I'd start with a 10% across the board budget cut for the entire JB>government except the DoD. Next I'd kill off the Department of
Education and Department of Interior. Their budgets and power would be JB>returned to the states, where it belongs. The TSA would return to being

What can one say to such vision... have a nice day?

Do you suggest you can adress the national debt without putting the DOD
in for a haircut?
---
■ SLMR 2.1a ■ This tagline stolen by Silly Little Mail Reader!
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
* Origin: Diamond Mine Online -- bbs.dmine.net (1:275/89)

Sure. There's no support for either of them in the Constitution. Probably BA>of the national government's agencies - and employees - could (and IMO shoul BA>be eliminated on those same grounds.

Careful what you wish for... I don't seem to recall anything directly supporting a large standing army either.
---
■ SLMR 2.1a ■ Dick Cheney: 5 draft deferments "I had other priortities"
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
* Origin: Diamond Mine Online -- bbs.dmine.net (1:275/89)

I'd start with a 10% across the board budget cut for the entire JC>JB>government except the DoD. Next I'd kill off the Department of JC>JB>Education and Department of Interior. Their budgets and power JC>JB>would be returned to the states, where it belongs. The TSA would JC>JB>return to being

What can one say to such vision... have a nice day?

Or you can just say nothing. That is fine too.

Do you suggest you can adress the national debt without putting the
DOD in for a haircut?

Correct. Our national defense should not be sacrificed. I suggest you
look at the US budget and compare the real dollar budgets of each
cabinet department. Look closely at the Department of HHS. You may
find it enlightening.


Jeff

CMPQwk 1.42-21 9999
Democrats -- The party of death ......

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
* Origin: (1:226/600)

Correct. Our national defense should not be sacrificed. I suggest

you JB>look at the US budget and compare the real dollar budgets of each JB>cabinet department. Look closely at the Department of HHS. You may

find it enlightening.

You may find this odd, but the horse pulls the wagon, not the other way
around. Where do you get the high tech industry and workers to build the weapons systems? Oddly enough, in part by the efforts of HHS.

But what the heck, perhaps you can outsource the military too.
---
■ SLMR 2.1a ■ Hello, I am part number
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
* Origin: Diamond Mine Online -- bbs.dmine.net (1:275/89)

"John Crane -> JEFF BINKLEY" <1:275/89> wrote in news:14796 $POL_DISORDER@JamNNTPd:

Correct. Our national defense should not be sacrificed. I suggest

you JB>look at the US budget and compare the real dollar budgets of each

cabinet department. Look closely at the Department of HHS. You may
find it enlightening.

You may find this odd, but the horse pulls the wagon, not the other way around. Where do you get the high tech industry and workers to build the weapons systems? Oddly enough, in part by the efforts of HHS.

But what the heck, perhaps you can outsource the military too.

Bush and Cheney Incorporated already have, contracting out to the thugs at Blackwater/Xe.

--- Xnews/5.04.25
* Origin: Fidonet Via Newsreader - http://www.easternstar.info (1:123/789.0)

Replying to a message of John Crane to BOB ACKLEY:

Sure. There's no support for either of them in the Constitution.
Probably of the national government's agencies - and employees -
could (and IMO shoul be eliminated on those same grounds.

Careful what you wish for... I don't seem to recall anything directly supporting a large standing army either.

There isn't, in fact a permanent standing army is specifically forbidden by BA>the Constitution. I've made that point before. There's no such limit or BA>prohibition on a navy, though.

Considering the effort to build a ship, knowlage, labor and materials at
the time, finding people to man it once needed was almost trival in
comparsion.
---
■ SLMR 2.1a ■ On a clear disk you can seek forever
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
* Origin: Diamond Mine Online -- bbs.dmine.net (1:275/89)

Harvard is bi-partisan ? You've got to be kidding. You lost the JB>argument and credibility with that wild-eyed claim.

Perhaps you haven't heard of their law school...

While Harvard in general holds a liberal lean there are conservative
voices on staff and the school itself has a number of guest speakers
such as Phyllis Schlafly and David Horowitz. Your hard put to get to the
right of Schlafly.
---
■ SLMR 2.1a ■ On a clear disk you can seek forever
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
* Origin: Diamond Mine Online -- bbs.dmine.net (1:275/89)

Shannon Talley -> John Massey wrote:

John,

I believe a public option is necessary.

