nsplayr

So do you really wanna know or what? Well if that's your assessment of the Democratic party no wonder you don't support them. I obviously have different views.

This is a better answer, I didn't read the question fully. It seems like not right out of UPT, but long-term AF pilots will still be flying UAVs since there's no way the 18X career field can keep up with the demand alone. I'm actually pretty surprised they stopped taking navs, seems like that would have been an avenue to continue feeding the UAV demand beast.

Yes.

I'm am educated, informed, and not on welfare. I generally support the President's policies. I'm also able to get it through my brain that other smart, informed people are able to disagree and don't denigrate the (entire) other side to a bunch of idiots. Are you able to do the same? I'm not some person on youtube talking about my Obama phone, if you wanna have a real policy debate don't focus on those people because we've all got em. True, but while the minority does have rights and a significant amount of power in our system of government, the fact that something has majority support among the populace should probably signal that it will be supported by many reasonable politicians. They're supposed to be representing the people's interests, aren't they? Popularity doesn't always make good policy, but it makes no sense to elect others to represent your interests in Washington and then get all mad when they tend to support what is popular with their constituents. Opinions noted. While it can be dramatic and sometimes effective, falling on your sword out of principle typically only works once, technique only.

I'll agree that it's extreme and exaggerated. Although they are civilians, cops/FBI/SS, etc. are allowed to play by different rules in some regards in the execution of their official duties. I would put firearms usage into one of those categories, although I don't support an AWB anyways so it's all academic. If you disagree fine, but I think it's pretty clear that there can be slightly different rules for different people when official duties are thrown in the mix, that part should go without saying.

If you want the contact info for a co at ETAR flying the J let me know, one of my best friends from high school/college.

That's the crux of the matter right here. The problem is that some people don't agree, even in principle, that the government can limit firearms rights. We've literally had the discussion about tanks and etc. with a few people seeming to argue seriously that as long as the technology isn't classified, it's ok for private ownership. I'm fully on board with having a discussion of where to draw the line WRT what private citizens should be allowed to own, but until we can agree that such a line should even exist (and stop making false equivalencies between private ownerships and use by military/police/FBI/Secret Service) it's hard to have that conversation. I personally agree with you here for the most part, although people who want stricter gun rights limitations keep bringing up tanks et al around here because it's been argued that people should have the right to own them as well. Once an argument goes full-retard it's hard to go back. Exactly! If you feel your rights are infringed by new laws, vote against those legislators who pass them if they're from your state or district and file suit in court if you have standing. While it may seem easy to armchair quarterback what's Constitutional and what's not, until a case is decided in court every law duly passed is considered Constitutional until proven otherwise; that's how the system is setup to work. It goes back to drawing that line, and I think unfortunately in our system, it's often up to the courts to do so rather than the legislators. The President is guarded by the military in some situations, do you want access to all the weapons the military has access to? Bad standard to set, see above about false equivalencies.

Although the President's proposed solutions to many of our most recent problems consistently poll higher those of his opposition...but we won't worry about that since clearly you disagree and you are always right. He's clearly purposefully and willfully destroying the country. There couldn't possibly be a large number of people who actually agree with his policies or political approach. Inconceivable! More than meets the eye indeed.

At least Shapiro gives Obama credit to being a good politician, I'm sure that point was not conceded in 2009/2010. But hey, at least the President isn't taking money from the Friends of Hamas like his ole' buddy Hagel huh? SMH... I honestly don't know what his criticism is. He's accusing the President of proposing policies that are popular, blaming Republicans if they don't pass them while taking credit if they do pass. Sounds pretty par for the course if you ask me.

Great link...I may or may not have worked at CNA before the AF.

Dude, watching the show for the first time tonight...awesome.

