A collective majority gave their word which means the congress of the United States as a body. This body has proven over and over again that their WORD means very little!
Republicans over the past couple of decades have been like very attentive understudies to the Democrats, the party that has perfected giving their useless WORD.
However, point taken, the election in 2012 will be the deciding factor which was the case all along possibly by both parties.

It is a sad time, politics has been taken to an extreme level while patriotism and true statesmanship are at an all time low.

It appears that common sense has become politically incorrect!

Visit my site … http://www.blov8.com

What Ron Paul said was that the cuts just come from future increases. Horowitz blasts him for this, then describes what the cuts come from in his own terms: future increases…..for inflation.

It is in fact future increases and ‘inflation’ is pure projection until it happens and is just automatic increases in all programs, across the board.

So what Ron Paul said was absolutely true under Horowitz’s own analysis, he is just saying ‘that kind of ‘increase’ shouldn’t be looked at as an ‘increase’ in the way he sees things’. However, I see no logic for the specific rate of increase for ‘inflation’.

This is not a meaningless issue, both because he ascribes inaccuracy to someone who was accurate, but merely disagrees with him on assumptions, and because inflation is a product of an unbalanced budget, as the FED prints more money to cover payments, diluting the value of the money. That is what inflation IS. So this automatic raise, even if accurately projected, assumes continuing an unbalanced budget. Why would we want to do that?

Ron Paul’s budget plan cuts a trillion in the first year, and, due to preserving Social Security and Medicare, veterans benefits and indigent accounts (the latter in block grants to the states) doesn’t balance the budget until 3 years out. He would have liked to balance it in one, but understands about dislocation and he views senior entitlements as a contract issue, and, accordingly, a top priority.

But three years out, the budget would be fully balanced and even in year one it would be much closer to balanced than it is now. So with THAT scenario there is no justification for presuming an increase for inflation, at all.

Just saying they will do something is giving their word. Politicians don’t make promises they make statements. They say things you want to hear but then do thngs the way they want to.

First a liberal will lie, cheat and steal to get anything they want.

So Just be first to cut the Defense Department Staffing budget now by closing overseas bases in Korea, Germany, Japan, Philipines, and 80 to 100 out of 150 bases of operational other places we operate outside the USA or at least reduce staffing to minimum safe level or else take them all out. If some country wants us to stay, pay us at cost plus overhead in cash or gold. The only exception would be for embasy protection and support. And don’t forget all those sacred cow military bases inside the USA, that congressmen and senators have kept open by hook or crook. scrap ww2 supply ships in harbors in mothball status, never will be used. Sell off surplus land to highest bidders, funds to debt reduction. The need is for a strong red pencil to all budget items, defense is just one…

Look hard at Nevada bases that were made for WW2… Ports we don’t use for military, and on and on…Then discuss the remainder of all funds for Defense.

We need a viable team with the best weapons made in secret and kept secret. Staffed by a strong volunteer force.

If you have 24 years in, you are obviously eligible for retirement, which comes out of that DoD budget. Are you planning on cutting your retired pay by 25 to 30%? If you are still active (the sentence construction makes it appear that way), would you be willing to be shot at for 25 to 30% less salary than you now receive?

You and I both know that the days of young troops laying it all on the line for less than a pittance are gone. The troops today aren’t getting rich, but today’s young troops will not volunteer for the sort of financial treatment I had as a young troop (RVN 1 to 8/66, E4 over 2, $204.90 per month plus $10.00 “combat pay”, small pay increase in July.)

I meant to say the budget reverts to budget increases starting in 2015, not 2021.

We can’t use the “no real cuts” line with everything but the expenditures we agree with.

It ain’t a “real” cut unless the spending actually goes down—an amount lower than a freeze.

The only reason there is actual cutting in 2013 is because nothing happens in 2012.

% of GDP is not the proper metric of a “real” cut.

Spending cuts, tax increases, and amnesty—three phrases that appear to be almost infinitely flexible in the context of politics.

There were $400 billion in defense cuts back when the ‘grand bargain’ was struck to create the supercommittee. Couple that with the upcoming $600 billion and that equals $1 trillion cut off the defense budget over ten years.

If you want to cut defense, you really need to look first at cutting the defense mission. For every mission you eliminate or reduce is a mission you don’t have to pay for.

Pull out of Korea and you don’t have to pay for our defense of Korea.

It’s pretty simple, but what I see is that we want to have our cake and eat it, too. In other words, we want the best military with the best equipment involved in every hotspot… but are now balking at the price tag.

Libya was a great example of how we wanted our military to lead the charge, but then also said that we shouldn’t be there…

I’m hurt. Truly, you wound me to the core, good sir profg.

Here I’m the one who banned you. I’m the one who signed my name to tossing you from the site for trying to defeat Scott Brown, the man who forced the Dems to forego passing a budget and instead ram through a public option-free Obamacare through reconciliation.

