TreeA10

So a woman completing Ranger training is immune from pregnancy? I guess the other 10% that unintendedly get pregnant lack the wisdom, knowledge, and dedication of any woman completing Ranger training. Do they teach contraception only in Ranger school? Must be an SCI program.

In 2008, the female military populace had a 10% unintended pregnancy rate. Seriously? Unintended? Like to know how that stat is arrived at. DUI's is the best you got? You can hand someone with a DUI conviction an assault rifle (the real one not the media "assault rifle") and put that person on the front line. You can not put a pregnant woman on the front line. Try again.

Adding women has done wonders for our military. During the first go round in the desert, 1,200 women, an entire battalion's worth, were lost due to pregnancy. Admittedly, those were "non-combat" fields. That was years ago and I'm sure there are better stats out there somewhere because I'm sure women don't get pregnant any more being the more enlightened and diversity-centric military that we are now.

So you are saying training standards aren't to be enforced in training due to the myriad of accusations that may befall the instructors? And somehow avoiding this by sending a non-performing individual on to the gaining unit and let THEM deal with the problem is a better idea because certainly the failing student will somehow be easier to remove because all the various excuses and accusations will not be used? This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've read on this forum.

Saw a lot of "we didn't change the standards" for genetically different students in UPT. Nothing says quality like busting every checkride in UPT and completing the program with 15-20 extra sorties to meet the minimum training standards.

I've got a T-38 -1 from back in the late 80s...somewhere.

Just to admit women to a lot of fields and then wash them out due to lack of ability is going to cost a boat load of money. Training slots are limited. Assuming the courses only train as many personnel as needed, adding women that have poor odds of passing means we don't have enough people for the job. Adding slots to add women means we waste limited dollars but we are wasting limited dollars either way. The progressive social justice crowd has not problem with this. I'd like to see women having to sign up for the draft because it would get the 99% of women who don't want to be GI Jane into the argument but I'm sure the same crowd would say that is a waste of resources because not all women want to be in the military.

If history proves correct, the drive for equality of opportunity will shift via Presidential and Congressional pressure on our upper leadership for equality of outcome. Social justice is far more important than putting others lives at risk.

I'm all for it because women are absolutely no different than men and can meet any physical challenge except those officially designated as different such as sit ups, running 1.5 miles, and push ups. Oh, and golf. As long as they don't have to compete against the enemy in sit ups, running 1.5 miles, push ups, or golf, I am all for women in combat and see no problem with this idea.

Not personally experienced the Sleep Apnea but have flown with a couple guys who have it. If you end up diagnosed with sleep apnea and require an FAA 1st Class medical, you might find yourself having to complete sleep studies every year and must carry one of those sleep mask things (CPAP?) with you when flying trips in order to keep your medical.

There has been no fighting the budget battle in any form of an appropriate context. The Senate has not passed a budget in 3 years to avoid the discussion and nobody, even his own party, voted for the President's budget. Not much of a fight there. The "fair share" of taxes imposed on the "millionaires" making more than $400,000 is not going to fix the spending problem. Raising taxes on "millionaires" making more than $250,000 is not going to fix the spending problem. Raising taxes on everyone is not going to fix the spending problem. And the Senate and the President have put what serious spending cuts on the table? That would be none. As far as a ridiculous position to take, please check SARCASM DETECTOR - ON.

What is a "CI?" Colon Inspection? Clown Interrogation? Command Idiocy?

I think I'd rather just keep going down the road of fiscal insanity with no budget, no credit limit, and keep borrowing against my kids future. What could possibly go wrong?