What are you referencing here? The $1T I am talking about were the cuts signed into law with the BCA of 2011, not any "proposed" cuts that someone would like to see. Ok then genius, how do you cut spending then? Cuts on spending that is actual no-shit law are real cuts because if nothing changed, that money would be spent. They can't, that's the problem with long-term planning because people and circumstances change. That's pretty much part of life though, not sure how you can really expect Congress to somehow legislate around the desires and circumstances of their successors. You can make it more difficult to change by institutionalizing a program or a budget or by mandating this or that, but like you said, anything is waiverable. When you take what Washington was going to spend next year under current law and compare it to new law that decreases that number, that's called cutting spending. Are you looking for absolute cuts in spending year to year until we reach, what, zero? Are you adjusting for inflation? If you literally just kept debt growth below inflation you would eliminate all deficits right there in time [debt sustainability]. I just don't your criticism...all sides in Washington are working off of CBO projections for the future based on current law, there literally isn't another way to look at it.

FIFY. Let's talk apples to apples here. If it happens long-term, the sequester = $1.2 trillion over 9 years, revenues raised from the fiscal cliff deal = $600 billion over 10 years. Which sounds larger now? The spending cuts, which are exactly twice as big as the revenues raised. And all this is on top of the ~$1 trillion in spending cuts (over 10 years), and $0 in additional revenues, signed into law in the Budget Control Act of 2011.

Yep, you mean the Paul Ryan that I mentioned in the previous sentence? He knows, just like the President, that putting out a budget with your name on it doesn't mean jack in terms of actual governing unless it's adopted by both Houses of Congress. They can be good or bad for political posturing or as a starting point for real negotiations, but on their own, budgets don't mean anything; appropriations bills are where the rubber meets the road. Like I said, there's plenty of room for criticism without resorting to arguments that are untrue (i.e. "They haven't passed a budget since Obama took over!").

Close but not quite, April 2009. Try to be accurate in your criticisms since it literally took me 1 minute on google to figure out the correct answer rather than assume. Except for the fact that Congress has to vote for appropriations bills which actually authorize the spending of money. You're right that it's politically easier to not have a budget because then no one can saddle you with the negative aspects of the choices you've made (ask Paul Ryan about this) and I'm sure that's part of why they're doing it. The President puts out a budget each year (which means Jack and Sh*t 90% of the time) and it's usually not one of the year's political winners on either side of the Congressional aisle or to the American people. All that being said, you as a Congressman still vote to spend each and every dollar via appropriations bills, not sure how that provides "plausible deniability" WRT to spending money because you either were a "yay" or not. It was his staff's idea to create the sequester to avert a default in 2011, yes. But who's to blame for the Super Committee or Congress at large for not acting to identify smarter, more sensible cuts? That's the bigger question and what's relevant now. I can tell you what the polls say, 49% would blame Congressional GOP, 31% would blame Obama, 11% would blame both. Wanna know why I think a plurality of people think that, because who proposed what in the summer of 2011 is largely irrelevant now, but it's clear who's job it was to avert the sequester (Congress) and they've had about a year and a half to make that happen and they've failed. This is perhaps the only reason some Democrats won't be terribly upset if we let the sequester happen for a short time to further turn the heat up on the GOP to make concessions and negotiate a better set of deficit reduction measures. It's a soft deadline kinda like the Fiscal Cliff. It doesn't "explode" overnight but it's bad and the longer it goes on the worse it gets. Unlike the hard deadlines like the debt ceiling or a bill to fund the government (which BTW comes due 27 Mar 13), you can go over these deadlines without the effects being immediately catastrophic, doesn't mean that the long-term outcomes wouldn't be bad.

Which medal is that? P.S. - this has been discussed for over week. Probably the 4th thread in the Bar or General Discussion that's been started and subsequently moved/combined.

The same dope anyone is smoking if they believe any Democrats, including the President, want these cuts to happen. Almost no one (except a contingent on the right wing of the GOP/libertarian spectrum that is well represented on BO.net) actually wants to see the sequester happen. Now that it's imminent most of the mainstream politicians are all trying to dodge the blame for their own stupidity. The entire point was the the sequester was supposed to be so ill-conceived it would force Congress to work together and pass something better. Guess everyone who signed on to it underestimated just how stupid Congress could actually be.

