http://susiemadrak.com/?p=3060

This is, apparently, the Worst Case Scenario...

However, given all the luck we have had with this spill (all of it bad) it wouldn't surprise me if this comes to pass...

Michale.....

Yeah, I heard some people saying that potentially parts of the spill could make the Atlantic Coast. I haven't been able to find a good source to confirm this so take it as hearsay for now. Not sure how this possible, but I really hope it's not true.

If projections are accurate our beach is going to be toast. :( At the worst possible time. St Augustine is a big tourist town. While the majority of our tourists are here for the history, not having beaches is gonna hit us hard.

I would venture the say that, in all honesty, FL might be hit the hardest in all this, as FL has the most beach/miles and, (again if projections are accurate) there won't be bit of beach in FL that will escape the oil.

Enjoy yer meal.. :D

Michale.....

Now you're getting to the crux of the matter. I'd go even further to say that even cuts to non-necessary programs are going to cost jobs.

Take for example the secondary engine for the joint striker program. The military has one engine, built by Pratt and Whitney. But GE managed to lobby for a second one to be built to the tune of $3 billion. It's not even going to be used in any actual planes. It is a $3 billion redundant backup.

The military has said they don't need this. So who needs it? GE. (I happen to live in the town where GE Aircraft Engines is located and GE has argued it will cost jobs.)

So both our local congress-critters, one Republican and one Democrat, seem to have found something they have in common, GE.

And it's a pretty similar situation in many other districts so the congress-critters seem to have an implicit pact not to touch each others earmarks and military appropriations. You get your slice of the pie, I get mine. And this seems to go across parties.

This seems to me what Eisenhower was referring to when he coined the term "military industrial complex".

And this is why it always confuses me when people say we have a free market economy in America. Much of our technology market (the military, in particular) is nearly 100% dependent on government funding. (I may not have been in the military, but I have worked for several defense contractors including a small one named Lockheed Martin :)

It's not going to be easy to cut budget when this is going to affect jobs. This is why I admire President Obama for his effort and his directive to the Pentagon to look for ways to cut funds. He will be fighting the Congress-critters from both sides on this one.

Do either of us have the expertise or inside knowledge to say it's not already at a reasonable level?

I was simply saying that if you were for eliminating the Defense Budget, then it would logically follow that the Social Welfare Budget should follow, no?

Ah, now I see where you were going. If I were arguing for simply eliminating a program because there was some waste in it, then yes, the argument could be made to eliminate all programs where there is waste.

Cheers man, I'm off to enjoy dinner at a new place downtown!

-David

p.s. What's the news on the oil spill down in Florida? Keep us posted on what you hear, Michale.

My apologies then.

When you called the entire Defense Budget an "earmark" and the thrust of this thread was getting rid of earmarks, I naturally assumed that you wanted to get rid of the Defense Budget..

My bust :D

I'm suggesting scaling our defense budget to a more reasonable level.

Do either of us have the expertise or inside knowledge to say it's not already at a reasonable level? :D

If we could cut $100 billion from the military budget (a 15% or so reduction) as President Obama is asking for, this would save about 7 times more than eliminating all earmarks.

What would you propose cutting??

Anything that is not a military necessity would kill millions of jobs...

p.s. No one said anything one way or the other about social programs so I'm not sure who or what you're talking about.

I was simply saying that if you were for eliminating the Defense Budget, then it would logically follow that the Social Welfare Budget should follow, no?? :D

Michale...

No one suggested doing away with the entire defense budget.

I'm suggesting scaling our defense budget to a more reasonable level.

If we could cut $100 billion from the military budget (a 15% or so reduction) as President Obama is asking for, this would save about 7 times more than eliminating all earmarks.

We would still spend 6 times more on the military than the next closest country. Still ridiculous, but a start.

Cheers
-David

p.s. No one said anything one way or the other about social programs so I'm not sure who or what you're talking about.

And thank you for proving MY point.

To chalk up the very real threats we face to "Sca-rrorism" is the epitome of either ignorance or a scorching case of Pollyanna-ism gone wild.

Is there waste?? Of course.. But to suggest doing away with the entire defense budget because of waste??