You pathetically shill for your unlovable libertarian losers, the people who have never accomplished anything in their political lives except to shill for the most murderous totalitarian regimes around. Yes, Ron Paul is the biggest advocate in America for the world’s most oppressive, rights-quashing dictators.

So, shoo. I won’t let you stay if you won’t even credit me for tossing you, and instead give MOE the pleasure of being mocked with your username, even if his name does become a Chinese fast food dish more easily.

I’d go feel sad, but Scott Brown is still in the Senate, and Ron Paul is still a political failure who’s bilking his followers of cash in his shameless gold schemes. Plus, I still have a working RedState account, and you don’t.

So no, while you did disappoint me, I smile yet.

Try the credit markets demanding a huge interest premium for the ability to rollover the countries debt. Then you’ll see real problems to howl over. And we are on track for that to happen in the not to distant future.

Stop your whining and get with reality. There are no sacred cows when your debt servicing is skyrocketing and there shouldn’t be today as we sit at this cliff. You want to point out that entitlements unfairly got excluded and I’ll be the first to join you. But the notion that a few measly cuts in the military budget is a bridge to far is beyond pathetic.

part of this are you incapable of understanding? Part of what we criticize alleged cuts to other programs is that they never actually reduce spending levels from one year to the subsequent year. In the case of the military, spending will be cut in actual non-inflation adjusted dollars and will not rise above that level until 2019.

According to your rationale, if you cut something from 500 billion to 100 billion, and proceeded to raise the levels an additional 2 billion a year over 300 hundred years, you would call it a mere baseline cut because, after the first year, spending “rises” again.

What you are calling baseline budgeting is incorrect. And it is not just because we are partial to defense. If someone would come out with a budget to cut actual dollar spending on food stamps, and not reach equilibrium until the end of the 10-year budget frame, I would not dismiss that as a baseline cut. I might say that it is an insufficient cut, given that the entire program is unconstitutional; nonetheless, it is a real cut. Being that national defense is one of the few constitutional functions of government, we should not reduce funding for our aging fleet. This was not how Reagan defeated our enemies.

he is a card carrying member of the ”anti war left”

what our Founding Fathers advocated. I know you probably didn’t mean to actually side with them and in reality you didn’t. Our Founding fathers were non-interventionist as is Ron Paul’s position. Many neo-cons will substitute non-interventionist with Isolationist. That is a lie pure and simple. Our Founders, as does Ron Paul, advocated that we build and maintain the strongest DEFENSE force in the world. No disagreement with that right? Didn’t think so and Ron Paul agrees with you. Where the disagreement comes from is that our Founders also told the world that as long as you didn’t mess with us you need not worry about us bothering (attacking) you. And in spite of the fact that we don’t really like you and how you run YOUR country, we can still be trading partners. This is a non-interventionist policy, not isolationist as many say on this site and others. Heck, Congress NEVER gets it right and they have been sworn to uphold and defend something they don’t even understand and probably never read. So this brings us to the idea of just what our DEFENSE forces are really for does it not? Are they really to defend America or are they to impose our will on the world at large? If it is the latter then we should rename them offense forces. One of those cost a lot less than the other to do. Now don’t get me wrong, as an ex USAF pilot I’m all for going to war DEFENDING our country from an attacker and certainly in response to being attacked. I’m not thrilled about the idea of going to war because somebody “MAY” be thinking about attacking us. That philosophy has kept us involved in very expensive and unaffordable “entangling alliances”. We are going broke and our kids are dying defending other countries. (I know, I know what you are thinking, they died defending our country!) We need to rethink this “interventionist policy”. Being the worlds policeman is getting old and expensive in money and human treasure. And just how are we paying for all of this? Ever hear of the FED? Have they ever been in the habit of printing money out of thin air? Yep. Still doing it. What happens to our standard of living when the FED prints all this money to go to war? Our dollar is devalued and inflation follows. In spite of what the FED says are any of you experiencing any increases in prices when you go to the store? This is a direct consequence of un-ending war and FED money laundering, I mean printing. The American people are paying over and over for these wars. Feeling any safer these days? Didn’t think so. I am not anti-war, I AM anti-unneccessary war. Now the idiot running the asylum at the whitehouse has just committed our troops to another country, Australia! Are they not fully capable of defending themselves? Really? When does this end? When we have troops in every country in the world? If we had any balls at all as a nation we would pull back from all of this and get the hell out of everybody’s business. We would return to the philosophies of our Founders. We would make it clear that we are not going to bother you but if you screw with us we will use everything we have to wipe you of the map as fast as possible. The rules of engagement would be simple, kill the enemy as fast as you can using any means necessary to do it. No tying the hands of our commanders. Get in, do the job and get out. Then leave, come home, and let them clean up the mess. This is the military our Founders envisioned and it would be a hell of a lot cheaper than the global behemoth we have today. So, can we cut the military budget? You bet your sweet fanny we could if we simply returned to our non-interventionist policies and put the FED out of business.