This Chart Illustrates the Difference Between the Romney & Obama Plan for Defense Spending
- Posted on August 29, 2012 at 8:15pm by
Becket Adams
- Print »
- Email »
The following chart from Bloomberg Insider also illustrates the history of U.S. defense spending since President Franklin D. Roosevelt:
Click to enlarge
“Candidate Romney has set a goal of a base Pentagon budget that’s equal to 4 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product,” writes Rob Levinson and Cameron Leuthy for Bloomberg. “That’s about where defense spending will be in the coming year, assuming a decline in spending for the war in Afghanistan.”
“Depending on how the economy behaves during the next four to eight years, a President Romney’s 4 percent solution may prove welcome to the party’s traditional defense hawks yet face real pushback from deficit hawks,” they add.
Why is Romney so interested in defense spending? Because, if elected and his policies enacted, candidate Romney argues that an increased investment in this area will grow GDP by a full four percent each year. But to achieve this, his plan calls for far more defense spending than President Obama’s plan.
“[I]f the economy grows as he predicts and he gradually ramps up defense spending to his goal of 4 percent of GDP by the end of his first term, the nation would spend about $400 billion more on defense in Romney’s first term than Obama currently plans in his second,” the Bloomberg report adds.
Here’s the full Bloomberg Insider’s Convention 2012 Issue:
Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter.
(H/T: Zero Hedge). Front page photo courtesy the AP.
Comments (85)
Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 587 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 414 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 378 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 375 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 414 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 378 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 414 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Wrabbit2000
Posted on August 30, 2012 at 5:00pmI’m as much for the defense of our nation as the next guy. The ability to meet and defeat any attack against the United States or it’s people should be absolute and without question. However, we‘re 16 trillion in debt with 25 trillion within a decade or so by Uncle’s own written budget projections. It’s not either/or but a sense of balance I feel we totally lack in evaluating threats. The economic one is certain, coming and will lay us flat. The military one is theory and distant at best. Priorities..we need them now.
Report Post »AGP
Posted on August 30, 2012 at 2:20pmSent: Thu, Aug 30, 2012 8:53 am
Subject: USA TODAY, FIVE THINGS TO WATCH AT GOP CONV, AUG 30, POST AGP
OMITTING THE MOST IMPORTANT ATTRIBUTE
The five things to watch for at the GOP convention article fails to include the most important component–authenticity. Much has been made by the media of Governor Romney‘s distance and personality coldness that ’s untrue. Watch, listen, and you will discover an authentic, caring and empathetic leader. This man is equipped naturally to be from the first day in office one of the nation’s greatest Presidents. On display for all to see is his wife and his sons and their families. They are all servants and care deeply for their country and ts citizens.
You by watching tonight will quickly determine that this is a real, compassionate human being. He is authentic about public service and his love for country. He is the kind of individual of moderation and wisdom the founding fathers envisioned for leadership. He will serve in the tradition of Lincoln, Washington and other great leaders. He will value and obey the laws of this great land and its Constitution. He will treasure and retain his presidential oath, all this while retaining a personal level of authenticity rarely seen in government before. He is the gift of Divine Providence to a worn and weary America. Thanks to his authenticity and commitment America will return like the risen Phoenix from the dust. Godspeed Mitt, Mr. President.
Alan G Phillips
Report Post »Bloomington, IL
soybomb315_II
Posted on August 30, 2012 at 7:31amThis is one issue where Obama is much better than Mitt Romney
Report Post »ColoradoProudAmerican
Posted on August 30, 2012 at 5:03amMitt Romneys plan is…. A war with Iran, and maybe one with Syria, it just depends if I can work one over on the American people, and Syria keeps taking an butt whooping. He is telling this to your faces, here and now, and yet you cheer him on for sending our troops off to die. Pathetic Be sure to toss out a Hip Hip Hooray every time you hear of a soldier dying. You should celebrate, you’re getting everything that you wanted.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on August 30, 2012 at 9:15amWell said. Only rather disturbed individuals would applaud building the economy by spending more on the military and creating wars that the US neither benefits from nor becomes more safer as a result of. There is no honor in what we did in Iraq or what we are doing in Afghanistan. And how is it that the same individuals who claim that government spending in all other areas somehow represents money being removed from the economy, but defense spending is beneficial. We have become a nation where blind ideology gets in the way of our brains and rational thinking. When bombs blow up there is no continued economic benefit, when a soldier dies there is no continued economic benefit, when we “win” in Iraq and waste $billions rebuilding them, there is no economic benefit to the US. The exaggerated terrorism threat is nothing more than a replacement for the exaggerated cold war. Nothing more than marketing by the military industrial complex to keep the money flowing. Time to invest in the US, our society, our children, our future. What exactly did we gain for the $trillions wasted in Iraq?