So, using your reasoning, we should do away with EVERY budget because EVERY budget has cases of waste...

All those social programs that you love so much epitomize "waste" and "fraud"..

OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!

Get rid of all social and welfare programs.

Good Call... :D

Michale.....

Thank you for proving my point, Michale.

"Sca-rrorism" is the best thing to ever happen to the defense industry. Scare the people like Michale to the point where he needs his own backyard bunker and then line up at the trough to suck $700 billion a year from the government.

And ok, there's a lot of recent discussion going on about the pentagon cutting $100 billion from their budget. So I give the Obama administration credit for being brave and looking to significantly reduce military spending.

Here's a no brainer ...
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/joint-strike-fighter-billion-boondoggle/story?id=10692337

This would be $3 billion in savings. That's 1/5 of the amount of all the total earmarks mentioned in the Post article.

Or do you disagree with the military saying they don't need this $3 billion "earmark"?

Cheers,
Michale

Why is it that the sacred cow of the military is never brought up when it comes to out of control spending?

Oh gee whiz, I dunno... Let's see if we can figure out this toughie...

How about, because it's the thing that keeps you and your loved ones alive and allows ya to bitch and moan about it in relative safety??

But hay.. When yer right, yer right...

Let's do away with the ENTIRE Defense budget.. Who needs all that anyways, right??

How long do you think this country would survive??

A month?? A week?? A day?? A frak'in hour??

Let me ask you something..

What is it that keeps the wolves at bay?? What is it that keeps the bad guys away from you and your family??

Our president's good looks?? His eloquence?? His ability to do absolutely nothing with practically everything??

Or is it that you don't think there are any wolves?? Any bad guys??

Well, I guess Sep 11th 2001 was just a bad dream, eh??

Jeeeze louise..

Michale.....

I was rushed yesterday, and didn't have time to download the database and comb through it, but you guys are welcome to do so.

-CW

As for earmarks, I find it interesting that "earmarks" are getting so much attention lately. I wonder if "earmarks" are the new "entitlements" to use one of the GOPs favorite terms.

I personally think they use these terms to refer to any programs that they don't like.

To put things in a little bit of perspective ...

Earmarks 2010 - $15.9 billion
Military defense budget 2010 - $663.8 billion
Estimated cost of Iraq and Afghanistan wars - over $1 trillion

That means getting rid of earmarks entirely would be the same as trimming the defense budget by about 2.4%. Or, spending one less month at war. This year's defense budget is about 42 times bigger than "earmarks".

(Oh, I know Michale, "I hate the troops." or "I'm aiding the terrorists" or one of those other bumper-sticker slogans you like so much.)

Now I dislike misspent money as much as the next person, but why is it our biggest "earmark", the defense budget, never considered an earmark?

Why is it that the sacred cow of the military is never brought up when it comes to out of control spending?

We spend 7 times more than the number 2 country and more than the next 10 nations combined. Couldn't we maybe spend just 6 times more than the number 2 country and save $100 billion?

I'm also curious if anyone's seen a story on this in the corporate ... err, I'm sorry "liberal media".

-David

Seconded...

And I am certain you will be scrupulously fair about it as well..

As an aside, let me say that, silly as it sounds, I actually LIKE the site better with all the ads. No, I really do.. It makes the site seem more... professional.

Michale....

I was kind of hoping for some examples of the most offensive earmarks....

Kevin

That was simply because of the fluke of the Dot Coms. Please don't think that the Democrats deserve ANY credit for that...

Although, Al Gore DID create the Internet at that time, right?? :D

eight years later we're broke.

Yea, war tends to be expensive.

But you are correct.

The Democrats DO deserve credit for THAT...

The Conservative lead Supreme court has allow corporations to donate looks like more room for earmarks.

And the Democrats get on their knees every day to... ahem... er... thank that court for that decision.

If you are going to try to convince me that there is really any difference between the GOP and the DP as far as greed and money are concerned, give it up.

I am simply way too intelligent to swallow that line of felgercarb...

Michale.....

Door #1 is the GOP door..

Door #2 is the DP door...

:D

Michale.....

Change my left butt cheek...

What was I thinking??

Michale.....