The Ultimate Taxation without Representation: Deficit Spending

I was asked to start this post, and to do so thusly:

“A government debt is a government claim against personal income and private property – an unpaid tax bill.”

— Hans Sennholz

Image

source:  http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

However, I was also told I could add my own commentary to this thread, so I will avail myself of this opportunity to point out a few of my own observations in regards to this topic.

1 — Deficit spending is immoral as it A – taxes people who are not even born.  This amounts to nothing less than slavery: the forcing of one person to work against their will for the benefit of another.  B – taxes people who are not represented because they have yet to be born and, thus, could not vote for their own representatives.

2 — These deficits are the result of government and politicians bribing voters with their own money.  It is also being used to wage class warfare.  The government is spending without restraint, yet blaming supposed ‘greedy rich people and corporations’ for the deficit.  This is an effective – and evil – ploy as there is a good deal of truth in it: businesses and wealthy individuals ARE benefiting from this deficit spending.  HOWEVER, the reality is that the majority of the deficit spending is a wealth transfer from the young to the elderly and from the middle class to the poor.

3 — Finally, this is a socialist patsy scheme designed to blame capitalism and the free market for the eventual economic/financial collapse.  In reality, the collapse is by design.  The plan was designed by Cloward and Piven, the same people you will see standing behind President Clinton in the video of him signing the Motor Voter Bill.  What’s more, this whole notion that capitalism is the cause of this coming collapse is built on a fallacious argument.  it is known as:

Affirming the Consequent

If you have enough evidence to affirm the consequent of a conditional and then suppose that as a result you have sufficient reason for affirming the antecedent, your reasoning contains the fallacy of affirming the consequent. This formal fallacy is often mistaken for modus ponens, which is a valid form of reasoning also using a conditional. A conditional is an if-then statement; the if-part is the antecedent, and the then-part is the consequent. The following argument affirms the consequent that she does speaks Portuguese.

Example:

If she’s Brazilian, then she speaks Portuguese. Hey, she does speak Portuguese. So, she is Brazilian.

If the arguer believes or suggests that the premises definitely establish that she is Brazilian, then the argumentation contains the fallacy. See the non sequitur fallacy for more discussion of this point.

In this case, the argument goes something like this:

If capitalism runs on greed, then the nation will suffer an economic collapse, then she speaks Portuguese. Hey, the nation is on the verge of an economic collapse.  So, capitalism does run on greed.

The majority of our social, economic and political problems stem from trying to operate outside the laws of nature.  No matter how hard one tries nor how much one wills it to be otherwise, these laws are eternal and immutable: sooner or later, everyone who tries to live contrary to them will pay the piper.  It is just that simple.  Unfortunately, in this case, one glance at the graph posted above should be enough to tell the rational among us that we are about to pay the piper for having ignored the natural laws of economics for so long.

But not to worry: if you think this is bad, just wait until you see the solutions we are going to be sold by the very same people who created this coming crash. 🙂

78 thoughts on “The Ultimate Taxation without Representation: Deficit Spending

    • CCF – I know your being sarcastic, but this is a point that is dear to me as a veteran, and a constitutional conservative leaning person. I refer you to Article 1, Section 8 were the Federal Government is mandated to raise, and support a ground, and Naval force(s) in the defense of this nation. That is one of the fundamental burdens placed on the Federal Government explicitly set forth by the U.S. Constitution, and quite honestly … so clear that it does not leave much room for speculation (unlike some of the other provisions in Section 8).

      With that being said, if the Federal Government no longer wishes to follow that burden, then I for one feel as if the Federal Government no longer has a constitutional purpose, and thus should be dissolved.

      Then we could have 50 little states, and those with similar morals and philosophies can all move to be grouped up with like minded individuals. I’d then have that Federalism that I personally have been hoping for. 🙂

          • That’s because you’re woefully ignorant of the Constitution and the ideals/principles it was meant to protect. try reading the Declaration of Independence again, then the Constitution, then the ANTI-FEDERALISTS, then the Federalists. Then we’ll talk about how ignorant your comment is.

            Oh, and look up the definition of a federation while you’re at it.

            • No. I think I understand where you are coming from or where you are going.

              I pledge allegiance to the flag of the divided states of America. To the republic for which it stood, 50 nations (plus DC) under God, fully divided, with liberty and justice for some.

              • Oh, I beg to differ. If you understood, then you wouldn’t have worded your comment as you did. As it is, you do not even understand that your own words betray you. States are not a single nation, they are 50 individual sovereign States, or nations. They are also united, but they are not one (hence my admonishment for you to learn the meaning of the word “federation”).

                The govt. the STATES established is now in rebellion against the States, and – with support of people such as yourself – it is attempting to claim authority over the States. That means these words are once again in play, and that the States should give serious consideration to revisiting them:

                “When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them,…”

                You see, the federal govt. is the creation of the States, and the States of their people, and in NO CASE does a creation ever become greater than its creator. So, if you really understood the founders, the declaration, the constitution: if you understood America, you would never have made such a arrogant, boastful and ignorant assertion.

