Seriously, why are Democrats surprised when they are accused of being soft on defense?

[AndrewR]

With the release of the President's budget cuts recently, it went largely unnoticed in the main stream media, at least to the extent that I saw, how many defense programs were on the chopping block relative to the other programs cut or reduced. I saw the list and immediately noted both the number of defense programs cut as well as the amount by which defense programs were being cut, which makes up the lion's share of the budget reductions announced.

In a Bloomberg article I just read, it says that roughly half of the 121 programs in the budget reduction are defense programs.

Sure, the defense budget increased by 43 percent since FY2000, not including supplemental war costs (also from the same article), yet when that figure is mentioned, it overlooks the decline in the defense budget that took place in the years prior to FY2000.

Anyway, before I go on too much of a tangent, my point is that Democrats, including President Obama when he was merely Senator Obama, talk about being solid on national defense, yet when they get into power, they cut national defense, just like Carter and just like Clinton. Why are they surprised when they are considered "vulnerable" on national defense issues?

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
With the release of the President's budget cuts recently, it went largely unnoticed in the main stream media, at least to the extent that I saw, how many defense programs were on the chopping block relative to the other programs cut or reduced. I saw the list and immediately noted both the number of defense programs cut as well as the amount by which defense programs were being cut, which makes up the lion's share of the budget reductions announced.

In a Bloomberg article I just read, it says that roughly half of the 121 programs in the budget reduction are defense programs.

Sure, the defense budget increased by 43 percent since FY2000, not including supplemental war costs (also from the same article), yet when that figure is mentioned, it overlooks the decline in the defense budget that took place in the years prior to FY2000.

Anyway, before I go on too much of a tangent, my point is that Democrats, including President Obama when he was merely Senator Obama, talk about being solid on national defense, yet when they get into power, they cut national defense, just like Carter and just like Clinton. Why are they surprised when they are considered "vulnerable" on national defense issues?

Less money for defense means that thousands of college educated american scientists and engineers will be out of jobs. Instead, he'll use that money to raise the minimum wage for high school dropouts.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Falsify history much ?


White House
THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009
(the last Bush Budget)

050 National defense (in millions of dollars):

FY2008 . . . . . 693,214
FY2009 . . . . . 611,131
FY2010 . . . . . 549,774
FY2011 . . . . . 556,292
FY2012 . . . . . 565,135
FY2013 . . . . . 575,643

Originally posted by: AndrewR ~ ~ ~

Anyway, before I go on too much of a tangent, my point is that Democrats, including President Obama when he was merely Senator Obama, talk about being solid on national defense, yet when they get into power, they cut national defense, just like Carter and just like Clinton. Why are they surprised when they are considered "vulnerable" on national defense issues?

Your colorectal views ignore 2 basic facts:

1) Vietnam was over; and
2) The George HW Bush RIF (google it).



I'll bet you one dollar that you do not have the intestinal fortitude to post the proposed Obama Administration National Defense budget numbers for the next five years.

 

[SammyJr]

Maybe because we still have enough bombs to blow up the world 10 times over and spend as much as the rest of the world put together? That's not soft. That's excessive.

And yet, our Southern border is still wide open.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Less money for defense means that thousands of college educated american scientists and engineers will be out of jobs.

or they will work in green tech industry instead

 

[Craig234]

Defense spending is still *way* too high. Cut it in half. And no that's not 'soft' on defense. Why are you 'hard' on wasting money and wrongful violence?

 

[LegendKiller]

Seriously, we have *ELEVEN* supercarriers right now with another under construction. The next closest country, the UK, has two SC's under construction. Italy has 2 small carriers. Russia has a joke. China has one small carrier under construction with India having two small ones under construction.

When it comes down to it, we have 5x as much of the good stuff as the next closest country.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Seriously, we have *ELEVEN* supercarriers right now with another under construction. The next closest country, the UK, has two SC's under construction. Italy has 2 small carriers. Russia has a joke. China has one small carrier under construction with India having two small ones under construction.

When it comes down to it, we have 5x as much of the good stuff as the next closest country.

LK, why do you hate America?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Seriously, we have *ELEVEN* supercarriers right now with another under construction. The next closest country, the UK, has two SC's under construction. Italy has 2 small carriers. Russia has a joke. China has one small carrier under construction with India having two small ones under construction.

When it comes down to it, we have 5x as much of the good stuff as the next closest country.

LK, why do you hate America?

lol!

Why do people like OP hate this country so much that they want to drive it into debt in order to feel bigger than others?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: biostud

Originally posted by: Hacp

Less money for defense means that thousands of college educated american scientists and engineers will be out of jobs.

or they will work in green tech industry instead

or start up their own company.

 

[yllus]

What are those programs being cut? Sometimes looking at merely the percentages can be very misleading.

I was reading the TIME Magazine article "At the Pentagon, It's Tanks, But No Tanks" a couple of days ago - it's about the cancellation of a program to build 27-ton 'lightweight' tanks. Is that a result of being soft on defence, or accurately recognizing the challenges of the future?