To bad there is no prevision in the U.S. Constitution for the

government to

use tax payer money to pay for it.

That's not even relevent.

So you are going on record saying the U.S. Constitution is of no relevance. JM>the rule of law means nothing to you.
Got it.

Given the thrust of your argument, should we now defund NASA? How about
the FDA?
---
■ SLMR 2.1a ■ We all live in a yellow subroutine.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
* Origin: Diamond Mine Online -- bbs.dmine.net (1:275/89)

Harvard is bi-partisan ? You've got to be kidding. You lost the JC>JB>argument and credibility with that wild-eyed claim.

Perhaps you haven't heard of their law school...

While Harvard in general holds a liberal lean there are conservative JC>voices on staff and the school itself has a number of guest speakers
such as Phyllis Schlafly and David Horowitz. Your hard put to get to
the right of Schlafly.

I never said there weren't any conservatives there.


Jeff

CMPQwk 1.42-21 9999
Barak Obama thinks we can spend our way to prosperity .....

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
* Origin: (1:226/600)

I believe a public option is necessary.

To bad there is no prevision in the U.S. Constitution for the

government to

use tax payer money to pay for it.

That's not even relevent.

So you are going on record saying the U.S. Constitution is of no JC>JM>relevance. the rule of law means nothing to you.
Got it.

Given the thrust of your argument, should we now defund NASA? How
about the FDA?

I'd start with a 10% across the board budget cut for the entire
government except the DoD. Next I'd kill off the Department of
Education and Department of Interior. Their budgets and power would be returned to the states, where it belongs. The TSA would return to being private, except for an oversight function. The next year I would cut
the budgets another 10%, except for the DoD, which would remain flat.
I'd continue slimnming down the federal government until the federal
budget was less than 10% of GDP, with a long term goal of closer to 6-8%
. Other cabinet level departments would be dismantled and returned to
the states or other federal government agencies. The goal for federal employees would be less than .5% of the total population (not counting military personnel).


Jeff

CMPQwk 1.42-21 9999
Democrats -- The party of economic obstruction ....

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
* Origin: (1:226/600)

Replying to a message of John Crane to BOB ACKLEY:

Sure. There's no support for either of them in the Constitution.
Probably of the national government's agencies - and employees -
could (and IMO shoul be eliminated on those same grounds.

Careful what you wish for... I don't seem to recall anything directly supporting a large standing army either.

There isn't, in fact a permanent standing army is specifically forbidden by
the Constitution. I've made that point before. There's no such limit or prohibition on a navy, though.

--- FleetStreet 1.19+
* Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)

"Bob Ackley -> John Crane" <1:300/3> wrote in
news:14791$POL_DISORDER@JamNNTPd:

Sure. There's no support for either of them in the

Constitution. BA>> Probably of the national government's agencies -
and employees - BA>> could (and IMO shoul be eliminated on those
same grounds.

Careful what you wish for... I don't seem to recall anything

directly JC> supporting a large standing army either.

There isn't, in fact a permanent standing army is specifically
forbidden by the Constitution. I've made that point before. There's
no such limit or prohibition on a navy, though.

The realities of war caught up with the military, hence the need for large standing armies.

The best part about our system is however, without the need caused by an emergency, like a war, armies are reduced.

Just look at the numbers of demobilized soldiers after WW2.

It's these blasted "brush fire" wars like Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and
Afghnanistan that put a constant drain on resources, with little to show
for it.

--- Xnews/5.04.25
* Origin: Fidonet Via Newsreader - http://www.easternstar.info (1:123/789.0)

Sure. There's no support for either of them in the

Constitution. BA>> Probably of the national government's
agencies - and employees - BA>> could (and IMO shoul be
eliminated on those same grounds.

Careful what you wish for... I don't seem to recall anything

directly JC> supporting a large standing army either.

There isn't, in fact a permanent standing army is specifically forbidden by the Constitution. I've made that point before.
There's no such limit or prohibition on a navy, though.

The realities of war caught up with the military, hence the need for RS>large standing armies.

The best part about our system is however, without the need caused by
an emergency, like a war, armies are reduced.

Just look at the numbers of demobilized soldiers after WW2.