              • CCF – did you take the suggestion that B gave you? I’m just following up to make sure you actually understand where I am coming from. Believe you this … had I actually suggested treason, there would be more here harping on this than just simply you. I’ll paint the proverbial target for you …

                The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district. This means that each of the 50 sovereign states have entered a covenant (in this case, the Constitution) granting a central governing body. To be more specific, we are a dual federalism model which holds that the federal government and the state governments are co-equals, each sovereign. Madison also gave us the right to use the other as a system of redress against the inteloping other. (B – It was Madison, right? I cant remember the exact wording of how he put that.)

                As the states where pre-existing entities, by way of the Constitution, they enumerated the powers of the Federal Government (I can leave that for your homework assignment or spell those enumerated powers up for you – your choice). Though some court rulings following the Civil War greatly expanded the federal government, the original dynamic of dual-federalism remains.

                And that’s precisely why my post is not treason. 🙂

                • Good job, but then, the 14th Amendment laid the ground work to destroy all Constitutional protections. Research how horribly that turned out for us sometime, Augger 😉

                  • I already know. 😦

                    In fact, I have written about, and called for a repeal of the the 14th Amendment (if memory serves me correctly .. here on this forum) somewhere.

  1. Hey, CRAZYCRAWFISH… Why don’t you you show yourself with picture of yourself, so we can all see what you look like. Or are you skeered?

          • Since your of the thought that I never answer your questions, I will make sure you understand that it is in fact me who is answering this one….

            “Run out of pat answers so you need to substitute YouTube propaganda for discourse?. LOL.” – ANSWER; as we have seen in your “treason” battle cry from above, posting a video for the sake of “discourse” is not necessary in your case. We fall to the US Constitution for our guidance, and have a much better understanding of this nation’s construct.

            So in the end, the youtube video is posted simply because … ::: drum roll :::

            You earned it.

            Is that answer clear enough to qualify as an answer?

  2. “Good points. We should raises taxes and cut defense.”
    “We should probably print more money too. I think Zimbabwe had some billion dollars notes at one point. Maybe we can get some of those?”

    Both posts attributed to CCF.

    And I will borrow from fellow commenter James, who wrote “This is one of the things that drives me nuts about folks on both sides–if they can’t quickly dispute the information, they simply …”

    Post absolutely ignorant responses in order to downtrodden the topic when it’s a little bit not in their favor.

    Again with progressives … “you can take stabs at any side you want … as long as it’s not my side.”

  3. Since we have the TWO largest Air Forces in the world (the Navy has the 2nd), I posit that we could cut some military spending without fear of promoting an invasion of our shores.

    • Actually, you might want to do some honest research into this issue. The USAF is a paper tiger. The F-15 had to be brought back out of retirement because the F-22 is a turkey (falling apart from the inside – for real); the F-35 is WAY behind schedule and WAY over budget (and having its numbers slashed) and the F-16s are ALL flying under restriction because they are too old (we flew them to death).

      As for the Navy, we are down to 1 basic type of aircraft where, just a couple decades ago, we flew 4-5 types of much more capable fighters and attack bombers.

      Finally, we seem to ignore the lessons of history. Modern combat has repeatedly shown that you will fight with what you have on hand. By the time you can even start producing replacement weapons systems, the fighting will be over. Like it or not, technology does not defeat numbers – not if the people with the numbers are motivated and have anything near competent leadership, that is. And Russia and China BOTH meet this criteria.

      Then there is the issue of being able to defend on two fronts. We have long since past the point where the U.S. military leaders say we can still do that.

      • As of 2009 the USAF operates 5,573 manned aircraft in service (3,990 USAF; 1,213 Air National Guard; and 370 Air Force Reserve);[5] approximately 180 unmanned combat air vehicles, 2,130 air-launched cruise missiles,[6] and 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles.
        The US navy has approx. 3700 aircraft. The PRoC Army Air Force has 6000 total aircraft. The Russian Air Force has approx. 4000 aircraft.

        Yeah, keep the fleet up, but we are still the biggest and baddest.

        • Greg,

          Please recall that I was a maintenance chief in the USMC and am a noted military historian, so this is an area where I have some expertise. First, you listed raw numbers, but those numbers tell you nothing. You need to know the number of SERVICEABLE front line combat aircraft. Many of the planes in the numbers you listed are support and utility aircraft. In laymen’s terms, trucks and bicycles: also known as targets. They are little to no use in establishing and maintaining air superiority or in carrying out the air interdiction or tactical support missions.

          Second, there is the critical area of combat survivability. A key to this topic is serviceability: or how easy it is to keep these planes in the air. The F-22 and F-35, as much of a ‘wonder weapon’ as they may be, are simply not combat-maintainable. They are maintenance NIGHTMARES (trust me on this one; I know more than I should on this topic). As for the F-15 and F-16, they suffer from airframe fatigue because they are old; we have over-used them and neglected to replace them. This is not something that can be fixed; the planes need to be replaced. What this means is, if the pilot flies the plane to its limit, it can fall apart on him/her in mid-air. If the men and women in the USAF ever have to take these planes into combat against the first string, many of them will die because their own aircraft failed them, and others will die because they simply cannot maneuver with their opponent.