Report Post »ripvanwinkle
Posted on August 30, 2012 at 12:47amA fixed 4% DOD budget is a good idea. You know, it frustrates me that nobody ever does a good job of explaining where wealth gets created. Here’s a 1000 character attempt: The source of wealth creation is innovation and efficiency. In transactions where transaction price is between the buyer‘s max value and the seller’s delivery cost, a little bit of wealth goes to both parties. Competition redistributes wealth toward innovators and more efficient producers. The Government gets a cut of both sides of the transaction via taxes, fees, fines, and regulation.
The DOD invests in innovation and, where it allows competition, efficiency. The result is DOD expenditures push resources toward wealth creation. A fixed DOD budget squeezes more efficiency, thus freeing resources for use elsewhere. I have faith in the DOD and in Mitt’s strategy.
Report Post »Coelitus
Posted on August 30, 2012 at 11:39amWell said. I’m glad you did, though it is much too intellectual for the Obama Trolls and Paul Bots to understand. Defense investment does not = War. It is a logical Fallacy to link the two together. Defense cuts can = deficit reduction. However, savings do not = growth. Growth = deficit reduction.
Report Post »blackyb
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 11:00pmObama is not interested in the security of this nation. Isn’t that obvious?
Report Post »Abraham Young
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 10:47pmLike I said, the two parties are opposited faces of the big government coin. The Dimmocraps spend on welfare, and the Repugnicans spend on warfare.
Let’s just trim the whole federal Leviathan
Report Post »Twobyfour
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 10:05pmWalkabout, Al Qaeda is no longer a threat. Zawahiri himself does not have means to be much of a player. Even most bloodthirsty ilamists with a glimmer of some intelligence know that OBL actions were a mistake from a strategic point of view. They made too many infidels aware about the goals of islam.
The preferred methods are the ones where firing a shot is not required, at least for this phase of war. Infiltration, population replacement and gradual insertion of islamic law concepts either directly or in parallel is the current phase. A hot war can be waged when the means are available and the probability of winning is practically guaranteed. In their estimate, a window of opportunity would appear about 2030 and the takeover should be completed by 2050..
Iran’s mahdists, though, see it a different way. According to their theology, Mahdi would appear when the general mayhem is at the peak. So, they want to create that mayhem, to speed up Mahdi’s return. By any means. They would like to see a global nuclear war pronto. In their calculations, it is not relevant whether Iranian people would suffer or not. Or any people, for that matter.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 10:16pmAl Qaeda is in Yemen & Mali. In fact they hold 1/2 of Mali. They have an affiliate in Algeria that is allied with them. They are a threat.
I think of Al Qaeda not so much as executing terror organization but as a holing company. Just like their are bank holding companies that are one level above banks, Al Qaeda is like a terrorist holding company.
So long as they have charismatic leaders they can bounce back pretty quick. Al Qaeda is in Iraq & Syria tearing things up as well.
Looks big enough to me.
All said the best way to deal with AL Qaeda is probably with operators, drones & the CIA & not regular grunts. There will be a few regular grunts to support base camp. In the meantime China & Russia have not gone away & they are furious over Syria. Those two countries singularly & together are not pushover. So we need regular troops in sufficient numbers.
The South China Sea & surrounding region is a flash point.
As of November 2008, there is not a consensus within NATO on a Georgian Membership Action Plan. -wiki
Why is Georgi not in NATO. Because we do not want to tangle with the Russians. So I guess the Russians are somewhat dangerous? The Georgians have wanrted to join NATO for 16 years & NATO … acts with alacrity! NOT!
Report Post »Lord_Frostwind
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:35pmFascinating, the way many Liberals talk, you would think that the military devours at least half of the nation’s GDP. Four percent is a significant chunk, but nowhere near as bad as the real killers of government spending.