It's these blasted "brush fire" wars like Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and RS>Afghnanistan that put a constant drain on resources, with little to
show for it.

Have we been attacked again ? Rhetorical. Do you have any clue how
much it would cost this country in human life and wealth if we were
attacked again ? Don't answer because you don't know. Just try to
think about it.


Jeff

CMPQwk 1.42-21 9999
Democrats -- The party of death ......

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
* Origin: (1:226/600)

But what the heck, perhaps you can outsource the military too.

Bush and Cheney Incorporated already have, contracting out to the thugs
at Blackwater/Xe.

--- Xnews/5.04.25

Something must be wrong with your software. The above post from you
didn't show up until pretty late in 2009, almost a year after Bush and Cheney left office.

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
* Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)

Replying to a message of John Crane to JEFF BINKLEY:

Correct. Our national defense should not be sacrificed. I suggest

you JB>look at the US budget and compare the real dollar budgets of
each

cabinet department. Look closely at the Department of HHS. You may
find it enlightening.

You may find this odd, but the horse pulls the wagon, not the other
way around. Where do you get the high tech industry and workers to
build the weapons systems? Oddly enough, in part by the efforts of
HHS.

But what the heck, perhaps you can outsource the military too.

The military has already outsourced many of its functions, some of them years if not decades ago.

AF dining halls (mess halls, chow halls, etc.) have been run by civilian contractors
since long before I retired from the AF in 1983. During Bush minor's administration,
base security at Offutt AFB was contracted out to civilians; the gate guards and the
roving patrols are civilian rent-a-cops. The base hospital at Offutt was closed in
2004 and reopened as a clinic - staffed mostly by civilian providers - and is unable
to handle any serious medical problems, all of which are referred to local civilian
hospitals. Maintenance of Offutt's dependent housing on the base was contracted out
years ago. There are at least a dozen contractors working on various military projects
in the Air Combat Command (formerly SAC) headquarters complex; those contractors
also occupy several large office buildings located a mile or so outside the base gate.

Then there are the various 'situations' WRT various civilian contractors (Halliburton,
KBR, Blackwater, etc.) working in Iraq and presumably also in Afghanistan.

--- FleetStreet 1.19+
* Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)

JB>> Correct. Our national defense should not be sacrificed. I suggest
JC> you JB>look at the US budget and compare the real dollar budgets of
JC> each
JB>> cabinet department. Look closely at the Department of HHS. You may
JB>> find it enlightening.

JC> You may find this odd, but the horse pulls the wagon, not the other
JC> way around. Where do you get the high tech industry and workers to
JC> build the weapons systems? Oddly enough, in part by the efforts of
JC> HHS.

JC> But what the heck, perhaps you can outsource the military too.

The military has already outsourced many of its functions, some of them

years

if not decades ago.

AF dining halls (mess halls, chow halls, etc.) have been run by civilian

I went over this with the airman a couple of years ago. Do we need to do it again?

--- Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3598
* Origin: Fidonet Via Newsreader - http://www.easternstar.info (1:123/789.0)

Correct. Our national defense should not be sacrificed. I

suggest JC> you JB>look at the US budget and compare the real

dollar budgets of each

cabinet department. Look closely at the Department of HHS.
You may find it enlightening.

You may find this odd, but the horse pulls the wagon, not the
other way around. Where do you get the high tech industry and
workers to build the weapons systems? Oddly enough, in part by
the efforts of HHS.

But what the heck, perhaps you can outsource the military too.

The military has already outsourced many of its functions, some

of them years

if not decades ago.

AF dining halls (mess halls, chow halls, etc.) have been run by
civilian

I went over this with the airman a couple of years ago. Do we need
to do it again?

It was especially touching when this blossom tried to explain
macroeconomics to me in the Fidonet echo but ended up ranting about jobs moving overseas. After the election, I think this week you should call
it An Especially Good Week in Politics.


Jeff

CMPQwk 1.42-21 9999
Socialism can work until you run out of everyone elses money .....

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
* Origin: (1:226/600)

Replying to a message of John Crane to BOB ACKLEY:

Replying to a message of John Crane to BOB ACKLEY:

Sure. There's no support for either of them in the Constitution.
Probably of the national government's agencies - and employees -
could (and IMO shoul be eliminated on those same grounds.