          Finally, the Navy: the Navy is in the best position as their airframes are the newest in the US Military, HOWEVER, the F-18 is a compromise airframe: it is neither the best fleet defender nor best attack aircraft. In truth, the combination of F-14/A-6/F-18 combination that has been allowed to go by the wayside was much more capable and potent than the naval air forces we currently field.

          And none of this even touches on the difference in requirements between a purely defensive force and an offensive force that has to project air power from forward positions far from their primary source of supply. This alone requires greater numbers, just to keep up with maintenance and attrition losses.

          So, please, I’m not trying to be ugly: I’m just asking you to try doing what I suggested and make an honest investigation into this issue rather than presenting such shallow objection. Start with the Air Force times archives: it has been trying to warn people that the USAF is a paper tiger for several years now.

          • i thought you drove a tank, but never mind…
            We are Always having trouble with some aircraft, weapon system, or whatever. How well informed are you as to the problems the Soviets and Chicoms are having with their aircraft, or is their system of government actually doing a better job of maintaining a military? Is our military-industrial complex destroying our readiness?

            • Yes, I did. But I was also responsible for keeping all 17 of the tanks in our unit running. Amazingly, when they are on the ground, the only difference between an aircraft and a tank is…one has wings and the other has tracks. Otherwise, they are both machines and they both demand the same maintenance and maintenance management principles. In fact, with what I learned in my job, I could easily have performed the same job on any aircraft. All you need to know is how to use the TI&O.

              As for how well informed I am on the Soviet equipment? VERY! I am well aware they have problems, and that most of their problems are connected to money. I am also aware that their machines tend to be MUCH easier to maintain and repair. I know this because I HAVE WORKED ON THEM MYSELF! Did you happen to hear about the Iraqi motorized battalion that was captured intact and transferred tot he US during Desert Storm? The same vehicles now used to train the Army in the Western deserts of the US? Well, guess who helped recover those vehicles 😉

              I also understand their philosophy of military action. This is why I know – KNOW – the strengths and weaknesses of their system, and that our ideology was tested against their in WW II by the Germans…and lost! You see, in WW II, we were closer to the Russian ideal of military equipment/logistics than we are today: today, we have adopted the WW II German ideal, and we have inherited the same structural weaknesses as a result.

              Look up the Me 262 on line and read about it and the logistics problems that prevented it from realizing its full potential. Then think F-35/B-2 and you will – well – might start to understand why I am concerned.

      • Hmm. I just took out my constitution from the bottom of the hamster cage to see where it mentioned being able to fight a war on two fronts with Russia and China but didn’t see that part. Mine didn’t even mention maintaining 1 air force let alone 2. It did something about a militia though. Isn’t that why we have guns? And don’t we still have one or two nukes around?

        • CCF – to correct you, it gives provisions for a ground, and naval militia. The Army formed the first “air corp”, and it was called oddly enough: The Army Air Corps. The Navy followed suit with their aircraft.

          But your post about the Constitution clearly displays your disdain for it. And I am certain that this is all we need to know about your patriotism.

  4. We spend more on our military than the next 10 nations combined, and Congress keeps buying equipment that the military doesn’t even want, to make constitutents in their districts happy. Yes, we could definitely make some cuts.

    • This is true: the military tried to refuse the F-35.

      HOWEVER, we underestimate the threat posed by Russia and especially China. Should we ever have to confront either nation in open conflict, our current military forces will be hard pressed to hold their own.

      • Last thursday
        Moscow Times is reporting the Russian Air Force has grounded its SU-27 fleet after a fourth generation fighter crashed Thursday in Russia’s Far East killing one pilot and injuring the other.
        Russian Air Force officials expect the investigation into the crash to last up to 30 days. Flights have been suspended until the conclusion of the investigation.

        Read more: http://defensetech.org/2012/06/29/russia-grounds-su-27-fleet-after-thursday-crash/#ixzz20EMkzG2e
        Defense.org

        This concerns a Russian passenger plane last May, but still…
        The wreckage of a demonstration airplane for a Russian-made passenger jet that vanished on Wednesday during a 50-minute flight over Indonesia was found there on Thursday on the side of a mountain volcano shrouded in mist.

        from 2009..
        ZHUKOVSKY, August 20 (RIA Novosti) – Russia’s Air Force chief acknowledged on Thursday faults in engines for a fifth-generation fighter jet currently being developed.
        The Advanced Front-Line Aviation Complex (PAK FA) plane is set to replace the Air Force’s fourth-generation fighters, namely, the Su-27 Flanker and the MiG-29 Fulcrum.
        Speaking at the MAKS air show outside Moscow, Alexander Zelin said: “For the time being the aircraft will use Saturn engines. There are problems, I admit, but research is continuing.”

