nsplayr

Been posted already either earlier in this thread or elsewhere. Good article and infographic here on some problems with Social Security.

Might add this to my list of books to read this year.

Hagel will get the nod for Defense.

The last poll I saw on Obamacare had something like 49% supported expanding or maintaining it, 33% supported repeal & replace or just straight repeal. Not saying it's terribly popular but the point stands. And WRT gun control measures, you know full well that there's a pretty sizable chunk of the Democratic party that doesn't support radical new restrictions. Some like Feinstein do, but there are 11 Democrats in the Senate with at least a B (and 10 with at least a qualified A) rating from the NRA, including the Majority Leader. That's a solid fifth of the entire caucus plus the 1 key player at the top that can be rated generally as pro-gun rights. Saying what the Dems want to pass then is a little complicated and I'm not really sure what would pass the Democratic Senate in terms of new gun laws. People that look at Feinstein's bill thinking it's gonna be a reality tomorrow are doing so out of fear rather than rational analysis of the political situation in Washington. The even bigger point I think is where the bulk of each party is in the overall ideological spectrum. My view is that the very liberal wing of the Democratic party is relatively weak. How often do you see arguments in the Dem primaries arguing who is more liberal? On the other hand the very conservative wing of the GOP is much stronger, as evidenced by the 2010 midterms but a little less so recently. How many Republicans are more worried about a tea-party inspired primary challenge from the right than a general election challenge from a Democrat? I'd argue a lot. The 2012 GOP Presidential primary, and in part the 2008 primary, was a pissing contest over who was more "severely conservative" and who loved Reagan more. Obviously colored by my own views, but I find it hard to argue that radical liberals hold more sway among Democrats than radical conservatives do among Republicans, that's the BL. Furthermore, the Democratic party has evolved since the 1980s whoopings and even since the Clinton years and is literally proposing some of the exact same policies advocated by Republicans 10-15 years ago. Cap & trade, the individual mandate, signing legislation allowing CCW in national parks and on Amtrak, indefinite detention of terror suspects, unaccountable drone strikes on American citizens, making 98% of the Bush Tax Cuts on income, low rates on estate taxes and keeping the AMT to a minimum permanent, Jesus, if anyone should be arguing that the parties are really the same it should be the far-left liberals, not the far-right conservatives! I'm actually for all those things more or less but then again I'm not a far-left liberal. As times change the discourse changes and I'd argue today we're in a political age where the mean political ideology being discussed is so far to the right of center that even relatively conservative Republicans are lambasted as RINOs and moderate Democrats are made out to be card-carrying Communists. Both parties are extreme in their own ways, for sure, you can't get rid of idiocy in your ranks no matter what you believe. But the argue that both sides are equally responsible for gridlock in Washington or to argue that both sides are proposing extreme policies by historical standards, that's just BS.

So you're mad that the bill isn't signed yet, somehow delaying it's implementation or causing some other consequence? That's an odd criticism considering the facts...

Yea, I mean we avoided 1/2 of it basically since the "fiscal cliff" was the confluence of massive tax increases on everyone and the sequestration cuts happening at the exact same time. We've taken care of tax rates permanently (or at least until Congress wants to change them again), but you're right that the sequester remains as well as the always-fun debt ceiling fight thrown in for good measure. Better start partying like it's summer 2011, I'm hoping Congress can exceed my expectations which isn't entirely without precedent.

Damn that's cheap, good link.