U.S. Army Gen. Peter Chiarelli, Vice Chief of Staff of the Army:

"There were times and days and weeks, and sometimes months, when I would allow nothing else in certain parts of the city than tanks and Bradleys because of the protection they afforded. It was just too dangerous to be out in a thin-skinned vehicle."

 

[villageidiot111]

Last time I checked the cold war was over. Is there really any reason to justify current levels of spending?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: villageidiot111
Last time I checked the cold war was over. Is there really any reason to justify current levels of spending?

Ah, there might be a reason to spend *some* of that money.

China's Navy Grows, and the World Watches Warily

In 2008, Beijing's annual military budget increased by almost 20% to $60 billion, according to official figures, though the Pentagon estimates that number could actually be closer to $150 billion. Its most recent report on the PLA warned grimly of China's ability to "develop and field disruptive military technologies" ? tactics which the Pentagon thinks will change "regional military balances and... have implications beyond the Asia-Pacific."

 

[jackschmittusa]

AndrewR

And you have examined all of the cuts and determined that they were all absolutely necessary to the national defense?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: villageidiot111
Last time I checked the cold war was over. Is there really any reason to justify current levels of spending?

Too keep a technological edge over the rest of the world.

Our military budget is only so large because our economy is so much larger than any single country. Our federal govt is larger than nearly every economy in the world. Yet I dont see anybody in here yapping about defense cuts proposing we also cut the rest of the budget.

Japan
Germany
China

The only countries in the world with a bigger economy than our federal budget.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: biostud

Originally posted by: Hacp

Less money for defense means that thousands of college educated american scientists and engineers will be out of jobs.

or they will work in green tech industry instead

Fuck that.

 

[NeoV]

Who cares if our economy is larger than other countries? Does that mean we have to spend more on our military than the rest of the world, combined, does?

We already have a huge technological advantage over the rest of the world from a military standpoint - and it's not like we are stopping all spending on military programs going forward, we are still going to be outspending everyone else by a large margin.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: NeoV
Who cares if our economy is larger than other countries? Does that mean we have to spend more on our military than the rest of the world, combined, does?

We already have a huge technological advantage over the rest of the world from a military standpoint - and it's not like we are stopping all spending on military programs going forward, we are still going to be outspending everyone else by a large margin.

It is all %'s that is why. Our spending as a % of GDP is right in the middle of the pack. And our technoligical advatange is due to our spending. You think technology and training grows on tree's?

As a % of GDP I have no problem with here our military spending is.

I bet if we gutted military spending and our next war was on more equal terms you would be the first in line whining about why we didnt invest more in the previous years to keep our death toll low.

 

[Atheus]

Continuing to insist on having ridiculous quantities of military hardware while your econony shinks, both in real terms and in comparison to other powers, is counterproductive both to the USA and to world peace. Besides you hardly have enough soldiers to effectively use the stuff you have. What are they serving now? Three tours in a row? Screw that. You should spend some of that money looking after those people, both mentally and physically, not finding ways to send them out to fight again.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Atheus
Continuing to insist on having ridiculous quantities of military hardware while your econony shinks, both in real terms and in comparison to other powers, is counterproductive both to the USA and to world peace. Besides you hardly have enough soldiers to effectively use the stuff you have. What are they serving now? Three tours in a row? Screw that. You should spend some of that money looking after those people, both mentally and physically, not finding ways to send them out to fight again.

Dont worry, we are spending 3 trillion on that.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Look what happened to our military in the 30's.

Gut it to save money and then it takes time to build up enough to counter a new threat.
That time lost in the rebuild cost lives.


Evaluate what is on the table (done by the military, not Congress) and see what is actually needed/working/fieldable.

 

[Robor]

You can count me in the 'we spend too much on our defense budget' crowd. Get out of the middle east ASAP and secure our own borders.

Nice troll and run by the OP by the way.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Look what happened to our military in the 30's.

Gut it to save money and then it takes time to build up enough to counter a new threat.
That time lost in the rebuild cost lives.

Imagine if we held a technological edge in WWII how many lives could have been saved? WWII was the last war we fought on equal technological basis. The result was a half million dead Americans. Each war after has seen a reduction in combat losses.

When we spend like we do we are investing in the future for our military men and women. And like I said as a % of GDP it isnt out of bounds compared to the rest of the world.

 

[evident]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Less money for defense means that thousands of college educated american scientists and engineers will be out of jobs. Instead, he'll use that money to raise the minimum wage for high school dropouts.

quit the FUD. his investment in the green sector is huge, alot of defense contractors are taking advantage of this and starting alternative energy programs. this is money much better spent.

 

[polarmystery]

I work in Defense, I'm a democrat, and our company has increased it's profits from 7.1 to 7.9 Billion dollars from 2008 to 2009. What say you?

And for the record, the programs they cut (that were affected by us) are being replaced with higher efficiency based systems that were encouraged by the current administration.

FAIL OP is FAIL