        We have problems, and some of our fleet is down, but so it is with our most likely opponents. China is more close-mouthed, but I bet they have similar problems

        • OK, Greg, you can have this one. I don’t know what I’m talking about (btw: the Su-27 and Mig-29 are more than a match for the aircraft we have in the air today, but I’m sure the internet will say I am wrong about that, too.)

          The guys are right: we can cut enough out of the military budget to TOTALLY balance Obama’s spending; just see for yourself:

          • B, all Im saying is that other countries are having problems fielding aircraft as well. I thank you for the information you have provided, I see that we have a worse problem than I thought.
            The fate of the world may depend on which country can first get its military ducks in a row

            • We’re good. I just don’t want to fight over stuff that no one seems to care about anymore. I’m also tired of the divide between Americans. Just because I point out that the USAF is in much more serious trouble than we realize, even you assumed I was ignorant of the state of the rest of the world. In truth, military aviation is a passion of mine and I keep up with it. By the time I was 6, I could identify nearly every combat aircraft that had flown since WW II by nationality, manufacturer, identification and even model number. I knew their capabilities and limitations, as well. That hasn’t changed. This is also why I am EXTREMELY concerned.

              Case in point: the Me 262. For those who already know this, please excuse the history lesson. This was the world’s first operational jet. It was a fighter. It suffered from serious teething problems, but, still, had it NOT been for Hitler’s political meddling, the fighter could probably have been fielded at least 6 months earlier than it was. This would have placed it in a period when the Germans still had enough experienced pilots to have exploited its potential, as well as a time BEFORE the P-51 was roaming the Reich at will. Had this happened, the 262 would have DEVASTATED the bomber stream and – in all likelihood – ended daylight bombing. In return, this would have spared the Luftwaffe, which would have then made the Normandy Invasion a much riskier proposition.

              However, as it turned out, when the 262 was finally fielded, it suffered from numerous problems. Parts and maintenance were so bad that only 1 in 10 produced ever flew. And then, when they did make it into the air, they were required to fly from fixed fields. Once the Allies realized this, we camped on these fields and shot these wonder weapons down as they came in to land – helpless. The point here is, the F-22 AND F-35 require specialized maintenance which requires fixed facilities. Now, once these facilities are identified, even the Soviets and Chinese can toss a few ground-hugging cruise missiles at them. If just a few get through, no more F-22/F-35. Then what? then we lose air superiority to any of their surrogates – even the Iraq/Afghan air force.

              THAT SAID, I trust that you noticed I did admit we can easily cut spending on the military and STILL maintain an adequate defensive force. Most of what we are spending right now is just misdirected – and mostly for political purposes.

              • B, all our Eagles where kept in hardened structures in the European theater. That’s pretty much the way the F-22 is kept also in a forward operating location. We had the MSIP jets and also the STOL which could be used on an interstate if necessary. Granted we are talking years ago and bunker busters now can penetrate those structures, they still provide better shelter that a Mig-29 hiding in bushes under camouflage.

                Something in our favor though is our 6th generation fighter will be operational probably before China’s fifth has all the flaws worked out. These modern fighters are not bought with the purpose of fighting one on one old school dog fighting. Look down shoot down capabilities and also launch and leave missiles are the mainstay for our fighter/interceptors. They are designed to identify and kill multiple target just not outnumber them.

                We’ve always been outnumbered by the Russians. That’s why we’ve always depended on technology to have the advantage. Now B is correct about the our aging fleet should be a major concern. It’s time for us to retire the Eagles as they have served us superbly ( I saw a red tail at Eglin with a 73-XXXX tail number when I was stationed there). The F-16 not as much. But the costs of the F-22 is astronomical and now the oxygen issues I think are going to push us more towards the 6th generation fighters that Boeing is working to develop rather than buy more F-22s.

                • WM,

                  Given what you just said, you should understand that what I am about to ask you is not meant as an attack or insult, but I want to make sure everyone else understand sit.

                  How well did that technology and BVR engagement theory work in Viet Nam? Or in Iraq after those two Black Hawks were knocked down by mistake? ROE, buddy, ROE will make neutered paperweights out of the best technology 😉

                  Also, how well does this technology work if you carry 4 missiles, but I send 6 F-5’s to kill you? the net result is likely to be: You, 4, maybe 5 F-5’s killed for the cost of $20-25 million, and I will only kill 1 F-22 for the cost of what, $250-300 million? Next, who do you think will be able to make good on those losses the quickest? You and I both know I can build all 5 of those F-5’s in half the tie it will take to build 1 F-22.

                  Also, when I say the F-22 requires a fixed base, I am NOT talking about bunkers. I know a great deal about what is required to keep this jet flying and it requires very special and rather vulnerable facilities. You and I both know that a fixed location is more vulnerable than the Mig-29 that takes off from this highway with orders to land at that one. This is why it is so difficult to nail down the Harrier units that the Marines fly: they are seldom in the same place twice. Granted, this is not standard Russian doctrine, but they have that option with their fleet – we will not, not once the 6th gens come on line.

