Obama ends two-war strategy...........GOOD IDEA OR NOT.......

Obama ending two-war strategy






By Chris Lawrence
The United States should give up the capability to fight two major ground wars simultaneously, according to a Pentagon review that will be presented this week, a U.S. official said Wednesday.
The review will be publicly outlined by President Barack Obama, the White House announced. The president will join Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen Martin Dempsey on Thursday at the Pentagon to discuss the military posture vision.
The official, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said the strategic review presents priorities to guide the military into the future, but "they are proposals, not all of them set in stone."
The review sets forth potentially big changes in U.S. strategy, including, the official said, removing up to 4,000 troops from Europe and downsizing the overall ground forces even further. The 2012 budget request already called for cuts of 27,000 soldiers and 20,000 Marines in the next four years, and those numbers could increase.
The military would not maintain its ability to wage two large conflicts at the same time, such as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan, the official said.


THIS IS A STORY FROM JANUARY 2012

It is a $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ thing.

Being busted is not a good thing.

The Amercian people do not seem to want to raise taxes to pay for continued wars.

Personally , I wish our politicians would be more frank in the math before we go to war.

----------

If there is one clear priority that the Federal Government is obligated to fulfill; it is our national security....but the fucking liberal/Marxists in America prefer free contraception (and other such social nonsense) over strong national defense.

National defense is the primary job of the federal government so I am not thrilled with this idea. However, I do believe we should quit defending our allies at our expense so that they do not have to fund their own military. That change would save a lot of money and give us better allies.

If there is one clear priority that the Federal Government is obligated to fulfill; it is our national security....but the fucking liberal/Marxists in America prefer free contraception (and other such social nonsense) over strong national defense. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Once again. There are three main drivers of expense at the Federal Level.
SS and Medicare are in SURPLUS.
Defense, the third main driver, seems to be underfunded. We borrowed their funding from SS and Medicare. Yet the GOP seems to be for more tax cuts for the wealthy.

What idiots. Seems to me you were for the Bush tax cuts in the middle of two wars. With Patriots and math majors like you, this country needs no enemies!

National defense is the primary job of the federal government so I am not thrilled with this idea. However, I do believe we should quit defending our allies at our expense so that they do not have to fund their own military. That change would save a lot of money and give us better allies. Originally Posted by Laz

Nation building is not the job of our Federal government....that gotta stop.....military is for killing people and blowing things up.....we win and go home.....I like the idea of more wars which are very short....that keeps the world in line......

Yet the GOP seems to be for more tax cuts for the wealthy.

What idiots. Seems to me you were for the Bush tax cuts in the middle of two wars. Originally Posted by WTF

I know you can't answer the question, "How did the AMT affect the Bush Tax Rate cuts?" If you knew the answer to that question, then you'd realize you had shit for brains.....

Oh, and Bush Tax Rate cuts are largely responsible for why 47% don't pay any income taxes......you do like 47% not paying don't you?....or do you want the precious middle class to pay for all this horseshit?

Then lets have more tax cuts maybe the % will go up to 57....

The two war strategy was not really chosen. It was thrust upon us. The way the world was and appearing to be going back to is that we have threats on both sides. It would sheer stupidity to not recognize reality and then more stupid to not prepare.

Oh, and Bush Tax Rate cuts are largely responsible for why 47% don't pay any income taxes......you do like 47% not paying don't you?....or do you want the precious middle class to pay for all this horseshit? Originally Posted by ChoomCzar

They are paying for it now shit for brains. They paid with their SS and Medicare savings being used.

What I want is for the wealthy, middle class and poor to pay out the ass for wars started, not just the middle class and poor.

Giving tax cuts to all and then using the SS and Medicare saving to pay for wars is deceptive. It gets people like you to think that 47% of the people pay no taxes.

What really happened was that the wealthy got this huge windfall in tax breaks while the middle class and poor actually paid (partily) for the Wars at a much higher rate.

What should have happened was that our leaders (Bush/Cheney at the time) should spell out the need for war and the need for all to pay for it. We should have had a tax hike not a tax break had we decided to go to war. That way the money would not be taken from SS and Medicare Trust Fund. That money should not be accessed.

But you are to stupid to understand what really happens and that was a very simplified version.

So to recap. the wealthy got back huge windfalls, the middle class and poor paid for these wars with their retirement savings from SS and Medicare. (remember the wealthy will not really need their SS and Medicare benifits because they have socked away I forget the average something like 200k extra a year because of these Bush tax cuts that weren't really tax cuts for the middle class and poor!

The two war strategy was not really chosen. It was thrust upon us. The way the world was and appearing to be going back to is that we have threats on both sides. It would sheer stupidity to not recognize reality and then more stupid to not prepare. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

WTF are you talking about? Iraq was a war of choice, ours.

What you fail to understand is how to pay for wars. You do not want to pay higher taxes , yet you want to spend more money on the military. That kind of math does not add up.

What really happened was that the wealthy got this huge windfall in tax breaks while the middle class and poor actually paid (partily) for the Wars at a much higher rate.
Originally Posted by WDF

Hey Shit4Brains [I used that first!], you never answered the questions "What did the AMT do to the Bush Tax Rate cuts?" If you knew the answer, you'd know how stupid your comment is!

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!


WUTTA DUMB FUCK!

Hey Shit4Brains [I used that first!], you never answered the questions "What did the AMT do to the Bush Tax Rate cuts?" If you knew the answer, you'd know how stupid your comment is!
Originally Posted by ChoomCzar

It fucked the middle and upper middle income.

It did nothing to the wealthy. They still got their tax cut from Bush.

Exactly wtf I have been saying, brains of shit.

You still do not know how the AMT impacted Bush Tax Rate cuts......I don't ever expect you to know the answer to that question, but that's OK.....the people who do know the answer are laughing at you and sending me pm's about how I made Shit4Brains look stupid again.....


Originally Posted by ChoomCzar

I told you the answer already.

Now if you have people sending you pm's that are scared of me....well I find that funny. Who is it? I promise to try and be nice to them for a day or two. Tell them to quit hiding behind you, they liable to get in the way of your gay military boyfriends cornhole special ops!


http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/...nderdelivered/


Back in 2000, Bush tax techies admitted (but didn't stress) that 25% of Bush's cuts would be clawed back by the AMT. That let Bush promise cuts with a stated value of $1.6 trillion while taking a budget hit of only $1.2 trillion. For people caught in the AMT -- a lot of us, but a decided minority -- the percentage hit is well over 25%.
I don't mind my total tax bill, given the terrific opportunities that this country has given my family to succeed. What annoys me is how convoluted the system is, and the way Obama and the Republicans both carry on about my supposed Bush benefits. Obama wants me to feel guilty about being "rich" when I'm well-off but not rich; the Republicans want me to kiss their feet. Yes, the cuts save me about $5,000 a year, which I'm glad to have. But they piled up huge federal debts for my kids and grandkids. Not a trade I'd have made