PDA

View Full Version : More sacrifice from the military????


TX.X-30 fan
02-22-2009, 04:04 PM
This was a response from a relative that was career military to hearing of these new proposals.

No, I haven't heard about this--but I think the new guy is an abomination of immaturity. I pray that the country wont be ruined before he is done. Seems like the whole (vocal part of the) nation has gone nuts. If the framers had a crystal ball on these times, I think they might have surrendered to the Brits and apologized to King George.The inmates are in charge of the asylum AND they get to write budgets and spend money that isn't even their own.



We as a nation need to get our priorities straight and give thanks and not cuts to our brave men and women that protect our very freedoms.

Not a bash the president thread its way beyond just him.


http://jmacpolitics.blogspot.com/2009/01/military-alert-will-obama-go-after.html

TX.X-30 fan
02-22-2009, 04:29 PM
On a similar topic does military spending stimulate the US economy?? My opinion would be that it stimulates the whole economy from top to bottom. If I am correct then why was there not 1 penny of spending in the bloated porkulus bill targeted for the military??

BriEOD
02-22-2009, 04:46 PM
Hadn't heard this and I couldn't finish the article--makes me sick to my stomach. :mad:

You know, this is a really sore subject for me. I could write a book about this. Suffice to say, my wife and I have both been career military. I think most people in the military will agree that military medical care isn't the best. That said, most people join the military with the expectation that subsequent to retirement you will receive a retirement check and medical care from the VA. These benefits have eroded over the years. Moreover, those benefits that are extended just aren't very good. Most VA hospitals are terrible. TRICARE...hmmm. Well, I will say my kids get better care via there provider through TRICARE than I do. However, there are so many rules and caps, etc. For example, my wife just had some dental work done (as a result of some dopey military dentist early in her career screwing something up). As a result she has met her cap for pay out for the year. What this means is that if she needs more work (i.e. cavity, root canal) we pay out of pocket--yep. How ya like them apples. TRICARE for retirees...well, it is better than nothing. But, you still have co-pays, prescription costs, etc. I'm sure most people think retirees get free medical care. Its just not the case.

You want to trim the fat, reduce all these corrupt politicians medical benefits. I don't see them reducing there coverage. I mean, it must be real tough working in the House/Senate all those years, much harder on you than fighting wars.:mad::mad: Hell, they work so hard they voted themselves a raise in the middle of a recession.

As for your second comment, I don't claim to be an economist. Most concede that WW2 pulled the US out of the depression. These days spending has just gone crazy. In the wake of 9/11 it has been a blank check. Currently, the military is up against some hard choices. Do we buy more F-22s, what are appropriate end strength numbers for our military force, how do we reconstitute our support systems in the wake of two wars. It is a daunting task. With that said, our military still is second to none. The Russians deploy their one carrier battle fleet with a tug boat! The Chinese don't even have a carrier--we have 10. All that said, bread and circuses ended Rome and will do the same to us if we don't get a handle on it.

TX.X-30 fan
02-22-2009, 05:24 PM
Good read Bri thanks for your perspective. I especially like the part about our spoiled rotten congressmen who have the finest free health care on the planet and vote to cut yours. It was supposed to be a sacrifice to represent not what these career fools have turned it into.

BriEOD
02-22-2009, 05:35 PM
Unfortunately, you get the morons like Biden. My favorite was his straight up lies about being forced down by the Taliban in Afghanistan while airborne in a helicopter. Gimme a break.

Another one just to prove these guys live differently than you or I...

You do your deployment overseas and depending on the length you might get a mid-tour of leave at the half way point. This occurs with few exceptions--significant death, death impending. Guys don't get to come home and see their first child birth (no exaggeration). With that said, how is it that Beau Biden gets to come home from Iraq only a month after being there to see his father sworn in??? That makes my blood boil......:mad: If I ever met him I'd tell him what a poor officer he really is (take that to the bank).

JimN
02-22-2009, 06:33 PM
On a similar topic does military spending stimulate the US economy?? My opinion would be that it stimulates the whole economy from top to bottom. If I am correct then why was there not 1 penny of spending in the bloated porkulus bill targeted for the military??

Usually, it does because the military needs so many consumables. Spend more on the military effort? Not this bunch.

Remember- Socialism is all about the government providing for the people and a military is usually seen as a necessary evil. One thing that really pizzes me off is the fact that not a single word has been said about the magnitude of the failure of the housing market (brought about by bad policy and management) and what possible recourse stock market investors should have. The problem with pointing fingers at the ones who are actually at fault is that we never hold members of Congress responsible for their F-ups, regardless of how large or small they are. Stock prices have taken a hit that makes the bailout look like paper route money and Madoff's scam cost his victims more than many states will receive. It's high time we came up with a grading system for our government so we can stop the BS. The government is supposed to work FOR the people of the country, not make deals that allow them to have a cushy life after being in office. All I hear now is that there will be lots of oversight of the banks, housing market and all kinds of other markets and this means one thing- government will be more bloated than it already is. What we need is a way to make government run in a way that approaches a small level of efficiency and as it has been, it's far from that. Typical liberal politics- give people what they have been kept from having, make the rich pay for it in the name of saying that it's good for the country and spend more on running the government than actually doing things. It's just them pizzing on our backs and saying it's only rain. I have said it before- keeping people poor, uneducated and unable to get ahead is NOT the way to run a country. When the majority are dependent on the government, the country is truly screwed. When the masses are uneducated, they can't know when the government is doing wrong and they're doing lots of that, right now.

I'm at a loss as to how the government can be reigned in. One person can't just go to Washington and be heard unless they do something really stupid, dangerous or illegal. Conservatives are usually too laid back to get mad enough to do anything that draws a lot of attention but I think it's time for that to change.