                • “Given what you just said, you should understand that what I am about to ask you is not meant as an attack or insult, but I want to make sure everyone else understand sit.”

                  No need for the disclaimer…I consider this a discussion between individuals who are knowledgeable on the topic. Cool?

                  “Or in Iraq after those two Black Hawks were knocked down by mistake? ROE, buddy, ROE will make neutered paperweights out of the best technology .”

                  The only response to this, that I have, is that someone didn’t follow procedure or procedure wasn’t written properly. There’s generally protocol for when IFF fails (if it indeed fail) and since IFF can only identify friendly but not necessarily hostile targets the next step in their SOP should have been implemented. We can go back and forth on this all day; was it the F-15 pilots fault, what it the ‘copters pilots fault. Even AWACS or whomever gave the pre-mission briefing. Still, I wouldn’t blame IFF for the incident. Even if I did, no technology is perfect, but I would think that the ratio of the lives it saved versus those it killed would be greatly slanted to the saved side.

                  If you send out 6 F-5’s versus 1 F-22 I think any AF pilot will tell you he should kill them all. Or they’d turn and run. The F-15 made it’s living on it’s advanced radar system. So does the F-22. Not only will I be able to fly higher, faster and be more maneuverable, I’ll probably have shot down at least 2 of your 6 with missile shots before you even see me since my radar will let me see you 100 miles away. My AIM-120’s have a range of maybe 40 miles but your radar hasn’t even picked me up yet. So after I blast 2 out of the sky, the other 4 will probably split and run. If not, I know I can because you can’t catch me. I can pull 6gs high altitude, if I don’t pass out : ), and be safely back at home base drinking a cold one buy the time the shrapnel clears the sky. But I still have 6 missiles left since I only shot 2 plus I still have over 400 rds of 20mm ammo. I’m ready for the rest of your crew.

                  Now, you’re probably sending out F-5s because that’s the best you have. I can send my junk out too, (F-5s are way older than F-15s) plus I have history on my side that an American Eagle (with an American pilot) has never been shot down in a dogfight. So, I’m not sacred. If you got some big dogs, you’d better get them off the porch and in the air or I’ll have this air superiority thing wrapped up quicker than I did in Desert Storm. And once that happens I’ll send my old ass BUFFs to take out your F-5 manufacturing facilities.

                  “You and I both know that a fixed location is more vulnerable than the Mig-29 that takes off from this highway with orders to land at that one. ”

                  True. That’s why Eisenhower outlined in his implementation of the national highways system that for every 5 miles of highway, one must be perfectly straight to support taking off and landing of military aircraft. Now, we don’t necessarily feel like we need to use that but it’s definitely there for that reason.

                  • Oh, come on, WM, you know better than this. Red flag has repeatedly shown the F-5s beat the snot out of our ‘super jets’ – WHEN THEY ARE ALLOWED TO ENGAGE UNDER REALISTIC ROE!

                    Haven’t you heard the story going around Tyndall about the F-5 pilot who was squawking that he needed to change his call sign to T-Rex because he has just killed one of the raptors over the Gulf?

                    Now, in Viet Nam (I noticed you left that alone), we were required to make visual ID with the target before we could fire, and the kill rate suffered as a result. The Air Force only managed a 1:1 to 2:1for the majority of the war, and the Navy was only able to get back up to a 7:1 because of Top Gun and the return to the gun and gun training.

                    In the case of the Black Hawks, blame was laid on the AWAKS air boss. But the result was the same: an end to BVR engagements in theater. Ergo, the superiority of our weapons went out the window.

                    Now, let’s return to our F-5 scenario and take it to the real world hypothetical we’re dealing with: Russia or China as the enemy. So, no F-5, Mig-21MFs. And your radar? GONE! The Russians EXCEL at ECCM/jamming. Bingo, my 6 sets of eyeballs now have the edge on your 1 set. But I’ll give you your radar, which means my jets are now under ground control. Again, the Russians are great at this. So you are engaging the 2 high altitude decoys I set out for you to see so you will get your fangs out and miss the other 2 pairs of Mig-21’s coming in from each flank and at right angles to your flight path (ooops, your look-down, shoot-down was just nullified). End result, most likely, I loose 2 migs and you don’t get home. Why do I have faith in this scenario? Because the Aggressors used this same scenario to kill 2 F-14s over Yuma and this is what happened – only it was BOTH F-14s that got bagged by the low jets.

                    You see, we have come to the point where we thing the entire world flies like the Arabs. It doesn’t. Remember, of all the major combatants in WW II AND in Korea and Viet Nam, we did not have the top scoring ace in any of the conflicts. 😉

                • Well, I’ve only been to red flag once and I never saw anything close to that. Also, we could go through all kinds of different scenarios and speculate what the outcome would be. But at the end of the day, how many US pilot driven F-15’s or even F-14’s have been lost in air to air combat?

                  My post started to get lengthy so I didn’t touch on all that I wanted too. I know AWACS was eventually blamed on the blackhawk incident, since they are the air bosses, but maybe not justified. I agree about the visual that they should have gotten before firing. All the rest is history.

