Jim

Dore Gold? Seriously? Did you ever hear that f@#$%^ lie between his teeth on anything to do with the Palestinians as unoffical Israeli spokeman after he left the UN and as JCPA spinner. Granted, he may have some interesting take on things but man could that guy lie with a straight face. No thanks.

Always suspicious of someone with no upper teeth.

That's the bottom line w/Greece. The Euros are soon going to have to come to the conclusion that the pain is going to be shared and the German and Swiss banks are going to take a haircut on this one. The Germans are particularly pissed they are propping up Greece when, really, they are propping up German banks. The can has been kicked down the road only for a couple months. Once back from the August break I think a reality is going to settle in on the finance ministers.

Ouch! That's going to leave a mark.

I look at it this way Jim. We ("we") might like all these things to be the best-equipped, strongest military in the world, but you can't have everything you want. Our budget is bloated, our economy teetering, and we are overextended. So somebody has to make the tough calls to cut some of the above. Everyone who runs a household does this - so should the government. What programs specifically should be cut? Hell if I know but the cuts need to be made, and big cuts at that. Satisfied? If I were king (and you were queen!) I'd bet that we could come to reasonable decisions over a couple of pitchers. Unlike the current political situation. Plus, we could drown jb in the bathtub!

Given that family housing for the military was -20% for fiscal 2011 and a measly +5% increase for personnel in 2011, here's a program summary: Program 2011 Budget request[10] Change, 2010 to 2011 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter $11.4 billion +2.1% Ballistic Missile Defense (Aegis, THAAD, PAC-3) $9.9 billion +7.3% Virginia class submarine $5.4 billion +28.0% Brigade Combat Team Modernization $3.2 billion +21.8% DDG 51 Aegis-class Destroyer $3.0 billion +19.6% Carrier Replacement Program $2.7 billion +95.8% F/A-18E/F Hornet $2.0 billion +17.4% Predator and Reaper Unmanned Aerial System $1.9 billion +57.8% Littoral combat ship $1.8 billion +12.5% RQ-4 Global Hawk $1.5 billion +6.7% Space-Based Infrared System $1.5 billion +54.4% I'd say, yea, let scrap the space-based infrared system to start.

I've been shot twice, jumped out of countless airplanes, been crushed under inhumane pack loads and generally abused and am, as an active duty military member, already in excess of 30% disability (if I were to get out today). If I had no retirement/ disability to make up for my service induced inability to earn, what is the possibility that I could provide for my family into my retirement; especially if I am unable to work in my field past 40? Some might not deserve their pensions, but I, for one, think I deserve mine. If the federal government fucks with my retirement and disability benefits, I will have no choice but to leave the service and many other experienced leaders will too. They have already had us do more with less for so long, it is only a matter of time until the rumors that our paychecks will be casualties will come to fruition as well. This is a symptom of the larger problem: Output exceeds input. The system can only last for so long and the military is dealing with the same ominous destruction that the economy is facing. The military and the economy are both casualties to the political bickering of congress. This shortsightedness will cost us decades of rebuilding and we may never fully recover. And I agree. Soldiers are in a separate category, asked to do what most would not consider at the whim of soft-handed politicians. The pentagon budget needs to be cut on some of the worthless programs pushed by bring-home-the-bacon pols. Do we really need to be spending twice as much for our military as the combined rest of the world? Pensions for the troops, medical benefits, family support, and post-conflict GI benefits should be solidified and increased. It is quite different than a public desk job.

And there lies the rub, eh? Who the f*** is going to implement the innovations? It's a matter of proportionality and it has just been tilted in one direction lately.

I don't want to put one more $.01 into SS. It is supposedly a "safety net" for retirement, and I'll take care of that myself, thanks very much. But I would ask why the tax brackets stop at $300K or whatever the top bracket currently is. You could have several bracket above that for say $500K, $1million, etc. I'd love for liberal Hollywood types and ball players to pay 50, 60, or 70% marginal rates. :-) Sorry if my sarcasm meter is not precise enough - but even I would have some issues with a 70% marginal rate and it's effect on innovation and investment. Regarding SS - we likely have a different philosophy. I have no pension and I don't think taxpayers should be paying for such for public employees. However, I strongly believe that a society is judged on how it treats its less fortunate. Yea - there is some small proportion that takes advantage of the system on the lower rungs of society. In comparision that pales to the upper income robber barons - seriously - see the film "An Inside Job" While I feel confident that I can take care of my own retitement I have no problem with my current obligation and a little more to SS to help out. Yea, I understand you opposition to taxes that don't benefit you directly - but quite frankly the issues involve what we want as a society as a whole. I don't like the present trend. OK to flush billions on the pentagon, but the cumbs for social programs are a threat. Get real.