Careful what you wish for... I don't seem to recall anything
directly supporting a large standing army either.

There isn't, in fact a permanent standing army is specifically
forbidden by the Constitution. I've made that point before.
There's no such limit or prohibition on a navy, though.

Considering the effort to build a ship, knowlage, labor and materials
at the time, finding people to man it once needed was almost trival
in comparsion.

That is precisely why that limitation is not on the navy. Plus, a navy is
not particularly dangerous to freedom or liberty, a standing army is; the founders knew that, too. Thus that limitation.

--- FleetStreet 1.19+
* Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)

Replying to a message of John Crane to JOHN MASSEY:

Shannon Talley -> John Massey wrote:

John,

I believe a public option is necessary.

To bad there is no prevision in the U.S. Constitution for the

government to

use tax payer money to pay for it.

That's not even relevent.

So you are going on record saying the U.S. Constitution is of no
relevance. the rule of law means nothing to you. Got it.

Given the thrust of your argument, should we now defund NASA? How
about the FDA?

Sure. There's no support for either of them in the Constitution. Probably 85% of the national government's agencies - and employees - could (and IMO should) be eliminated on those same grounds.

--- FleetStreet 1.19+
* Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)

Replying to a message of Jeff Binkley to John Crane:

I'd start with a 10% across the board budget cut for the entire government except the DoD. Next I'd kill off the Department of
Education and Department of Interior. Their budgets and power would
be returned to the states, where it belongs. The TSA would return
to being private, except for an oversight function. The next year I would cut the budgets another 10%, except for the DoD, which would
remain flat. I'd continue slimnming down the federal government
until the federal budget was less than 10% of GDP, with a long term
goal of closer to 6-8% . Other cabinet level departments would be dismantled and returned to the states or other federal government agencies. The goal for federal employees would be less than .5% of
the total population (not counting military personnel).

Good luck. I'm with you all the way.

Unfortunately, a statistic I noted at least a decade ago (from the Futurist Society, IIRC) stated that (at that time) one person in three in this country receives a monthly check from the government; a paycheck (includes contractors working for the government directly or working on government or government funded projects), a welfare check, a pension check or a Social Security check ('government' includes state and local levels, not just the national government).
Nobody is going to be able to shut that spigot off.

--- FleetStreet 1.19+
* Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)

Shannon Talley -> John Massey wrote:

John,

I believe a public option is necessary.

To bad there is no prevision in the U.S. Constitution for the

government to

use tax payer money to pay for it.

That's not even relevent.

So you are going on record saying the U.S. Constitution is of
no relevance. the rule of law means nothing to you. Got it.

Given the thrust of your argument, should we now defund NASA?
How about the FDA?

Sure. There's no support for either of them in the Constitution. BA>Probably 85% of the national government's agencies - and employees - BA>could (and IMO should) be eliminated on those same grounds.

Let's get started.


Jeff

CMPQwk 1.42-21 9999
Patriotism is not who can leak the most Secret documents to the NY Times ...

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
* Origin: (1:226/600)

Replying to a message of Ross Sauer to Bob Ackley:

Sure. There's no support for either of them in the

Constitution. BA>> Probably of the national government's agencies -
and employees - BA>> could (and IMO shoul be eliminated on those
same grounds.

Careful what you wish for... I don't seem to recall anything

directly JC> supporting a large standing army either.

There isn't, in fact a permanent standing army is specifically
forbidden by the Constitution. I've made that point before. There's
no such limit or prohibition on a navy, though.

The realities of war caught up with the military, hence the need for
large standing armies.

The US has had a standing army, despite that Constitutional prohibition,
for over 200 years. It has nothing to do with the realities of war. The problem with a standing army is that if you have one you're likely to use
it - Vietnam and the current fiasco in the Middle East being salient
examples.

The best part about our system is however, without the need caused by
an emergency, like a war, armies are reduced.

There are more flag officers in the US military today than there were in 1944.

Just look at the numbers of demobilized soldiers after WW2.

It's these blasted "brush fire" wars like Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghnanistan that put a constant drain on resources, with little to
show for it.

If the country is going to involve itself in foreign countries to the extent that this country appears to want to, it should form a 'foreign legion' apart from the regular military to handle its foreign adventures. France did exactly that back when it had colonies.

--- FleetStreet 1.19+
* Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)