                  That F-5 has no chance against the long range Phoenix missile system. We never really adopted them for a reason but felt like they were good enough as trainers or aggressors. Or for allies. I think the Koreans still flew it when I was there. But if we go back to your age issue, the F-5 nor the MiG-21 definitely stand no chance. It’s safety record was garbage and it couldn’t even out perform the F-5 let alone a F-22 that it can’t see. They both lose to the F-15 and F-16 easily.

                  We will always have issues. We may not have brand new state of the art equipment on every level. But as your boy said, “You go to war with what you got”. Right now, nobody does it better. Technology has always been one of our major advantages. Sometimes it fails us at critical times, but I put my money on any US fighter pilot in an fully operational F-22 today against any other country’s 2 best jets. Mig 21? Against what? It may stand a chance against 2nd and 3rd generation fighters like the F-4 but not even a good one against it.

                  “You see, we have come to the point where we thing the entire world flies like the Arabs. It doesn’t.”

                  Now, the Russians I could see giving some limited piloting props to. But Chinese? None. Flying like Arabs—no worries. Fly like Israeli’s in US fighters—better be worried.

                  • Yes, this is getting long and way off point. But there are a few things we are missing. The postulate here is that we will have to face the first string, so the fact that we have not lost an F-15 or F-14 driver in air combat is a false analogy. Can we say that about Korea or Viet Nam, the last time we faced the first string? No.

                    As for using the F-5 as an example, the point is missed on most. 1 F-22 = roughly $300 million. 1 F-5 = roughly $5 million. I can build 60 F-5s for 1 F-22 and that WILL defeat the F-22 – period! That is the point: the Russian thinks and fights this way: just ask the Germans. (oh, and we no longer have the Phoenix, and all a-to-a missiles can be jammed, especially by the Soviets.)

                    But you did hit on the critical aspect of air combat: pilot quality. I am thinking of an incident where an old Korean War vet in an F-86 was bounced by 4 navy F-8s. He never got the advantage over any of them, but he held them off for nearly an hour – before THEY had to bug out due to BINGO fuel. had he a missile or two at that point, splash 2 – at that time – wonder jets by 1 antique relic flown by a REAL professional 😉

                    I suspect we agree that, in this area, the only one better is Israel.

                • No sure about the first string analogy. Maybe those that have stepped up are JV but they got dealt with accordingly. The Russians had their chance, by JFK punked them out. So I don’t know if know if they should have been considered, “first string”. I know Chinese pilots never were considered that.

                  I see the cost point. I know the Russians think that way. But their fuel hogs flying tanks weren’t built that cheaply. I also think that we both know that it’s not just so simple to build 5x the 1960’s era jets and they’ll defeat 5th gen jets. F-5’s were never a front line fighter/interceptor for a reason. It was a good little plane for air shows, training and aggressors but it’s short range, inability to be in flight refueled, and inability to carry more armament would not meet our mission requirements.

                  We both also know every pilot that ever has heard a locked-on tone in his headset set squeezes his ass cheeks together and sprays the sky with chaff and begins evasive maneuvers to escape radar guided missiles. Ours, not Russia’s, EF-111 Ravens were the best at that. Russia was good on the ground but we were better.

                  Yeah, The Phoenix is gone and so is the F-14. But they were both deadly.

                  Yes we agree. We have the better pilots. Israel probably has the best. That makes everyone else 2nd string- at best.

                  Thanks for the discussion.

                  • Sadly, I wish your claim about JFK were true, but I know otherwise. You see, the Russians never pulled those missiles out of Cuba, they hid them in caves. The Cuban underground sent proof to Kennedy, but he ignored them (likely to save face). This was admitted to in Congress several years later. As part of Kennedy’s “deal,” we also pulled missiles out of Turkey and Italy and closed some bomber bases in Spain (again, all admitted to years later). So I think Russia ‘punked’ us (see “None Dare Call it Treason” for a real eye opener – even more so that “Tragedy and Hope”)

                    Next, the F-5 analogy holds: unless you want to tell the dead F-4 and F-105 pilots that those Korean War Mig-17’s were too old to defeat their modern fighters. The fact is, history has proven that, in combat, more generally is better. The only other ingredients necessary to make this a universal statement are motivated troops and marginally competent leadership. This is the only reason the Red Air Force survived the German onslaught in 1941-42. Also, had the Germans had the ‘marginally competent leadership’ they needed, Britain would have fallen to the German during the Blitz. As it is, they were less than 2 weeks from exhaustion when the attacks switched from military targets to civilian.

                    Finally, about there not being a first string: again, I would like you to explain that those “buck-toothed, spectacled, slant-eyed Japs” were totally inferior to Allied pilots in 1941. The truth is, when the Allies finally had to face the Japanese, we discovered they were even better than the Germans.

                    So, while I do understand your points, I trust you will forgive my reluctance to join you in your assumption that we are so superior as to never get caught unprepared again. History tells me this simply isn’t the wisest courses of preparedness 😉

                • No problem. My points aren’t about underestimation. Or about what happened before we seriously got in to the game about this air superiority thing.