There's a subtle difference here. If someone wants to work to change the reg, great, in this case it sounds like it would make sense, go for it! But to say "Commanders should never approve this for their people" because it's waste, that's where I disagree. If it's an authorized benefit why should a Commander decide it shouldn't be available to his people because he considers it waste? Stick to what the regs say unless there's a good reason to deviate (and denying HHG storage isn't gonna exactly solve our budget woes) and work to change the system which may actual have a measurable effect rather than a drop in the bucket when one SQ/CC turns off some money to his troops in his little corner of the AF. Little things add up is true in many regards but I just don't see any reason to deny some benefit for your troops that is legitimately and explicitly authorized just because you don't agree with it. If your case is really so strong that it's waste then working to get the system changed should be that much easier. I completely agree...airline tickets is one of the most asinine areas I've seen money wasted because I can find litereally the same tickets, Y-coded and everything, on kayak for 25-50% cheaper on a consistent basis. We're paying the premium to Winggate for their "customer service" which it's laughable to even call it that. /rant off

If it's authorized in the regs you don't have much of a leg to stand on...don't hate the player, hate the game. BAH is authorized too, do you hate on people who accept all of it even if their rent is less than what's authorized? What's a missed meal?

Congress. We're about to see what happens when Congress does not authorize the spending of money with both sequestration and a potential government shutdown if they don't pass a new bill to fund the government at the end of March.

Got an email today from a vets organization soliciting input (i.e. complaints) about the DWM to be packaged and sent to the SECDEF. Here's my question...nothing in the description of the medal says you have to be remote/cyber/whatever. Wondering if CCs could start putting dudes in for the DWM for actions that rank below a DFC but are still one-off major contributions to the war effort...I guess above the rarely-given single-mission AM? Just spitballing here...agreed that the hierarchy is a little screwed up.

Wow, that was a great price for a minute at least. No shit same gun was over $600 at a gun show I went to last weekend. Crazy. One of the major sellers at the show had signs all over empty tables to the effect of "Everybody calm the F down and stop the hoarding/panic buying!" I thought that was kinda funny.

Since this plan is new and pretty much a straight middle compromise between what the President and GOP are currently proposing I think it deserves fresh attention. It absolutely depends on how you look at it. Here's my question put in military terms: do you start with the threat and design a system to counter it or do you start with the system you want to build then only fly against the threats that system is designed to handle? I know what I think the real-world answer is. As a nation, there are things we need to do, thing we want to do, and things that will be nice to do most of the time. While we know the outlines of those things, they A) change over time, and B) are unpredictable (surprise, 9/11! Hurricane Katrina! Housing collapse!) and those purposeful changes and uncontrollable fluctuations should be and can be anticipated in broad terms. I.E. don't design a system to meet your min known requirements and put it into play. If you "starve the beast" enough that the government remains limited by strict statute and is only physically able to do X, Y, and Z that you think are the core functions, how do you deal with changing attitudes and pop-up costs that, at the time, will be expensive and urgent fires you need to put out. I'm just not on board at all with any kind of tax scheme that bakes austerity into the system or that funds all of government around one single (major) source of revenues. As a wise man once said, "You gotta diversify your bonds n***a." Ignoring the fact that I also believe a consumption-based economy can't last forever, I also don't want our leaders to be hamstrung that in a crisis or even just a future different from the one we've imagined, they are unable to act because the system-designed money spout is switched to the OFF position. Even if you don't trust our elected leaders specifically or in general, let's not f-them over before they even get into office with a system that so limits future choices should a dip in consumption happen. Long story short I agree that while the Fair Tax sounds simple it's actually not complex enough to deal with the complexities of running a national-level government of a world superpower. Our tax system now is absolutely too complicated and could be made much simpler for the vast majority of tax filers but let's not let the pendulum swing too far in the opposite direction. If you put all your eggs into a 23% (or whatever) consumption tax and then consumer consumption takes a sh*t like it did recently, then what? You've mandated severe austerity which IMHO doesn't work in the first place in terms of fixing deficits and also endangers our legitimate national interests. I do give Fair Tax proponents credit for having a solution on the table and for being intellectually honest that they think it's the silver bullet fix to otherwise complex tax reform, I just disagree with their conclusions.

Surprised no one has brought this up yet. There's a new plan being floated by Simpson and Bowles. I kinda like it, probably has no future in Congress. This is a good article about the budgetary push and pull you get from competing generations (graying baby-boomers vs the kids of today).

Just tried it, works for me.