Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by BobaFrank, Apr 18, 2007.
They're building up an armada of life rafts and row boats
The only problem is that we have committed so much to our endeavors in the M/E along with the problems the military is having with recruitment and retention. I read somewhere that they have substantially lowered the standards for enlistees just so they could continue to make their goals. If this keeps up the quality of our armed forces may go down even if the numbers are still in the same general area. And the longer the war goes on the military may well start to be unable to meet the recruiting targets, which will lead to them being weaker in numbers and quality. However I agree that the chances of an actual invasion of the U.S. mainland is close to nil. We have pretty much moved beyond the age of "conquest".
Bud, I'm inthe military. I can tell you that if there was ever a real threat, we'd drop Iraq like it was going out of style and hustle our asses back home.
I agree totally, I just worry that the quality of the armed forces might be somewhat degraded by the problems they are having with recruitment/retention. One of the things I believed made our military so outstanding was the high quality of the people it always attracted. My uncle is heading over to Iraq before the end of the month and is finishing up some training in the desert out west. He has expressed some of the same concerns about some of the new guys they have been getting.
I see on your siggy you've already been. Glad you made it back safe and stay safe in the future..
Except you have to be careful when you throw out buzzwords like that without examining what they actually mean. What you mention above is a concern, but the point can easy be caught up in soundbite journalism.
For example, when you use the term "substantially lower," what exactly do you mean? In the case of recruits who recieve the lowest test scores, the cap was relaxed from 2% of the total to no more than 4%. This equates to a raw number of around 918 recruits. In any case, the individual scores required for specific jobs haven't been modified. (For example, one would still have to score within CAT II in electronics to become a radar repair technician, etc..)
Or, the Army and Marine Corps have, quite succesfully, initiated programs to recruit those potential troops who only have GED's. In the Army, the program is called "General Educational Development+," which is a fancy way to say that the Army partners recruits who only have GED's with a particular in-service skill and then trains that person specifically for the job. On paper, someone who only has a GED is "less qualified," but it doesn't mean they have less aptitude. The key is focusing more attention into matching the recruit with a skill, which is what the program does.
The most controversial is the granting of waivers for misdemeanor alcohol or similiar charges, (felonies are not waived) but again, the waiver rate was only increased by a total of 1%. Someone arrested for something like a DUI made a terrible mistake, but it doesn't mean they can't continue to be productive. Such a person would never get a security clearance and such, but does that mean they can't serve in the military at all?
Every entity, from private business to the military, wants to recruit the best and most qualified that they can. There are certainly other arguments that can be made, but one has to be careful when throwing terms around.
What specific statement(s) during his campaign are you referring to?
Well, he talked big about a lot of reform, and he, at some point, really stopped fighting for those reforms (esp the budget) and then has called that working together. He's also been doing a fair bit of increased spending, such as all the debt he just aquired us last election, and I REALLY think that that was fiscally irresponsible for him to get us in.
At some point?
Try "when his special election failed miserably."
That was the final straw, but I'd say before then even to an extent
I agree there..but I don't think it's becoming a system-wide problem (yet). We have a few bad apples in my platoon, but there's things afoot as far as they're concerned.
From what I could tell, he was very assertive in his attempts to reform the budget of California, and by many accounts the deficit has gone down. Example-ever since I was a child we have had billions of dollars in the state deficit, and ever since my spouse started working for the state, his paychecks were withheld every year for a couple months until the assembly/senate could pass the budget. When Arnold took office, we received the paychecks on time for the first time ever and that has continued ever since.
When Arnold runs for re-elections, opposing parties are fond of using the current state deficit as a slogan for how poor a job he is doing, without stopping to think that it was much larger before he took office. He can't fix it all in one term.
To answer the original question, I'd have to say no. America has far and away the world's most powerful navy, and I've played enough Axis & Allies over the years to know you can't take the United States without controlling the seas.
But seriously, I don't think the US itself is in any danger of invasion. For one thing, we simply don't fight wars on our own soil. If the government thought someone was actually going to invade, we'd declare war and go blow them to smithereens. We also have a large and extremely well equipped military (other people have already posted the figures). Most importantly, nobody would honestly want to invade us. It makes no sense economically, and it would be disastrous militarily.
I'll admit, with Arnold he's cut the budget somewhat, but I think the stuff he backed in November has hurt that
Yeah. He cut the budget, but he completely invalidated that by borrowing like crazy.
He's reduced the deficit but increased the debt. He crows and celebrates about the smaller deficits, but somehow presumes that the public is stupid (likely true) and can't tell that the debt is ballooning.
Likely? More like definitly stupid on figuring out how bad a move it is, on so many levels, to have done all those bond measures
Sounds like there's some Arnold haters
The biggest noise I remember about his term last year was that he irritated the cops and the nurses by taking away some retirement/pension or whatnot. I can't really fault him for this move, either; growing up myself in politics, I know how absolutely impossible it is to please everyone. What is remarkable is that he was elected for two terms in a predominantly blue state. I still just think that he has California's best interests in mind; it's not like he needs the money (he turned down his own salary, btw. He didn't need the extra money and figured the deficit was high enough already)
The biggest noise I remember about his term last year was that he irritated the cops and the nurses by taking away some retirement/pension or whatnot.
It's slightly boring and detailed, but he really didn't take away retirement/pensions per se, he switched them from a traditional defined benefit to one more resembling a private 401K.
A defined benefit is one where the state/company/institution/whatever sets aside a certain amount of money until retirement, and then pays a set amount for the rest of the person's life. He switched it to a plan where the cash balance at retirement depends on salary credits.
Most companies are moving away from traditional defined benefits anyway.
And that's a very sound business move.
The problem is, he's too vulnerable to his criticisms. I guess it's the very fact that he's in a blue state that's utterly dominanted by the dems in the legislature and that he's lost his popular mandate. Now, he barely does anything useful because he's too worried people would avoid it.
What happened to the guy who said he would fix the state even if it made people angry?
i just dont like fiscal bad management and taking on more long term debt
Remember when he was just an actor? That seems so long ago now.
True, and it's really not a bad deal for the cops/nurses, just not as sweet as what they were used to. Our friends in the CHP seemed to think that the coming change would throw their budget off to where they would have to relocate and be looking at at least 1,000 less a month in income.
But then again, when you're pulling in 75,000-90,000 a year individually, I can't see a huge reason to complain. Don't even get me started on the CHP's fraud, waste, and abuse.
Ok, I've always criticised those people that call Arnold a Nazi, but I now find it a tad funny that, with that slur at him, he apparently just had to stop construction on a gas chamber he was building without the legislature knowing.
If he submitted the appropriation labeled "prisoners shower stall". I'd begin to wonder if there was something to what those people were saying..
well, it was something that was small budget enough the legislature didn't need to approve as a replacement for the execution system in california thats been having some trouble.
I wish Arnold would grow a pair and get rid of all this BS pandering ie funding to illegals. Show us some damn proof of legal residency before dropping your 6th welfare baby and collecting a check. Our state would have some serious cash flow if we could drop all that crap.