                  We’ve reigned supreme in the skies since the 70’s. In order to be the champ you have to beat the champ. No one has in our lifetimes. We’ve easily control the skies. Yes we’ve had some losses but nothing like our opponents when engaged. I sincerely think there’s a reason none of the A-listers have stepped up.

                  As far as explaining about the the bucktooth, spectacled, slant-eyed japs are considered, this ain’t 1941. They haven’t set their asses in anything they’ve produced in half a century. They fly our stuff half as good as we do and we patrol their skies for them.

      • Yep, we’ve under estimated potential enemies before. We have quite a number of ships sitting at Pearl Harbor to prove it too.

  5. I didn’t assume a lack of knowledge on your part, I merely extrapolated our circumstances, and assumed that other countries have the same problems.
    The fixed-field concept is interesting; I am sure that there are advantages to it, but it seems strategically unsound.

    • Financial advantages, but – militarily – would you rather be the side who is flying from any stretch of highway long enough to operate your aircraft (the Russians) or the side that has to use the same fixed airfields?

      And yes, ALL nations have troubles connected to maintaining modern aircraft, but there are some who have fewer problems. One simple point should be apparent: even if the design is flawed, would you rather the air force that is only 1-2 years old (Chine) or the one that is 35+ y/o (US)??? Certainly, even the most novice layman can understand that the volt – flawed as it is – is easier to keep running than a 1975 mustang. Well, we have F-15’s in front line service that are older than their pilots. Should we talk about the age of the B-52 next? 😉

      • I was just reading that by 2040, 30% or better of our military aircraft will be unmanned.

        I have a rhetorical question; why, if our fleet is so ancient, and our economy supposedly needed a job-producing stimulus, did we not fund a major turnover in our aircraft? Solyndra will cost us 500 million-3 billion bucks, that is 3 to 18 f-22’s, vs. a warehouse full of unsellable solar widgets. I guess we could dump the solar crap from airplanes, fool the enemies’ radar.

        • LOL, OK, I can go you one better here. First, we should STOP this “stealth” crap. They cost too much for what they return (hint: they can be seen using radio). For the cost of just 1 F-22 or F-35, we could buy 4-6 improved F-15’s. McDonnell/Douglas produced a version with vectored thrust nozzles and forward control canards and it DEVASTATES EVERYTHING in our current inventory – including the F-22/F-35. What’s more, we are already pretty much equipped to maintain them, AND they are combat survivable. As for the enemy seeing these planes with radar: just keep building queers (this is what the military calls radar jamming aircraft). The combination is cheaper to build, and cheaper to maintain.

          Now, about all those drones. Do you know what an EMP is? Do you think the Russians would hesitate to use them? Do you realize that their Mig-29 and Su-27 are pretty much immune to EMP because they do not use sophisticated computers for anything other than their radar and targeting systems? Well, guess what: one EMP destroys those drones and leaves the Russians with very capable aircraft controlling the battlefield, even if they are restricted to WW II era targeting (i.e. the mark I, mod 0 eyeball).

          You see, America has become too dependent on her technology. Again, look to WW II. Read about the Tiger tank vs the T-34. or the Tiger vs the Sherman. The solution in both cases was simple: if it took 5 Shermans or 8 T-34’s to kill 1 tiger, you send 6+ Shermans or 10+ T-34s to kill it. The math is brutal, but the mission doesn’t care: the job has to get done.

          • At least the F-35 is designed to defend the freedom of the people, where as Solyndra was just a vehicle for cronyism for political bundlers. Had Obama seriously cared for the indigent people of the United States, he could have easily paid their insurance premiums with that (and other) bundler pay offs. Just saying.

      • So we buy expensive jets no one wants that wont work and deficit spend to do that, rather than produce equipment we want and need?And your solution is to throw more money at a system that works this way rather than try and address that situation? Isn’t that what we’ve been told is the problem with education?

        • So it’s ok to blow nearly the same amount of money on failed green technology in the private sector (see the Volt, and others), but yet it is not ok to fund the technology that advances our ability to defend our freedoms.

          As I said earlier CCF – what they people wanted was healthcare. The bundler money passed out by this administration could have easily funded that “want”, but no … they sent GM jobs to Mexico, and funded a multitude of bundlers who business’s suddenly went bankrupt.

          So if your looking for an answer to your question(s), then here it is….

          Keep spending my money to fund our nations defense of the freedom I want. To hell with failed battery/light bulb technology. My freedom is worth more for my dollar any day of the week. How about yours?

          • I wasn’t aware that wasting tax payer money was cool as long as it was for toys. Can you point me to where I can find that list of 3000 solyndas or the 1.5 trillion in greentech we bought w/o any return?

            • CCF – what’s absolutely appalling is the stimulus money that could have been used constitutionally to support our militia, but rather was spent overseas for various “green” energy jobs (some of which were supposed to have created jobs here). I’ll list a few for you, and leave the rest for you to discover. The reports are readily available at the government website (but admittedly, those reports are definitely difficult to read through — so much for transparency).

