nsplayr

Well played sir...my squadron didn't have anything nearly as hilariously "offensive" confiscated during the great Professionalism Witch Hunt of 2012. My hat's off to you guys, rock on out there with your genital-inspired beer opening devies.

Phew! Good thing I quietly took mine home from my desk before this all went down...

I don't think the point was that he was against PT as a concept in general (at least I don't think so). We're in the military, not the girl scouts, so we should be doing PT and there should be a test. My problem with all the PT shenanigans under the previous regime was the implicit lack of trust in creating the FAC, making civilians test us, then doing away with that in part when it was unworkable, etc. etc. etc. How about I, as a UFPM, test my squadron and if I help anyone cheat or lie on any forms you give me an Article 15 and show me the door. I'm given the keys (proverbially) to multimillion-dollar jets but can't be trusted not to lie on a freakin' PT test? That part of the reg we could do without.

Yea, I've made that point before that it's not up to Congress to determine what's Constitutional. You'd think in most cases they wouldn't pass things blatently and obviously unconstitutional, but I guess those determinations are subjective and in this case, yea, don't think any members are gonna sue to get their money or they will quickly be relieved of the burden of having to worry about getting paycheck as a member of Congress!

Boo.

Nice, def thinking about getting my hands on an M&P Shield and seeing how I like it. May want to point them to WRT how to verify mil identity though.

That's exactly what the House proposal would do, withhold Congressional pay unless the Senate passed a budget. Not really sure that's GTG considering the 27th Amendment but I like the idea regardless.

First world problems I guess... Help Wanted: One Boyfriend for Billionaire Chinese Heiress

Looks like the problems is solved again, for now. House GOP Agrees to Life Debt Ceiling for 3 Months. It includes this: I actually kinda like it, although actually changing Congressional pay like that doesn't appear to be Constitutional.

Agreed and I'm saying there are clearly other more sensible options. Raise the debt ceiling and pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, raise the debt ceiling and shut down the government until a balanced budget is proposed and passed, etc. etc. But start with #1 so we don't shoot ourselves in the face before we even get started fixing the problem. Not everyone feels this way apparently. Let's chop our balls off right away because we might get kicked in them some years down the road... Except that's not what happens very often at all. Almost every single budget Congress has ever passed has not been a balanced budget, just as a thought. If you really want to force them to do this apparently very difficult task, either elect new Congressmen or pass a Balanced Budget Amendment that compels them to do so by law or both. In the meantime, let's pay our bills that we're already racked up.

So are you that self-sufficient farmer out in Montana with valuable metals and well-stocked pantries of food and supplies? That guy, despite being called crazy, would be well positioned to deal with the consequences you seem to welcome. If you're a more average person though, with money in savings accounts, the stock market, the bond market, real estate, etc., I don't think you would be well served by inducing the disaster you're courting. Let's not be so concerned with the long-term problem that we blow ourselves up in the short term. There's a difference between my statement and yours. You're 100% right that most politicians aren't able to worry about the long-term when they take their votes and our debt path is unsustainable, but that means we need to FIX the system, not DESTROY the system. I sure as hell trust my next paycheck to the government because I owe Uncle Sam at least 2 more years of my time and energy. I was kind of operating under the assumption that during those two years of working hard I would be paid. And I also trust much of my savings to the stock and bond markets, both of which would be negatively affected by a U.S. government default or even a significant slowdown in government spending (i.e. British-style austerity measures). Again, are you or the average American for that matter so radically different that you can really afford to weather the consequences of what you're proposing? Congress is great at creating disasters for themselves, like the fiscal cliff and the debt ceiling. That doesn't mean we should just throw ourselves head-first into those disasters, to me that means we need better Congressmen.

Our bills are more than out debts if you're just looking narrowly at interest on our current 16 trillion dollar debt. We could absolutely pay that with our revenues, no problem. But there's much, much more that needs to be paid that I'm assuming you're in favor of... I'm guessing you're mil so your salary is a "government debt" that may not get paid if the debt ceiling is not raised and Congress/Treasury doesn't prioritize it. Would you like to get paid or should we just blow the whole system up? Your elderly parents' medicare payments and social security checks are "government debts" that might not get paid, same deal. Would they and their doctors like to get paid, or should we just default now, cause ya know, let's just let the bad stuff happen. You get the picture. Statements like that are absolutely intended to make people fearful of taking that course of action because that course of action would be extremely bad for the country. They also happen to be absolutely true possible outcomes of not raising the debt ceiling. And don't just ask Democrats since you won't believe them, ask most Republicans or nearly all economists if they think it's a good idea not to raise the debt ceiling. Get back to me with what they say.

...and then you would pay the bill. "Taking the credit card from that bitch" is telling Congress to stop appropriating money. Not raising the debt ceiling would be like throwing the bill in the trash, pretending you don't owe it, and hanging up the phone when Mastercard calls you up wondering WTF.

I'm not fully versed on what the CBO said then and what their latest report on the ACA says now. To the point, are you saying the CBO is wrong in that case as well as this case (i.e. on the Budget Control Act) or that they're wrong all the time and shouldn't be trusted? Or is this just another example of the know-nothing revival going on in some circles these days? Try countering what I present as fact with different facts, not with just "Well, they're wrong, haha!"

I believe the Budget Control Act of 2011 is still the law of the land (with some modifications from the latest "fiscal cliff" deal). That act was passed by the Democratic Senate, the Republican House, and signed by President Obama. Here's what the CBO says: So while 2.1 trillion in deficit reduction isn't nearly the entire scope of the problem, 2.1 trillion dollars sounds pretty "real" to me and the CBO...

