So Much for Legal Immigration

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Padding the numbers apparently is going on. All states are trying to shift costs to the Fed out of necessity. With Obamacare, the Feds are carrying the cost for three years. After that, states have to pick up all of their medicaid costs.

They're shifting the costs now [and screaming about the feds spending money?!] for what they expect to happen in 3 years? Doesn't strike me as reasonable - things can change a lot in 3 years.
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
They're shifting the costs now [and screaming about the feds spending money?!] for what they expect to happen in 3 years? Doesn't strike me as reasonable - things can change a lot in 3 years.

They can change, but not likely if a state agreed to take money now. That is why you had numerous states opt out so they won't be saddled with that huge medicaid bill. Even if it is spread out, ten percent of the costs (minimum cost by 2020 per law) absorbed by some states will basically bankrupt them unless they do something drastic.
Hopefully as time goes by, if republicans can get any kind of majority, you will see a slow defunding of the whole thing.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
They can change, but not likely if a state agreed to take money now. That is why you had numerous states opt out so they won't be saddled with that huge medicaid bill. Even if it is spread out, ten percent of the costs (minimum cost by 2020 per law) absorbed by some states will basically bankrupt them unless they do something drastic...
That's the core of the problem the states face that the Feds do not; states have to balance their budgets. Look at CA and MI right now, also the tax rates in NY. The "Rich" can't pay for all these goodies.
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
That's the core of the problem the states face that the Feds do not; states have to balance their budgets. Look at CA and MI right now, also the tax rates in NY. The "Rich" can't pay for all these goodies.

That is true. The feds just tax and print money when they run out. There are a lot of states in trouble if they have to take on those costs. The Fed is 17 trillion in the hole now. I think their help will be limited. Look for more taxes and cuts to entitlements. Not because they want to, I think they will be forced to. They are finding money by cutting the military but when that option is tapped, guess where they are going next.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
That is true. The feds just tax and print money when they run out. There are a lot of states in trouble if they have to take on those costs. The Fed is 17 trillion in the hole now. I think their help will be limited. Look for more taxes and cuts to entitlements. Not because they want to, I think they will be forced to. They are finding money by cutting the military but when that option is tapped, guess where they are going next.

The problem with cutting the military is that it is ALWAYS done in the wrong way. That ALWAYS ends up costing more than not cutting would have cost. Rebuilding costs more than maintaining. Only when the military is cut PROPERLY will there be savings. The Obama Administration has no clue what it is doing concerning the military, it's missions, or it's needs concerning readiness. These cuts will end up costing far more in the long run. That is just ONE of the results when inexperienced fools are elected.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
The problem with cutting the military is that it is ALWAYS done in the wrong way. That ALWAYS ends up costing more than not cutting would have cost. Rebuilding costs more than maintaining. Only when the military is cut PROPERLY will there be savings. The Obama Administration has no clue what it is doing concerning the military, it's missions, or it's needs concerning readiness. These cuts will end up costing far more in the long run. That is just ONE of the results when inexperienced fools are elected.
Tell us how you would cut the military in the "right" way ...
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
I'm interested in learning that, too. I'm also interested in the inference that every president in history who has ever cut the military has been an inexperienced fool, since, you know, cutting the military the WRONG way is one of the results of electing an inexperienced fool, and military cutting is ALWAYS done the wrong way.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I'm interested in learning that, too. I'm also interested in the inference that every president in history who has ever cut the military has been an inexperienced fool, since, you know, cutting the military the WRONG way is one of the results of electing an inexperienced fool, and military cutting is ALWAYS done the wrong way.

Every cut I have ever experienced was based solely on the cost of programs and not needs of the force. One REALLY good example was when Clinton, who was not only was a military idiot but held those who served in contempt, cut out more than 50% of the counter-terrorism budget, based SOLELY on the dollars and in spite of many of his own people telling him he was cutting in the wrong areas. The failures in intel that led to the success of the attacks on 9/11 were caused by his foolish cuts.

Carter cut in the wrong areas. Obama will do so, and is doing so, as we speak. We cut prior to WWII, and again, in the wrong areas, and the predictable weakness led to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

We spend WAY too much on our military. We engage in areas where we have NO business being engaged. Cuts NEED to be made. Obama, Hillary, and NO Rumbumlican that may run, has shown a CLUE that they know what to do.