TX.X-30 fan
02-22-2009, 07:54 PM
Sorry for the long paste but its a good read. Is there any way to get back to our founding documents. What we are doing now was clearly what they wanted never to happen.





Enumerated Powers and the Constitution

Doug Fiedor



The very first sentence in the body of the United States Constitution states clearly: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

The U.S. Supreme Court had often stated that every word in our Constitution holds equal weight. Therefore, when one reads the words "All legislative Powers" granted to the federal government "shall be vested in a Congress," a couple very inconvenient questions quickly come to mind: How is it that over one hundred federal agencies are also allowed to make law? And, how can the President and Supreme Court make legally binding law --- they call those laws rules, regulations, and executive orders?

James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, clarified the authority of the federal government in the Federalist Papers #45:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

If the federal government's powers are "few and defined," how, then, can the federal government make laws on subjects that are not defined (duties tasked to it) by the Constitution? Madison continues:

"The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States."

The Supreme Court agreed. Back in 1819, Chief Justice Marshall (McCulloch v. Maryland) ruled: "This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers."

Yet, today the States must ask the "permission" of the federal government to do almost anything important. Clearly, then, something went wrong.

We see, then, that there were two important doctrines of constitutional law: that the federal government is one of enumerated powers and that legislative powers may not be delegated, because all legislative Powers are delegated by the Constitution to Congress. Also, according to Madison: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined."

So, what happened?

Part of the problem started in 1825 (Wayman v. Southard) when Congress unconstitutionally delegated the power to the federal court to establish its own rules of practice. Chief Justice Marshall agreed that the rule-making power was a legislative function and that Congress could have (should have!) formulated the rules itself. But heck, these were court rules and he was Chief Justice....

Therefore Marshall denied that the delegation was impermissible. Since then, of course, Congress has authorized the Supreme Court to prescribe almost all rules of procedure for the lower federal courts. In 1940, that power was even written into law.

Thus began the delegation of duty thereafter known as "Filling up the Details" of statutes. That unconstitutional power quickly grew to become popular among government bureaucrats. Because, once the Court had the convenience of making its own rules, the administrative branch wanted it, too.

It took the Roosevelt administration to carry the concept of "Filling up the Details" ad nauseam. Because, by that time Roosevelt had totally intimidated the Court and had his own majority approving anything he wanted. So, no matter how unconstitutional a law was, the Supreme Court often let it continue without comment. The delegation of vast legislative powers to administrative agencies became de facto. No relation to any of those specific powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution were necessary. The concept of "necessary and proper" was dead. Worse, since 1940, the unconstitutional delegation of lawmaking power to administrative agencies by Congress has been recognized as necessary. Otherwise, the federal government would never be able to continue regulating those many areas undefined by the Constitution.

By 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court had completely capitulated, hence quietly declaring null and void the original intent of the Founding Fathers and relegating our Constitution to little more than an interesting historical document. The offending words were written by Justice Blackmun in the majority decision of Mistretta v. United States, in which the Court ruled: "our jurisprudence has been driven by a practical understanding that in our increasingly complex society, replete with ever changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives."(1)

So we find today that many thousands of unelected federal bureaucrats, working in over one hundred federal agencies and at least a dozen federal departments, collectively have authority to regulate almost everything in the lives of the American people.

As anyone bothering to read the Federalist Papers knows, today's federal government is but a sick parody of that which was intended by the Founding Fathers.

JimN
02-22-2009, 08:30 PM
I'm not sure we should call our form of government "Federalist" at this point. It was never meant to be an omnipresent entity- it was meant to be as unobtrusive in people's daily lives as possible but as soon as we had masses of people needing support and relief, the Powers That Be decided to be everyone's "rich uncle" and hte handouts started. Then, people began to expect this and yammered when it didn't happen. The Depression ended with WWII and along with victory, came an overriding sense that anything was possible. This, by itself, would have been great but when you take "We can do anything" and add "if you give us more", it's time for trouble because there will always be some group who thinks they should get more. Coincidentally, the people in the groups that want more are on the same side of the political fence as the politicians who want to hand it out, to ensure that they're needed by most people. What Obama and his crowd are doing is taking issues that should be dealt with by the states and making them Federal Government affairs. This makes our government into a form that isn't Federalist and barely a Republic. They want one central, all-powerful Oz, er, government in the worst way and with a sympathetic Congress, that's well on its way. This is one of my concerns with Obama having spent over ten years teaching Constitutional Law. He has pored over that document so much he can't help but to have found ways to slide around the Amendments.

And the debate rages on.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/usandworld/40037867.html

TX.X-30 fan
02-22-2009, 09:52 PM
Good Jim, and I guess we have gone way past the point of the public understanding the limited role the federal govt. was given. We do so many crazy things on a national government level I see no way to remove because it is expected now and most would say its the job of our govt. How can we justify the govt. agencies micro managing everything in our lives it just has gotten so bloated I feel there is no way to stop the momentum. People would be amazed if they ever stopped or cared just how many of our lives are affected by regulation from the federal govt.

Good point about the ability now to circumvent the constitution, that is what's left of it.

JimN
02-22-2009, 11:04 PM
Anyone know why my street has so many black Suburbans parked?

TX.X-30 fan
02-22-2009, 11:10 PM
Anyone know why my street has so many black Suburbans parked?



You still have incandescent light bulbs?? :mad:

JimN
02-22-2009, 11:12 PM
Nah, I have lights that don't give off any heat.

TX.X-30 fan
02-22-2009, 11:16 PM
Nah, I have lights that don't give off any heat.



Ok let me think here for a minute......... You tear that tag off you mattress :confused:

JimN
02-22-2009, 11:20 PM
It doesn't matter if we tear it off, it's the seller that can't.