We've moved well beyond the original point. Here was the original point: the government should pay it's bills, no questions asked. If we want to reduce debt and deficits in the future, stop spending so much or raise more revenue (or both). Not paying your bills is like trying to reduce spending in the past, it just doesn't make sense. If I'm a contractor providing trash removal services for say, Hurlburt Field, I come and make my weekly pickups and bill the base on the first of the next month for the previous month's services. I provided those services, me and my trucks actually came to base and actually provided value. I do so with the assumption that I will be repaid for those services. Whether Congres is borrowing that money to pay me or actually has gold in Ft. Knox, I don't particularly care. Congress via the DOD budget has indeed appropriated money to pay for those services at HRT and I as the provider of those services bill the government and expect to be repaid. Is the best way to reduce spending: A) decide not to pay me, the trash contractor, for services previously rendered and consequences be damned or B) pay the bills already incurred and decide maybe the base can no longer afford trash removal services, and choosing not renewing my contract for the future? I'll tell you what my opinion would be as that trash contractor... So you're worried that debt poses a real long-term threat to your retirement and government-backed savings accounts (i.e. TSP)? I agree, that's true. But ya know what else, not raising the debt ceiling posses a real near-term threat to those very same accounts! You want the government to be fiscally solvent so it can honor the pension commitments it may have made to you and have the ability to deposit your TSP money into your checking account when the time comes right? Let's not be so worried about the long-term threat that we miss the near-term threat. Raise the debt ceiling tomorrow and Treasury will stop taking their "extraordinary measures" that include messing around with the G fund the very same day. Once that near-term threat to your funds is resolved we can address the long-term threats. It seems extremely unwise on a personal level to seek a default on U.S. government debt when you're personal retirement is highly tied to accounts and future promises that are part of that government debt. If you were a self-sustaining farmer who lived totally off the grid up in Montana and had a stockpile of gold, silver and provisions, you might have more credibility saying you don't really care if the system self-immolates because you'd still be GTG. I'm betting as an active duty military officer who draws his pay and may want to draw retirement benefits in the future from that government, the consequences of default would be a little more severe for you and all/most of us here. And please yourself if you still think raising the debt ceiling causes us to incur more national debt. Debt is incurred when and only when Congress appropriates more money than it takes in over a given time period. That fundamental misunderstanding may be the root of the problem here.

From your link: LoLoLoLoLoL! I guess we can stop all this bickering then! Closing the Supreme Court and all other Federal courts sure will save a lot of money... Their prices were funny though.

Haha...well played I'm not sure the Chief Executive saying he won't enforce certain laws and arguing that the Constitution gives him the discretion to do so is quite the same as average citizen Bob saying "I don't like that law, I'm not following it!" but the point is taken. It's a legalistic argument for the President to make but keep in mind every modern President has made this argument in various ways when dealing with Congressional action they don't approve of (see signing statements et al). Interesting line of thinking. You might be right, I wonder what a court would think if someone brought a case on those grounds. Not a lawyer, but just in the spirit of debate, they may say that since you're paying for the gun in the first place that it's different than voting since voting is free. They could also make you show that you don't have the means to pay and then waive the fee for only those people al la "If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish." That gives a person fair access to due process in the legal system, but only applies to people who cannot afford a lawyer. Just throwing things around now but good point to think about, it seems technically possible to open up the database so private citizens could register sales and run background checks (with a yes/no response) for free and maintain people's right to privacy while doing so. You're right that it's a fine line between freedom fighter and terrorist so to speak, and honestly how history judges such a person largely depends on the outcome of their actions. Generally not a path I personally recommend unless you're 100% sure you're in the right and that you're willing to bear the consequences of being wrong and in violation of an acceptable law.

France begins ground attack.

Sounds like a good program. The high school I attended had a full-time Resource Officer who was in uniform and open carried a duty pistol every day on the job. He also had an AR in the trunk of his patrol car which was parked prominently in front of the school during school hours. I 100% support the very same thing existing in every school across the country, and recognizing that such a program costs money, support Congress funding it. I see it as hypocritical to say you support Resource Officers in schools but don't support giving states and local school districts the money to actually implement it. That may work and if there can be programs setup that allow teachers to get training then great, I'm all for it. On the other hand, I agree that it is not the best option, and I for one am willing to pay for the best option when it comes to protecting kids in schools. Security certainly isn't free. That may be true, but what's your basis for saying that such decisions would be actual infringements? If a lower court rules that certain restrictions on gun and ammunition or CCW or whatever are permissible, and a higher court does not overturn the decision, that decision is Constitutional no matter what you or I may think. That's kind of how the system works and what the various courts exist to do (in part). By all means continue to fight for decisions like that to be overturned if you really think they are unconstitutional but I find it hard to take people seriously who believe they alone are the sole judge of what is and is not simpatico with the Constitution and in turn will "refuse to follow or enforce" laws that don't meet their own standard, court decisions and legislation be damned. Not saying you're one of those people and honestly no offense intended, it's just I've debated with those types of people before quite extensively.

That last one is fairly accurate...

So would you support the government spending money to enact the proposals the NRA pitched? Obama's proposals included some of those very same things. Putting more "good guys with a gun" in schools takes money, plain and simple. Where do you stand? Or is it not worth the money? Is it really about the money (faux outrage at small-potatoes spending) or is it really that you just don't support the policies. Would you spend $500 million on effective gun safety/school safety/mental health policies you did support?

What Will Happen If We Don't Raise the Debt Ceiling.

Even the proposals the NRA backed take money...is that small amount of money not worth potentially improving safety to prevent simliar violence? Putting armed guards in schools takes money. Regulating or even studying violence in video games and movies takes money. Training teachers in the use of firearms takes money. So do we just do nothing?? I just don't get it...

From M2's link. Wonder if the factions who want to address the "societal" issues like violent movies and video games actually wanna pony up the money to study the relationship between those things and actual violence...