Cost cutting is IMPORTANT and needs done. Cut the wrong place, keeping in mind Soviet expansion, their modernization of their nukes, Chinese expansion of their forces, etc, the cuts have to be VERY measured and MUST insure NO loss of capability. ALL cut need to IMPROVE capabilities, improve readiness, insure the ability to project force, WHEN AND WERE NEEDED TO DEFEND THE NATION, and do it in a way that LOWERS cost. THAT will not happen. There is no one in this administration with the ability to do that. I don't see it happening in the next either.

In Obama's case, he is out to makes us weak. A weak United States is part of his religion.

Weakness leads to war. Being strong in the wrong areas, leads to war. Being involved where we have no business being involved, leads to war. Keep electing fools and nothing is going to change.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Lots of hyperbole, but no details. Where, exactly, should cuts be made that will make us stronger?
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Lots of hyperbole, but no details. Where, exactly, should cuts be made that will make us stronger?
Kind of drifted off the subject haven't we? Blame the last sentence in post #65.:rolleyes: But staying off subject for a moment, keep in mind that the DOD is so vast that anyone truly knowledgeable about military budgets could likely find plenty of fat to cut - like the number of troops stationed overseas. Do we really need 40K troops stationed in Germany and 50K troops stationed in Great Britain? But the process gets screwed up when politicians get involved with military budget cuts; special interests have to be protected, especially in an election year.

Another area of the federal budget that we could cut to make the country stronger would be entitlement spending since it dwarfs military spending. Start with cutting all aid to foreign nationals that are here illegally.

011513budgetchart2.png

Charts: Is the big US budget problem entitlement spending or defense spending? | AEIdeas
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
And that is the issue that will be facing many in that entitlement category. We are making cuts now to the military and when that source is tapped out, entitlements are the next place they are going. Just the size of it and its rate of growth make it a no brainer. As mentioned, we are at 17 trillion in debt now. Interest on that money is just about ready to pass the whole current defense budget. Yes...just the interest alone. Won't take long before they are forced to make adjustments.
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
Here's an example of military budget cuts in real world terms: Thursday, my son and his Marine unit had an 18 hour layover at the Seattle airport enroute to Okinawa, Japan. They arrived in Seattle around 6pm local time and their next flight would depart 12pm local time next day. They were instructed to sleep on the airport's floor since no motel rooms would be provided. My son didn't mind these arrangements and took it all in stride. Civilian government employees would surely be provided motel accommadations. I do not agree with this policy. Military personnel should be treated as well as civilian government workers, in my opinion.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Depends on whether or not those civilian employees were union or they worked for a living. IF they were union they would be taken care of, it they worked for a living they would be treated the same, or worse, than those marines were.
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Here's an example of military budget cuts in real world terms: Thursday, my son and his Marine unit had an 18 hour layover at the Seattle airport enroute to Okinawa, Japan. They arrived in Seattle around 6pm local time and their next flight would depart 12pm local time next day. They were instructed to sleep on the airport's floor since no motel rooms would be provided. My son didn't mind these arrangements and took it all in stride. Civilian government employees would surely be provided motel accommadations. I do not agree with this policy. Military personnel should be treated as well as civilian government workers, in my opinion.

I would agree. Same thing with some of the military families having to sign up for food stamps. As we keep cutting, they are moving this money over to pay for entitlements. As mentioned, this is when the problem gets complicated as they will run out of military money to cut.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
But they are EXPANDING UNEARNED entitlements. Only those who earned, or are earning, are getting cut. We don't need MORE welfare programs, 92 are enough, we need to CUT welfare to the bones! Quit giving away money to those who DON'T EARN IT! Some emergency help for a short term problem, take care of those who are unable to work, and let the rest fend for themselves. Stop all payments to the UN, the IMF, foreign aid etc.
 

sirgregory46

Expert Expediter
First off I was in the Navy for 10 years. The way money is spent in the service is a cluster expletive. It needs to be overhauled from top to bottom. The Pentagon waist money like drunk sailor in Subic Bay. There are trillions lost over the years. Eisenhower was right beware of the military industrial complex. There is tons of fraud waste and abuse. Money should go to those who serve instead of contractors.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using EO Forums mobile app
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Today marks the 100th anniversary of the beginning of World War One.
 
Top