of their own.

Comment by JDad on August 13, 2012 at 9:43am

Thought I'd stir the pot a bit today after this weekend's VP announcement by Governor Romney.  Here's a piece by John Podhoretz that appeared in today's version of Commentary.

"The chief attack on Paul Ryan electorally is simple: His now-famous Plan “ends Medicare as we know it,” thereby stripping the elderly of their health care. They should fear it and fear him and vote against him.

The next three months will be a test of something important: Whether this assertion, which is an out-and-out lie, can overcome the plain explication of the truth.

The design of the Ryan plan is as follows. Everyone age 55 and older remains in the current Medicare system. Period. Nothing changes. Nothing. Assume for the sake of argument that a President Romney actually adopts the Ryan plan in its particulars, and fights for it in the way President Obama fought for Obamacare.

It took 15 months for Obamacare to be signed into law. So let’s say it takes until April 2014 for the Ryan Medicare plan to become law, and it says what it says now—that everyone in the Medicare system now stays in and everyone a decade away from the Medicare system will join it.

As a practical matter, this means that in 2012, anyone 53 or older, not even anyone 55 or older, will have total access to the current Medicare system.

The political argument against the Ryan plan is that it endangers Romney’s chances in Florida; indeed, the Obama campaign has already begun running scary ads about Ryan taking away Medicare.

But it’s not true. It’s true for me; I’m 51. It’s true for the people who were two grades above me in high school. But it’s not true for anyone older than me; not a single retiree in Florida or anywhere else, in other words.

That’s just the plain fact of it. There’s no argument. The complex new system won’t even come into existence, by Ryan’s own design, until ten years after his plan becomes law.

So how can it threaten current Medicare recipients? It can’t.

Like I say, this is an interesting test. There’s the undeniable truth, and there’s the bald-faced lie. Which will be believed?"

Enjoy your day, Navy Dads and Hooyah to all. . . .

Comment by JDad on August 8, 2012 at 9:36am

More interesting information from my Air Force Association email in-box, again about sequestration:  President Obama
signed H.R. 5872, the Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012, into law on Aug.
7. The legislation requires the White House's budget office to submit a report
to Congress within the next 30 days that details the effects of budget
sequestration on federal programs, including the US military's activities, in
Fiscal 2013. Some lawmakers have previously charged the Administration with not
being forthcoming with such information. Unless Congress and the White House act
to prevent it, the Budget Control Act's sequester will kick in on Jan. 2, 2013,
stripping $1.2 trillion from federal spending accounts through
Fiscal 2021, including some $500 billion from the Pentagon. Defense Secretary
Leon Panetta has repeatedly warned that sequestration would be "devastating" to
the US military, given that the BCA has already cut $487 billion from
the Pentagon's budget through Fiscal 2021. Congress sent H.R. 5872 to the President in late July. "The time for
fingerpointing and political recriminations has passed," said House Armed
Services Committee Chairman Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) in an Aug. 7 statement urging Congress and the Administration
to prevent sequestration.

Comment by JDad on August 4, 2012 at 5:54pm

Jim:  Seems as if you are correct about point # 2--a good thing if costs to individual service members stay low, although as I'm sure you noticed, the current administration wishes to RAISE fees for service members and families.  Point # 1 is the one, from a "macro" perspective, that is troubling--steep cuts in Pentagon budgets will put all of our active duty sons and daughters at greater risk over time.  It's still a dangerous world--cutting defense budgets now seems to me a crazy risk driven by partisan politics.  But, that's just me. . . 

Comment by JDad on August 4, 2012 at 8:36am

An Item of Interest  

This from my daily in-box from the Air Force Association: 

Recess for Congress starts next week, and we won't be expecting too much to come out of Washington. But there are a couple of legislative issues looming when Congress returns:

1. Sequestration… Most recently, OMB said military personnel accounts would be spared the budget ax, which ultimately will result in even steeper cuts to other areas of the Pentagon budget. Every Service chief has gone on record to say that the effects of sequestration will be devastating, and AFA urges bipartisan agreement to prevent this clause of the Budget Control Act of 2011 from taking place.
2. Defense Budget: Earlier this week, Senate subcommittee put forward a Pentagon spending plan for FY13 that would set the base budget at $511 billion and would include $93 billion in OCO funds. Those figures are in line with DOD's budget request.  The bill rejects the Obama administration's proposed TRICARE fee hikes; reverses the Navy's plan to retire nine ships and funds the requested number of Joint Strike Fighters; provides an additional $180 million for efficient production of Air Force C-130Js; and provides $21.5 million to accelerate backup oxygen systems for the F-22 Raptor.

The decisions yet to be made in the coming months will affect how the USAF, and its sister Services, will be able to project US power in the years (and decades) to come. As this month progresses, we hope you lend your voices to the cause, contacting your local congressmen and women to protect the issues important to you and this nation. We will keep you updated with what we are doing here.

David T. "Buck" Buckwalter Acting President Air Force Association

This has clear implications for USN as well and for all USN families.

Joe

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• 15
• …
• 113
• Next ›
• Page