Report Post »SCREW-WINDOWS
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:55pmAnd no one is keeping track of the spare change look at programs that were cut but spending increased or stayed the same. Where did that spare change go ?
Report Post »I suspect it ended up in a few pockets.
saranda
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 10:22pmYou need to remember that 4% of GDP is no where near the same as 4% of government spending. GDP was approximately $15 trillion in 2011, making 4% of that $600 billion. That as a percentage of government spending is somewhere around 16%, and some will say that is only the direct budget for the dod, and that actual defence spending is about twice that number making it more than 30% of the budget.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 10:46pmsaranda
Report Post »In the last decade Democrats have been quite good at hiding their pet projects in the defense budget.
Walkabout
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 10:57pmSaranda
-”counter-terrorism spending by the FBI” – Defense related but not necessary Okay let’s cut this
-“pensions to military retirees and widows and their families” – eff them. dump them on the street.
-Interest on military spending – Well there is a lot of interest we are spending ion Medicaid, Medicare & everything else. Just cut it but keep paying interest on everything else.
/sarc off
State department financing. Not sure about that. Would need to know more about it. But it is probably working program in the state department.
What has the state department done with North Korea for example. Or Syria, Egypt, Mali or Tunisia? Never mind we need the Sate Department as an excuse to arrange parties. I have some really nice picture of Hillary Clinton tearing up the dance floor in South Africa.
“This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance, cleanup, and production, which is in the Department of Energy budget, Veterans Affairs, the Treasury Department’s payments in pensions to military retirees and widows and their families, interest on debt incurred in past wars, or State Department financing of foreign arms sales and militarily-related development assistance. Neither does it include defense spending that is not military in nature, such as the Department of Homeland Security, counter-terrorism spending by the FBI, and intelligence-gathering spendin
Report Post »JeffJ1985
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:34pmI support defense, but the DOD should not be the Republicans’ black hole pet program. The military wastes plenty of money and just pumping more money into DOD is not wise policy.
Report Post »SCREW-WINDOWS
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:58pmWe need a whole lot more defense on space as the war will be on our satellites and technology.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 10:01pmYes it is those evil contractors with cost overruns on weapons systems developments because specs were changed once again by the government.
Oh wait did I say something wrong?
Or it is a gutless Congress that can see a base closed in their district so they have to come up with BRAC I & BRAC II. If left up to the military they would have closed those bases years ago.
Or maybe it is that we have leading edge/bleeding edge technology that China steals for pennies on the dollar & Clinton let them. Loral Space, W88, Buddhist temple donations (you know those Buddhist are made of money!), etc …
Of course everything has to be non stealth because all military people want to say is let them paint us on radar & then light us up.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 10:23pmYou know we waste money at the Pentagon, because soldiers want to go out onto the battlefield & get owned because we waste all that procurement money!
/sarc off
Report Post »nobull14
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:27pmWhat are you talking about ? . Oblamo does not have a plan !!!! and you look who he has appointed Leon Panetta a complete moron and General Dempsey another traitor to are country . The only plan this turd in a suit has for are country is complete failure ? .what plan !!!!!!!!!!
Report Post »chips1
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:36pmHis plan is to disarm America’s millitary and citizens so Islam can move right in on us. Muslim brotherhood, NBP, Farrakan, Jackso ,etc.
Report Post »Love_over_Hate
Posted on August 30, 2012 at 12:41amIt’s hard to take most of you serious when having this kind of discussion when most of your statements have no basis in the real world. You know, facts?
Report Post »Tigress1
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:12pmAs a defense and deficit hawk, I think the main thing that our gov. SHOULD do is provide for our defense. However, this money should be well spent, and not wasted on stupid things such as $500 toilet seats. I’m disgusted that Obama has been dismantling our nukes, after all this was a huge taxpayer investment, and he had no business just throwing it all away- especially when our enemies are building their aresenals! I don’t see Romney doing things like that since he also believes in “Peace through strength”, unlike Obama’s failed ideology of Appeasement, Apologies, and Groveling and Humiliation. (Aagh!)
Report Post »Tigress1
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:19pmTypo: arsenals not aresenals!
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 10:21pm$500 toilet seats story is about 3 decades old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_seat#U.S._Navy.27s_.22.24600_Toilet_Seat.22
Democrat Underground but still a good read.