I guess it depends on how you define huge: I'd say the long-term effect on the country sucked - HTF do you manage such a tax give-away when getting us into two wars? Income - output, it ain't rocket science.

---I'd disagree, the tax cuts for the middle class were relatively modest per family but in aggreate are significantly adding to the deficit Indirectly - social security benefits are needed most at the bottom end of the bracket - those disabled and those with low retierment buffer. In budget talks (current example is appropriate) SS always seems to lead the discussion out of proportion to say more usless programs - pick almost any military one. Thus ensuring its stability by taxing the upper income brackets - seriously - why is income that is taxed capped at $106,800? WTF? In general, I would agree that it would not move the productivity/wage curve. But I didn't say it would. But I think it would move us closer to a more equitible society - or at least a more fair one. Yea - and that is a bias of mine. c'mon - just being straight with you.

Fair question. Part of it - I don't know - how do you encourage responsible corporate governance? I'm open to suggestions. The tax part - eliminate all the Bush tax cuts (including middle class ones), bump up the long-term investment/dividend tax, remove the cap on the upper limit for Social Security tax.

Well it's not like the upper income brackets have been starving lately with reduction in the marginal tax level and the reduction in long-term investment/dividend taxes - so I would argue that it's not even a wash, the upper income brackets have won on both ends - stuffing it to workers who are responsible for the increase in productivity, pocketing the profits, and bribing the pols to reduce their taxes.

This is a key issue. Productivity being driven by the workers but profit being held by the minority. That is not a productive model. Well, unless you are lucky enough to be in the upper echelons.

Then the liberals you clearly can't read. I didn't say it was the liberals' fault. I said it was the fault of the pols who betrayed them. You sound retarded dude, let's leave it at that. That's not an adequate retort.

No doubt that there is some mobility through the minimum pay band, and yes, there are some drag effects of offering a wholistic approach to minimum wage standards. But, for instance, to agure as the WSJ did a few years back that 90% of the minimum wage earners move up the scale easily - well that one was debunked quickly enough - ignores that a significant group is stuck down there - some though their own bad choices, some by the luck of birth. So while I agree that the goal just can't be to solve poverty issues by setting minimum wage standards, there is a component of a moral fairness imperitive here.

The people making $8 an hour are at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, you dumbass. Is paying them $5 going to make them better off? It would be easy to argue that at $8/hr folks are well below their worth even at a marginal productivity level. Secondly - throwing in the worth of health care coverage is kinda of a curve ball given the rising cost of medical coverage out of proportion to other items and the diminishing access to care for the same dollar cost now compared to say 15-20 years ago. The nibbling around the edges is turing into large gaps in the safety net.

Hmmm. First it was the nutjobs fault Then the liberals And finally the pols along with blah, blah We could try for global warming as an encore. And what is the solution here?

The late/great DM - humor Alpine Bolivia Ski - Shuksan Scenic, Trail to Chaupi Orco

THAT looks like a very interesting route. Great job folks and thanks for the trip report.

You mean that the 21% of registered voter public who voted in the nutjobs in 2010 got what they wanted? And who's fault is that? Seriously - a proposed to solution to any of these crisis, any solution instead of the constant hand wringing.

Weird, 'cos the Dem's ran the whole show for 2 years, and got Jack Shit done. Oh, I ain't arguing against that, but the tea baggers really are taking lack of wherewithal to new heights.

Of course there is the minor problem in that the RF's own one house of Congress with a good complement of tea baggers who are pushing much of the non-compromise position. And guess what - they were voted in; so the public gets what they want again.

...... Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which found that the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: · Raised economic output by up to 3.5 percent. · Decreased the nation’s unemployment rate by up to 1.9 percentage points. · Increased the number of employed Americans by up to 3.5 million. · Increased jobs by up to 5 million than otherwise would have been created.

I don't know who Reason's Spokesman is these days, I think that position might have fallen under the budget ax, but the piece seemed reasonable to me. ditto