Yea, I mean I feel you on that, the House at least passes what they think is right. I would like to see more legislating in the Senate overall...less filibuster threats but more bringing things up for votes rather than just letting them sit idle like the current majority leader seems to like to do. My concern is that the GOP and Dems aren't or can't effectively work together without putting a gun to their heads (i.e. cliffs, sequesters, ceilings, etc.) yet that's the cold hard reality with a divided Congress. Unless the Dems take back the House in 2014 (unlikely) or the GOP takes back the Senate then (very unlikely), something has to be done to end binksmanship and foster this kind of negotiation before the 11th, 12th, and sometimes 13th hours. Maybe that something is to have a huge blow-out fight over spending cuts and the next debt ceiling bill, who knows, it just worries me that the consequences of inaction are so severe. I can't imagine too many in either caucus actually want the U.S. to default, which is the consequence of not raising the debt ceiling. I also kinda thought the 2012 election was that fight but while the results were clear they weren't exactly 100% decisive since the GOP lost seats but maintained the House... Am I reading the whole points of leverage things right in your opinion as an actual congressman? I'm wondering why not just shut down the government vice use the debt ceiling as your way to get the other side to move? I know what I think is good public policy and I'm sure we disagree on that, but I'm curious about the political strategy if you're so inclined to share.

I thought those without "skin in the game" were those who didn't pay federal income taxes? Wouldn't they be some of the least-affected people if federal income tax rates went up? IMHO there is a place to say "enough" on spending and that's during the appropriations process. Vote no on all appropriations bills that bust the budget if you want to cut spending. Saying "enough" when the price is massive tax increases on everyone, large, imprecise budget cuts across the board, or a default on the country's sovereign debt, the cost outweighs the benefit and I applaud every congressman who voted for the recent deal because it was certainly better than the alternative no matter where you're coming from ideologically. I sincerely hope that if the GOP does want to cut spending more than the Democrats and they feel strongly enough about it, that they only pass appropriations bills that come in under whatever kind of budget they set. It's a completely valid, tried-and-true leverage point that potentially leads to a government shut-down which while bad, isn't nearly as bad as defaulting on the debt or going over the self-imposed fiscal cliff. The debt ceiling unfortunately will again be used as a really effective point of leverage for the GOP to extract spending cuts out of the Democrats in the Senate and the Administration, but it's a very dangerous lever to be pulling. I think everyone knows that but it's too valuable to give up on if you're the minority. Neither side should use it to get what they want yet don't have the votes/signature to pass. The sequester itself was a terrible idea in the first place because everyone agreed the cuts were indiscriminate and terrible but wanted to use them as leverage on their future-selves in an attempt to find spending cuts everyone could agree on. Good ole' D.C...

Interestingly Paul Ryan voted for the bill in the House. Credit to him for doing what I thought was right. I'm glad we've arrived at a reasonable debate centered around the above though. There is a spectrum of government you can run in a fiscally responsible way, on one side you have more services and higher taxes, on the other side you have less services and lower taxes. Once we agree on that in principle then it's arguing about the details over where in the spectrum we want the U.S. government to be and exactly how you structure the taxes you determine you need. I'm about 99.69% positive no one here (or in Washington) is purposely trying to destroy the country by advocating for one or the other end of that spectrum. How many times have they voted for the Medicare doc fix but have never made it permanent? As long as doing things temporarily gets a better CBO score and masks future spending, temporary is the way to go if you're a Congressman.

Well yea, neither side wanted to extend the payroll tax holiday so that was a given. You're 1.7% pay increase for 2013 pretty much offsets it though so it's hard to be too ate-up about it. And I'm not 100% thrilled with the deal, probably no one is. What I AM 100% happy with is that some kind of deal got done only a little past the deadline and in the end all the big players (Boehner, Pelosi, McConnell, Reid, Obama) will have voted for it/signed it. That at least is progress that can hopefully be momentum going into the next inevitable fight.

Fiscal cliff avoided (in part), House passes Senate bill. Sets up an even bigger fight on the debt ceiling...again...sequester delayed until then.

Deal passed the Senate 89-8, actual text found here. 5 Republicans, 3 Democrats voted against, notable "nays" were Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. BL: higher federal income tax rates for those making over $400K as individuals, $450K for couples, caps itemized deductions for individuals making over $250K, $300K for couples, a 5-year extension of 2009 tax credits like the Child Tax Credit, raises taxes on capital gains and dividends by 5% for those making over $400K/450K, permanent estate tax rate at 40% and exempts estates under 5 million/10 million for family estates, permanently patches the AMT, continues some business & energy tax credits for another year, does the Medicare doc fix for another year, 1-year extension of unemployment insurance, 1-year extension of the 2008 Farm Bill.