Report Post »http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=797912
Chet Hempstead
Posted on August 30, 2012 at 4:33amWhy do we need nukes in Cold War numbers? We’re not going to go to war with Russia or China. Even if our enemies get the bomb they can never build as many of them as we would still have after we dismantled most of ours, and they cannot equal the technical sophistication of our delivery systems.
Report Post »Tigress1
Posted on August 30, 2012 at 11:33am@Walkabout, I realize the toilet seat story is old, but it is very effective at making the point: we shouldn’t waste ANY money that has nothing to do with actual defense or safety of our military.
@Chet Hemstead, If the nukes are simply sitting there, then why not keep them? We spent so much money building them, at least keep them for the image of strength. “Peace through strength” includes not only REAL strength, but also the image/perception of strength. Those nukes include both aspects, image as well as true strength. This is why Obama wants to eliminate them. He wants to decrease our actual strength and also the perception/psychological of our strength not only to our enemies, but to Americans themselves.
Report Post »cantstandlibs
Posted on August 30, 2012 at 1:57pm@tigress1: I thought you were meaning arse-nals, as in toilet seats, similar to “urine-als” :-))
Report Post »Freedom.Fighter
Posted on August 30, 2012 at 7:12pmThe problem with just keeping those nukes is that their maintenance costs are enormously expensive. Also, they make dangerous targets. At the very least, it is a gesture that we don’t just talk the talk, but walk the walk as well.
Report Post »Individualism
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:11pmhow about creating jobs that helps peoples lives not murders them.
Report Post »scuba13
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:16pmHow about you say something intelligent?
Report Post »chips1
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:20pmI don’t think the story was about muslims.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:30pmIndividualism, you are all kinds of special!
‘The Barbary threat led directly to the creation of the United States Navy in March 1794. While the United States managed to secure peace treaties, these obliged it to pay tribute for protection from attack. Payments in ransom and tribute to the Barbary states amounted to 20% of United States government annual expenditures in 1800 -wiki
In 1795, Algeria came to an agreement with the U.S. that resulted in the release of 115 sailors they held, at the cost of over $1 million. This amount totaled about 1⁄6 of the entire U.S. budget
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:31pmIndividualism << indeed very special.
In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:34pmIndividualism, a poster sans excellence
Historian Robert C. Davis estimated that between 1530 and 1780 1–1.25 million Europeans were captured and taken as slaves to North Africa, principally Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli, but also Istanbul and Salé
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:36pmchips1
Report Post »I don’t think the story was about muslims.
***
Who are we fighting?
Jews? Aninists, Hindus? Little Green men from Mars? Little 90 year old Swedish ladies?
nobull14
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:36pm@Indivualism I think your rowing up river with one oar ?.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:42pmnobull14
No Individualism is likely gay. They seem to be the most militant of the atheists.
I take that back. Your description works quite nicely. Same difference
Report Post »chips1
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:51pmWALKABOUT:
Report Post »My response was to INDIVDUALISM. His post seemed to refer to our defense system was for murder. That isn’t what it is for. On the other hand, it’s the goal of muslims. His thought process is backwards. Sorry, Walkabout. My error.
Walkabout
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 10:05pmchips1
I misread your post. Sry.
Report Post »Individualism
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 10:10pmMuslims are not trying to do anything, there troops are not in anyone’s country like ours are.
Report Post »PutMoreOnMyPlate
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 10:30pmInd
Are you serious? Obama wants to rape our military and make them social workers of the world that can’t defend themselves and Romney wants to build them back up. If you’re so against America being able to defend herself from “legitimate” rape then please leave and I’ll help you pack and make sure you have enough food and water for your journey.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 10:34pmIndividualism
So those 19 911 hijackers were never here in America? Is that you well considered opinion?
All those people that study in Pakistan & then come back here to start crap, they were just going for spa treatment along the Afghan/Pakistan border. Right?
Your still special, don’t let anyone tell you otherwise!
Report Post »Freedom.Fighter
Posted on August 30, 2012 at 9:21pmHere’s a novel idea! Let’s declare war BEFORE we invade. This way it isn’t violating any international laws concerning war that we actually wrote. Oh, and no more preemptive strikes. That is actually NOT American. My basis for this last statement is the case made against the Nazi leaders in the Nuremberg Trials. We said that preemptive strikes are no excuse for war, that one must be attacked or invaded first.