Interesting tax rates for the Greeks due to their overspending. Greeks earning 42,000 Euros to be taxed at top rate under plan ATHENS, Greece (AP) — Greeks earning more than €42,000 ($55,000) per year will now be taxed at a new top rate of 42 percent, under a major new tax reform bill submitted to the country's parliament late Thursday. Under the new guidelines, the 42 percent top tax rate and earnings threshold replaces the previous level of 45 percent for incomes above €100,000 ($130,770). The new rate is part of a simplification of the country's tax rules. There are currently eight tax bands ranging from 18 percent to 45 percent. These will be replaced by three tax rates: 22 percent, 32 percent and 42 percent. Greeks earning less than €25,000 ($32,700) a year are set to benefit from the new system in spite of the raise in the basic tax band as the government is proposing to raise the threshold on which income is taxed. The new tax rates, part of the austerity measures demanded by the country's international rescue lenders, were submitted to parliament hours after the finance ministers from the 17 European Union countries that use the euro agreed in Brussels to restart rescue loan payments. Greece is in line to get €49.1 billion ($64 billion) between now and March, with €34.3 billion of that amount due in the coming days. Greek finance minister, Yannis Stournaras, presented his colleagues form the other 16 European Union details of his country's long-awaited tax overhaul before the bill was submitted. In return for the rescue loans, Greece's international lenders have insisted on a series of reforms, tax raises and spending cuts. But the successive hikes in taxes, required to meet deficit-cutting targets, have hammered the economy, pushing unemployment up to 26 percent, and with more than 20 percent of the population now officially living in poverty — earning less than €7,200 ($9,420) per year. Conservative Prime Minister Antonis Samaras promised the speedy settlement of state debts and the recapitalization of the country's troubled banks with the money from the new loan installments, while spending €11.3 billion ($14.78 billion) on a debt buyback scheme. "Today ends a long and difficult period of anxiety for Greece," Samaras told Greek reporters in Brussels. "It ends the rumors, blackmail and pressures on our country to exit the euro. Today, Greece gained a great opportunity to stand on its feet and get out of the crisis — standing, not kneeling." Samaras' center-right New Democracy party lost ground to its main rival, the left-wing Syriza Party, according to an opinion poll released late Thursday. The Public Issue survey for private Skai television gave Syriza a 4.5-point lead, on 30.5 percent, while the extreme right Golden Dawn was in third place with a projected support of 10.5 percent. It found that more Greeks now have a negative view of the European Union: 50 percent compared to 46 percent with a positive view — a major shift from the respective positions of 37 and 61 percent six months ago.

You mean the Democrat controlled Senate that hasn't passed a budget in 3 years? That Senate?

It's the "Guilty until proven innocent" leadership technique. When sexual assaults, both real and alleged, continue due to the close proximity and daily interaction among men and women and the removal of any and all deemed offensive material has been accomplished, I wonder what the next "solution" will be.

Is it legal for the former dude to hit off the red tees? Some people will do anything to bring their score down.

Damn, I'd rather be a "has been" vs a "never was" but I'm sure you feel good about yourself. Still doesn't explain how you think reckless spending with or without a debt ceiling is somehow a good idea. In the mean time, you should also concern yourself with articles such as this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2012/12/02/d0a0117a-3b1b-11e2-a263-f0ebffed2f15_story.html . Like the robber who goes after banks, Congress is going to go where the money is that generates the least amount of pain to them and their re-election efforts.

Got a couple dozen geese in the backyard. I should get a bigger shotgun.

BTBTIF (STS)

I can't believe you're serious. What idiot actually thinks you can borrow without consequence? I assume you think it is not real money borrowed from real people who at some point will actually want their money back. The worse part of all this is the money will have to be paid back by people not old enough to vote right now and their children. Possibly more generations than that. The UK paid off the WWII loans made by the US in 2006. In the interim, we used that loan to influence their foreign policy, IIRC. Not a position you want to be in if it can be avoided.

Let's see....the President submitted a budget nobody in his OWN party voted for. The Senate has not passed a budget now in three years. The budget submitted by the Republicans has not even been taken up for debate in the Senate. It the mean time, we have a continuing resolution that allows the budget to continue to grow under baseline budgeting rules where a decrease in the amount of growth is deemed a cut. We have $80+ trillion of spending liabilities and you guys are discussing rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Looking at that thing, I wonder where the tail hook is going to go? The F-35C is not trapping due to the spacing between the mains and the hook and it looks like the UCAV has a much smaller fuselage/wheelbase for attachment. Guess we'll see.

Dump 8% of our debt on the market at bargain rates and see what happens to the remaining 92%.

We have spent Trillions since President Johnson declared the War on Poverty and levels of poverty have pretty much remained the same since 1973. In the meantime, the definition of poverty has changed: https://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/poverty_like_we_ve_never_seen_it_1Tm0h9YpmVsEc2gHYm6DaN. I'm debating whether to cancel my satellite TV to save money and 2/3's of those "In poverty" have that or cable. WTF? Trying to achieve equality of outcome is just not going to happen no matter how many more trillions we throw at it because some people are quite content with doing nothing if the free benefits return a level of comfort they are satisfied with.