              Electric Cars – $2.4 billion stimulus program to support battery production sent nearly half of its money to foreign firms
              Wind Farms – over $8.5 billion in grants for wind farms that flowed overseas
              Manufacturing TaxCredits – over $2.3 billion in clean energy manufacturing tax credits that were supposed to create jobs in America, $880 million went to foreign firms
              Loan Guarantees – $2.7 billion in loan guarantees to Abengoa (a Spanish company)

              For that matter, as I have pointed out before … if Obama really cared for the indigent patients of America, how many indigent patients/families do you think he could have helped with just this $16.78 billion dollars given that avg insurance costs are $6,000-$8,000 per individual, or $10,000 – $14,000 per family a year?

              These points are not meant to be a poke in the eye, but rather just a point made in defense of persons, and families who cannot afford healthcare for themselves.

              • I’m offended by all waste. I don’t know details of “waste” you identify nor it there are possibly offsetting circumstances like American job creation or investments made locally by foreign firms receiving stimulus. If there wasn’t there should have been. However that money still relatively small compared to 1.5 trillion. Another key difference is the 1.5 trillion – about twice the stimulus – is not spent. If you were concerned about deficits and waste and not simply about making political points it would seem to me this would be a top priority and grave concern and one that could actually amount to something substantial in savings to tax payers or spending on necessary defense.

                • Not knowing the details is exactly why I suggested you go look them up for yourself. Rationale: If I hand it all over to you, and you do not like what you read, I am just another … how did James phrase it? …. Oh yeah … then I am just another “looney conservative”. Additionally, while your down playing financial numbers so large that you will never hope to understand exactly how much money that really is we are talking about …. I gave you but 4 (count them … FOUR) examples. Again, I could have listed a bunch more, but then I would be a “looney conservative who is piling it on for the sake of drama” (or some crap like that).

                  Your last sentence …. purely engineered to demonize me for asking a question too difficult for you to spin your way past. Nice try CCF, but I recognize a cop-out (rather more like a tap-out in this case) when I see one. 🙂

                  Hey, I answered your question …. again. (just saying!)

  6. IMHO, there is plenty of waste to go around whether it be defense, green projects, or entitlement programs. The discussion on aircraft was very interesting, but in all likelyhood the Russian aircraft (Mig 29s) are in as bad shape as the American aircraft. The cost overuns on the F35 project is just business as usual between the DOD and their contractors, and the more technology we try to cram into our defense systems the more likely they are to fail and they will certainly cost more. These “green” projects are no different. Poorly thought-out ideas requiring huge government funding being presented as “something the nation really needs”. Entitlement programs? No need to really go there. Trillions of dollars in tax money pissed way to support a way of life that flys in the face of what this country was founded on. Pork barrel projects attached to every bit of legislation that is passed (too much needless legislation being passed) hidden to keep this senator or that congressman in office. The Navy wanting this because the Air Force got that. Admirals and generals defending their turf at taxpayer’s expense. The entire system is corrupt.

    • Agreed. The problem as I see it is politicians use all these wasteful situations as chess pieces playing one faction off against the other instead of working to eliminate waste they both agree on they reserve and preserve the status quo to play this delicately balanced game of chess. If we could add a few more players it would throw the entire game out of balance and we might actually see things get done.

      • I am going to accept this as an honest, good faith answer, and as such I will add …. there is a reason that some in the nation are begging and pleading for austerity.

        This would be one of the many reasons why.

    • Agreed, also.

      The Russians have always been known to count every piece of equipment that they have no matter that age, operational state, or reliability as mission ready. That’s what they do. We, not as much. We saw what happened in the arms race. We also saw who ran to their rescue. Even though we had an active interest in it.

      They have a different philosophy than we do when it comes to their military and numbers are a big part of it. We try to counter that with technology where they tend to be years behind us. At the end of the day, we both have enough nukes to kill the world many times over.

      • Interesting, and correct assertion Gates. Funny how the Russians practiced fiscal austerity. They got that part right, but screwed up the communism part. 🙂

    • No offense cracker, but I think there was a time when the nation was prospering that we had plenty of waste to go around.

      Problem is, we’ve spent that “waste”, and now find ourselves some $16 trillion dollars in the hole. I cannot say at this point in our fiscal history that we have any surplus of waste that we can spare … not one single cent’s worth.

      • A poor choice of words on my part. To clariify; Whether it is the DOD, entitlement programs, or green projects, there is plenty of wasteful spending on all of their behalfs. It needs to stop. Pork barrel projects and political back scratching is costing this country trillions of dollars. Cutbacks and program elimination can come from all three.

        • No, no. No “poor choice of words” on your post. I got what you were saying. I was just trying to expand the idea.

          • There is no more waste (surplus of extra money) to spend. It’s all been wasted and we’re in deep Nước Mắm .

  7. Pingback: The Ultimate Taxation without Representation: Deficit Spending … | American Political Blogs Watch

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.