I wish I read the Constitution and more of our history BEFORE I enlisted. Then maybe I would have demanded answers about going to war illegally before I became involved. Unfortunately, I have to live with that. Ignorance is no excuse; neither is “I was just following orders.”
Report Post »TheBurningTruth
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:05pmI seem to recall President Bonobo saying that “spending IS the stimulus” when justifying that $870B boondoggle. Well, if that’s true, then spending on hard working well educated and skilled professionals to build our troops the best equipment in the world must be just as stimulative as tossing the money out to people that quit high school, are gang-bangers or drive-by shooters, people that can‘t make change and that can’t read an analog clock face or just don’t care to get up in the morning because they “deserve” just a good a life.
My money is on the professionals that work to produce the very best for our troops. That is both “stimulative” and provides the guys that risk their lives with the best chance of coming home.
Report Post »soybomb315_II
Posted on August 30, 2012 at 7:32ambut spending military money in foreign countries is like flushing money down a toilet
Report Post »OperationNorthwoods
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:01pmSo he actually wants to spend more money on the military? WTF.
Report Post »Calm Voice of Reason
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:00pmHow about dismantling our standing, professional army in accordance with the beliefs of the Founding Fathers and restore the exclusive rights and responsibilities for declaring war back to within the halls of Congress as the Constitution requires? Let’s see any nominee, Presidential or otherwise, tackle our permanent war economy and THEN I’ll happily listen to how they plan to fix our debts and deficits.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:11pmLet’s take this in baby steps.
Thomas Jefferson was a founding father.
TJ sent frigates to Libya to combat the Barbary pirates, who kidnapping Americans sailors.
Also early on Congress & others such as Adams recognized the need for a
“it was soon realized that it was necessary to field a trained standing army. The first of these, the Legion of the United States, was established in 1791 and disbanded in 1796.
19th century … However, the Regular Army, under Generals Winfield Scott and Jacob Brown, proved they were professional and capable of defeating a British army in the Niagara campaign of 1814.” -wiki
It seems as though Founding Father, John Adams, approved of having an army
“Congress appropriated money to complete three new frigates and to build additional ships, and authorized the raising of a provisional army. ” http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/johnadams
P.S. Your post name makes me sick. You remind me of Sauron from L.O.R. a.k.a. Annatar the Lord of Gifts. You post a picture of a wise man circa 1870 of the Victorian Age (Darwin’s time) & pick the sage like name.
Report Post »GoodStuff
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:14pmChina thanks you for your stupidity.
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:21pm@Goodstuff,
Oddly enough, the interest that we pay China on the debt that they hold is actually enough to pay their defense budget. Maybe, just maybe, defense spending isn’t the real issue.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 10:31pmBack in the day when the Mongols attacked Baghdad. After they conquered it, The Mongol commander looked at the Caliph’s treasury, recounted the army that he had just defeated & wondered why the Caliph did not have a bigger army. He was disgusted.
Different Day, Same Sh__.
& Calm Voice of disengenuous says lets get rid of our standing army.
When you have a National Guard Unit (which is the only thing you want to have) you should rate them like the Germans did in WW1 on scale 1 to 4. 1 is frontline (professional stuff & 4 is worthless). Now until you get into combat, you probably won’t know what you got. Good luck kid because you are going to need a lot of it. Don’t worry about the combat part, it will find you. Up until now you have been shielded so you grew up thinking everything was daisies & lollipops.
Report Post »Oakdawg
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:00pmAmerica’s military is the best in the world despite chairman Mao Bama as commander in chief. If we want to achieve peace it must be accomplished thru strength. The strength of our military needs to be rebuilt after the last decade. However we need to buy more Aircraft that are proven to work such as the F-15 and F-16 instead of the crappy and unreliable F-22 or F-35.
When the military is built up and some rouge dictator threatens us we can accidentally drop a few bombs on them to shut them up just like Reagan did to Libiya.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:15pmUsual liberal tactic is to decrease the number purchased so that then it price increases. Then they point to the high unit price & say that is just too high. Rinse & repeat.
You don’t put all your eggs in one basket. It isn’t wise too put your eggs into too few baskets either. In such a case just 1 or 2 losses become catastrophic. But the lib mo-fos no that. Are counting on it.
