The budget proposal no one is talking about....

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/the-peoples-budget/

Before all of you righties in here stop reading as soon as you see the word progressive, just read it and tell me what you think of the ideas proposed. There are alot on this board that will instantly try and discredit or throw salt on anything their opposition proposes just because its their opposition, even if its a good idea. Can anyone deny things that are in this budget? Will you really support a Paul Ryan budget that guts social programs that actually help people, when we can find other ways to save and spend intelligently. And I don't even know if the democrats even have a proposed budget.

 

As far as social programs go, as long as I and everyone else in the free world has to piss in order to get a job, I say axe welfare for everyone until they have to piss to get their checks. Fair is fair...

... and no sorry couldn't read the link, my iPad is acting bipolar tonight.

 

I was able to scan it and see it is a couple of years old and parts are out of date. However taking it at a statement of philosophy it does identify some areas that need to be addressed.
First it recommends reducing the defense budget and reducing our overseas presence. Those are worthy idea and I agree with some of the specific cuts (F-35, F-22) but we have to be careful in how it is done. Reducing overseas presence has concequences in so much and leaving a power vaccum could cost us more in the long run.
I agree with infrastructure investment.
I am concerned with having any progressive aid to education or social support. The past 60 years have demonstrated how poorly it is done. We spend significantly more per pupil on education for poor schools. Most of this can be blamed on federal requirements. We have fewer teachers and more administrators. Poor are disporportionatly hurt by this and nothing in this budget changes this. In fact I believe it will make things worse.
Same for welfare and housing.
I am very disturbed by the tax policies. Even Bill Mahar has realized the upper income can only be taxed so much.
Their comment on oil and energy has been proven false by events.
I see this as a political document that if implemented would make things worse. I don't mean that I support the Ryan budget but this won't fly.

 

That plan is shit. It equates to a massive power grab.

Every goal of this plan robs us of liberty and invests more power in the government. The tax hikes that are necessary to accomplish what this budget sets to do will surely cripple the economy.

 

Why do you favor increased government spending?

 

I disagree with you on the specific F-35/F-22.

Imo, it cost us more to keep older outdated planes fitted for modern use as apposed to newer technology. Also, just to give you some background when I was an F-15 crew chief, we would send 6 F-15's to fight 2 F-22's, during the majority of sorties we few against them, we got a single F-22. So yea, F-35's/22's are expensive, but you do not need large numbers like we have of the F-15E and F-16. My first base had 50 F-15C models which were air-to-air.

I think the idea for our military moving forward are smaller more advanced units. We should cut numbers and increase technology.

Now don't get me wrong, it will cost us money upfront to update our aviation, but in the long run I think we are better served. The F-15/F-16 are 30-40 year old designs now.

 

Thanks for the information. Too often we don't really know those important details. So much is published (even in military journals) about the F-35 being a money pit that in many ways is not living up to requirements. The range is too short and they don't have the full suite of electronic capabilities yet if ever. I was in ROTC when the F 15 & 16 came out and had a few friends fly them. They are great aircraft.
Also I wonder if advanced drone may be the future of mass air warfare. I know we need pilots on the scene and in control but maybe a mix is more the future.
ANyway decisions on hardware manpower etc need to be made based on knowledge and global forecasting rather than $. If we make the wrong choice we will pay.

 

You make good points and that could vary well be the case with the F-35. However if I am not mistaken, testing is supposed to last through 2018. My point was not directly to support of the 35/22, but rather new technology itself.

 

I totally agree with your point about technology. It and proper application is the key to how good a military we have become. What I worry about is writing specs that are so far out on the cutting edge the cost of development is too high. Also some systems become "too big to fail" where even if it doesn't perform or can't meet its mission money is poured in to get there. Another worry is that these long development programs will deliver a weapon that doesn't fit the need. I read about it with the F 35. I also see it in the DD 1000. The DD 1000 is the Navy's new destroyer but is really a battleship in capability. The Navy's BuShips has specified all electric super conducting main propulsion. I worked for a company that bid on the generators and motors and right now they can't be built. They are designing for rail guns that can fire 3-4 times before the barrel melts and micrometer radar and direct energy weapons. This isn't a platform to build a Navy around but one to be a test bed of future technology...yet there are 3 being built today using whatever they can make work.
Poorly concieved products can provide less or the wrong capability than we need and cost so much it will take years to get out from.
As I said rather than building weapons and forces based on what you have and extending it we need to look at what we need now and into the future and base decisions on good input.

Actually that philosophy needs to be used in ALL our spending and law making efforts.

 

I find it both sad and humorous that whether they are right or left leaning politicians and "thinkers" think the government programs they advocate are worth every penny and more. They see their opposites as wastrals and bowing to special interests whey they are pure and only want the best. In many ways I do think they want what is best or to mould the country into their particular vision. Because of that they advocate for spending more and don't recognize the vunerability of what they ask.
Government is inefficient an wasteful. It accumulates power to the expense of all else. These are the truisms that many libertians recognize and fear. However reading the Libertarian 2013 platform and listening to many in the tea party I fear they believe that no government is needed and man in his natural state will find his highest purpose. An Ayn Rand world that would be chaotic and collapse.
We need a dynamic government to make the rough parts smoother and to hold man's impulses in check. However we need active checks and balances between state and local and National governance. Right now I believe we are tilted too far to national dominance. It doesn't matter R or D the feds have been accruing power at the expense of states and localities for too long. How does this balance return? I don't know and maybe it can't but if we don't it won't matter who is pres and who runs congress the common citizen is screwed..