No Fiscal Cliff Fear: Dow Closes Up 166 Points.

Well, AMU is regionally accredited at least...and doing a "box checking degree" is not necessarily correlated with a lack of marketable skills. I'm firmly in the camp that believes most rated military officers have the skills to pursue a successful career on the outside that has nothing to do with flying if they so choose.

I'm just finishing AMU Mil Studies - Asymmetric Warfare. That concentration doesn't exist anymore and AMU's academic offerings seem to change significantly every couple of years. Also just noticed that all the Mil Studies courses are now 8-week classes which is awesome...I did my entire degree with 16-week classes which blew. I generally took 1 at a time and as you can imagine it took me a while to finish, basically 3 classes per year with some overlap to hurry up and get done. 8-week classes are perfect since you can take one class at a time and finish in exactly 2 years. Generally I'm a little unhappy with AMU in that they've raised tuition to make my out-of-pocket costs quite a bit more per class since I started, only offered 16-week classes for the degree I wanted (looks like that's been fixed), and some of the professors in Mil Studies are lazy and don't really add much to the class other than telling us what the assignments are. I took an elective from the Intel Studies department and that class was awesome, only 8-weeks long, and the professor was extremely engaged and knowledgable, highly recommend that. Have heard good things about the Space Studies department from other dudes in the squadron. All in all I wish I would have chosen something different, but then again I got an MA for around 2K and it was good enough so can't complain too much when you look at the big picture. GL!

It's explicitly because of the Sandy Hook shootings, you know that. He was for stricter gun control all along but I honestly didn't think it would ever come up due to the political capital necessary to even attempt it. I'm betting he thought the same. After Gabby Giffords, after VA Tech, after Aurora, after the Sikh Temple, a lot of grief, not a lot of legislative moving and shaking. You're "counter" explicitly proves the point I'm making that Sandy Hook is what changed things. But when 26 people get massacred and most of them are first graders, come on, you know that's what changed the game politically for things to go from DOA to even up for debate. Will a new AWB or high-cap magazine ban change anything, I personally don't think so but it's pretty obvious when things changed politically and it was very recently.

IMHO a full-up assault weapons ban has about a snowball's chance in hell of passing Congress right now so if I were looking to buy an AR I'd wait out the price gouging. I'd be less surprised to see a high-cap magazine ban come about, but then again less surprised than "a snowball's chance in hell" is still pretty long odds. Like others have said the votes just aren't there in the GOP-controlled House and it's not exactly a slam-dunk in the Senate either. GL getting the rifle you're looking for and personally I'm not going to pay too much. After the 21st of December came and went I think the zombie apocalypse is on hold and any guns/ammo purchases can stand to wait until prices go back to sorta reasonable.

Good article about him found here.

Click me.

WTF is wrong with people like this? Especially when you can get a BJ in Fort Walton Beach for the low, low price of $17.

+1 to what's been said so far. I did IFS locally in San Antonio when that still was an option and finished up my PPL afterwards at the same flight school. I flew with San Antonio Aero Club and in 2007 they had a DA-20 at least so if that's what you're used to that's good. YMMV in 2012. Flew both that and a -172 and neither is exactly rocket science so don't be afraid to switch airplanes to finish your licence if all a place has are -172s. The $3K is a good estimate...I think I paid something like that, maybe a little less, to finish up since I was able to get more requirements paid for by Uncle Sam during IFS (i.e. landings on the cross-country, more night work, etc.). GL and have fun with it...I'm not a pilot and haven't flown in front seat since I did that flying but I had a great time and figured why not finish the PPL since I already had about 69% of the requirements done.

Well done Gen. Welsh. And well done to Gen. Fiel for acting exceedingly quickly WRT AFSOC policy. to you sir.