Report Post »DWilliams08
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 8:54pmSaying that defense spending creates jobs is just like Nancy Pelosi saying “Food Stamps and Unemployment Give ‘Biggest Bang for Our Buck’.” The job of the DOD is to defend the country, not ‘create jobs’.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 8:50pmThe beautiful & engaging Hillary Clinton has logged more miles than any other Secretary of State.
She flew a million miles & dance on many dance floors with many dignitaries as reported in the Wall Street Journal. Are we safer?
Russia pulled out of Syria early this week. So it appears we won in Syria. What did we win? China is going to use it stalking horse of North Korea against us & engage in economic warfare. Point is the world is getting more dangerous.
You fund your military by considering capabilities & limitations of your military & your opponents. You do an “as is” & “to be” analysis & fill in the gap. Individualism, Wango, & JZS don’t understand this or they do & don’t give a crap. I suspect that Wango only cares about is free prophylactics.
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 8:49pmWhen you take out the pensions for the military and the veterans healthcare costs, the cost of the military isn’t signifiant. And as a matter of fact, most of the spending happens in the US with US companies and US labor, and turns over 7 times in the US economy helping us greatly. Unlike welfare spending that is mostly spent on crap made in china, or food grown in mexico/south america where it turns over 7 times there, stripping resources from our economy instead of building it.
Report Post »face.chewer
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 8:46pmIf we can defeat the Muslim dogs by slaughtering them with drones I’m all for saving a few bucks by using drones instead of conventional warfare.
Report Post »Wolfgang the Gray
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:00pmYou cannot defeat an enemy from the air, unless you nuke them. There will always be a need for soldiers on the ground to mop up the pockets left after air attacks. The big costs today are minimizing collateral damage. In WWI & WWII, carpet bombing took out the factories, but large swaths of cities as well. Nowadays, people complain if a bystander gets a cut after we do a missile attack on a single terrorist home. The enemy has no qualms about killing our civilians. It costs a lot of money to do surgical strikes.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:03pmAl Qaeda: Statements and Evolving Ideology, Congressional Research Service,
Report Post »http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ubl-fbis.pdf
Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:22pmMy drill sergeant used to say, “Unless there are US Army boots standing on it, you don’t own it.”
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:39pmWolfgang the Gray
Long War Journal has a break down on the actual civilian deaths that the MSM lies about. Many of those civilians are the families of the terrorists.
The same SM that would merely ask why Jihadis are so mad at us if they car bombed family housing in America.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 8:43pmYou can tell the Kennedy/LBJ, Carter, Clinton & Obama administrations because there is always a trough or a valley in the graph/chart.
That is why Rumsfeld or Cheney said you go to war with the army you have. Run down the military & act like wobbly weak kneed children on the world stage. The dictators & others take note & act. a Republican is elected & is handed a crap sandwich by the out going Democrat President (i.e a run down military) with which to work with.
Report Post »watersRpeople
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 8:30pmAre people worried about some kind of alien attack?
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 8:54pmDid you fall off a cabbage truck?
Al Qaeda’s goals, proposing four separate objectives: first, to terrorize the U.S. into retreating from the world stage; second, to use long wars to financially bleed the U.S. while inflaming anti-American sentiment; third, to defend the rights of Muslims; and finally, claims al Qaeda has “a feckless delusion” and “grandiose vision” for global domination through a “violent Islamic caliphate
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/06/What_does_Al_Qaeda_want
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:01pmYou may believe that Al Qaeda does not want a world caliphate. They say one thing in English & another in Arabic. Fortunately for you you do not speak or read Arabic so you may safely disregard any notion of a world caliphate. After all idiots say ignorance is bliss.
Any who, you may go to think Progress & they will gladly feed you disinformation about there being no desire for a world caliphate. After all you wouldn’t want to learn Arabic & hear form the horses mouth that they really do.
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/06/30/258600/obama-admins-new-counterterror-strategy-discards-absurd-bush-notion-of-al-qaeda-global-caliphate/?mobile=nc
I am sure you are quite blissful. Or full of something!
Report Post »Twobyfour
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:22pmMessicans? They won’t stand a chance.
Space aliens? We won’t stand a chance.
Fortunately, our piece of rock is on a perifery / backwater of the galaxy. Unfortunately, we’ve been broadcasting our presence for nearly a century. It may be interpreted as being uppity.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 10:59pmTwobyfour
Report Post »Very nice! We all need a good laugh.
Individualism
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 8:30pmyeah Americans want their tax payer spent on them, not on murdering people abroad for some fake non existant islamic threat.
Report Post »watersRpeople
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 8:35pmWell you have to understand that the very people who point their finger at other people saying “You think you are a god” – think themselves are gods.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 8:39pmThe establishment of a world caliphate, the stated goal of many jihadists where atheists, Christians women &m others cannot live how they want is a nonexistent threat per the fool known as Individiualism, who is a liberal or a Muslim
Report Post »Joss
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 8:43pmCheck the bottle I’m sure it will tell you to take the missed dose as soon as possible.
Report Post »therealconservative
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 8:45pm@indiv
Spoken like a true traitor
Report Post »Exrepublisheep
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 8:51pmNotice how it’s presented as an increase in “defense”, and not on “defense spending”? Billions wasted every year in unaccountable cash harvesting by “defense” contractors who only have to say any type of cuts, or not getting enough of the increases they want, will make America weak. Cutting the fat out of these guaranteed expenditures can only help a cash strapped America. Think of it this way, the teachers unions do the same thing. “It’s for the children!”
Report Post »Individualism
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:09pmthe only threat i see are radical christians in our country bombing their countries, killing their people and occupying their land. there is no threat from the muslims, if there was they would have attacked full force by now because you have murdered millions of them. they don’t have the ability to fight America let alone defend themselves from the drones.
Report Post »GoodStuff
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:17pm@Individualism
The muslims would call you a “dhimmi”, a non-muslim who willingly bows to Islam. You’re a fool.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:22pmExrepublisheep
I hope you don’t want to trade with Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Phillipines , Vietnam or any other country in the Western Pacific. The Chinese regard that as their economic zone. They are very aggressive to said countries. So much in fact that Vietnam is looking to us for help.
Personally I think the world should be set up that nothing is shipped between continents except precious metals (for manufacturing purposes), information & tourists. But we are not there yet. To not have those as trade partners because China is trying to kick us out is not a smooth move. You might think so, but your judgement is …well, questionable. The Chinese were very upset when we said we would station troops in Australia. Why? Because it is too close to the region they want to dominate politically, militarily & economically.
Did you get that memo? If you did , did your mother help your read & understand it?
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:41pmIndividualism
the only threat i see are radical christians in our country bombing their countries
Report Post »***
Usama did 911.
We asked the Taliban to extradite him they refused. Therefore we went to Afghanistan. He fled like a craven coward & hid in Pakistan.
Lordcsmith
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:41pmThere’s a nice little list of all the wars being fought in the world.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/index.html
The common theme in all of them is: The religion of peace or the Communists fighting their neighbors in just about every single one of them. The Christians don’t show up as aggressor in any of them unless you concede that this country is Christian
Report Post »Exrepublisheep
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:48pmCome on Walkabout, a Mom comment? Your other posts are more mature and informed than that. Re-read my comment. It has nothing to do with weakening America in any way, anywhere. I want to bring spending EVERYWHERE into a sane, manageable level, I think you do too. Don‘t change what’s written so its easier for you to rag on, that’s not being honest.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 10:45pmExrepublisheep
Come on Walkabout, a Mom comment? Your other posts are more mature and informed than that. Re-read my comment
***
Yes, I should not have used the mom comment with you. I’ll take that back & say I am sorry..
Romney is the type of guy to cut out waste if there is any. With a large organization like the Pentagon or large corporate contractors there usually is. First I wonder how much there is compared to other businesses of the same size or of a small size. Second I think some of the cost overruns comes from bleeding edge tech & also spec changes. Third I like to see a representative sample of procurement programs & have it detailed where the waste was. Romney could appoint someone like himself to ferret out waste. It would still take 3 or 4 Congressmen to hold hearing regularly yet not grandstand to get changes done.
U.S. Navy’s “$600 Toilet Seat”
Report Post »http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_seat#U.S._Navy.27s_.22.24600_Toilet_Seat.22
watersRpeople
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 8:26pmWow, where’s all that money gonna come from? When it‘s all said and done you’ll toss your silver and gold into the streets.
Report Post »GoodStuff
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:18pmMilitary spending is nothing compared to dependency programs and welfare.
Report Post »scuba13
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 9:22pmCan you please let me know what street all this gold and silver will be on? I need some more gold in my retirement accounts.
Report Post »