"I'm gonna stop buying a pack of bubble gum every month, but I'll continue to buy $5 coffee every morning and afternoon. I fully expect this to save me a significant amount of money."
You don't buy a Ferrari for hauling groceries. I wonder what country would be the first to be on the receiving end of that new large budget.
Whoever President Thomas Monson points his finger at?
How's the deficit doing? Has the Obama admin made any progress there?Jay wrote:
Sure, I'm just pointing out that crying over PBS losing federal funding is asinine too.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Calling things like NPR, PBS or whatever a significant drain on the economy while you're planning on spending far more in areas that a lot of Americans don't really think need it is asinine.
This is what is really important.
Yeah, see that big spike upward beginning in 2008? Done a fantastic job.AussieReaper wrote:
How's the deficit doing? Has the Obama admin made any progress there?Jay wrote:
Sure, I'm just pointing out that crying over PBS losing federal funding is asinine too.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
This is what is really important.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I don't think that had anything to do with the president. The following stuff maybe but that shit had already hit the fan and was inevitable at that point.Jay wrote:
Yeah, see that big spike upward beginning in 2008? Done a fantastic job.AussieReaper wrote:
How's the deficit doing? Has the Obama admin made any progress there?Jay wrote:
Sure, I'm just pointing out that crying over PBS losing federal funding is asinine too.
This is what is really important.
Obamacare and the stimulus were inevitable?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
The chart in the OP shows funding as a constant percentage of GDP (4%). NATO requires member states to put at least 2% of GDP into defense.
From the almighty Wiki:
Do we need to increase defense spending? Of course not--it should be cut, particularly after 2014. Nor do we need to provide public funding for broadcasting, either. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of things that our government funds that it shouldn't...or shouldn't fund at the levels it does.
Zero out defense spending and we'll still have ~$1T deficits annually. We've got budgetary problems across the board...far more than a 0.5% GDP increase in defense spending (which, again, shouldn't happen).
To refer to the commentary part of the OP as uninformed does woeful disservice to the term.
From the almighty Wiki:
So...a little perspective on that graph.the Department of Defense budget is slated to be $664 billion in 2010 (including the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan previously funded through supplementary budget legislation[34][35]), higher than at any other point in American history, but still 1.1–1.4% lower as a percentage of GDP than the amount spent on military during the peak of Cold-War military spending in the late 1980s.
.......................
In 2005, the United States spent 4.06% of its GDP on its military (considering only basic Department of Defense budget spending), more than France's 2.6% and less than Saudi Arabia's 10%.[40]information 2006 This is historically low for the United States since it peaked in 1944 at 37.8% of GDP (it reached the lowest point of 3.0% in 1999–2001). Even during the peak of the Vietnam War the percentage reached a high of 9.4% in 1968.[41] Countries such as Canada and Germany spend only 1.4% of GDP on their military.
Do we need to increase defense spending? Of course not--it should be cut, particularly after 2014. Nor do we need to provide public funding for broadcasting, either. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of things that our government funds that it shouldn't...or shouldn't fund at the levels it does.
Zero out defense spending and we'll still have ~$1T deficits annually. We've got budgetary problems across the board...far more than a 0.5% GDP increase in defense spending (which, again, shouldn't happen).
To refer to the commentary part of the OP as uninformed does woeful disservice to the term.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Is the US military too large? Well, for what we are asked to do, I'd say probably not that much.
Now, whether you think the current national defense strategy is wise is a good debate! If we JUST wanted to defend our borders, we could cut the military by a lot. If we only wanted to defend our borders and conduct bare minimum participation in our alliances, we could still cut significantly.
MacBeth, which military benefits do you think should be cut and why?
Now, whether you think the current national defense strategy is wise is a good debate! If we JUST wanted to defend our borders, we could cut the military by a lot. If we only wanted to defend our borders and conduct bare minimum participation in our alliances, we could still cut significantly.
MacBeth, which military benefits do you think should be cut and why?
Military is already cutting a lot of benefits like the 20 year service = retirement fund thingoRAIMIUS wrote:
Is the US military too large? Well, for what we are asked to do, I'd say probably not that much.
Now, whether you think the current national defense strategy is wise is a good debate! If we JUST wanted to defend our borders, we could cut the military by a lot. If we only wanted to defend our borders and conduct bare minimum participation in our alliances, we could still cut significantly.
MacBeth, which military benefits do you think should be cut and why?
Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan. We all know full well there are some loony toon neocons who would love nothing more than to have 50,000 troop garrisons in each of those countries if it were physically possible. What is scary is that there are people who think we can do this forever.
I think the future of US mil operations in the ME would turn into kill or capture ops for terrorist, since the quagmire in Afghanistan and Iraq was a pretty big fuck up.Spearhead wrote:
Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan. We all know full well there are some loony toon neocons who would love nothing more than to have 50,000 troop garrisons in each of those countries if it were physically possible. What is scary is that there are people who think we can do this forever.
Why would Romney think $2.1 trillion was "needed" ?
because his neocon advisers told him so
Because he's trying to win votes in states that produce munitions like Colorado, Virginia, Tennessee etc.AussieReaper wrote:
Why would Romney think $2.1 trillion was "needed" ?
Besides, Obama has already increased defense spending while he's been in office. It's not like he's offering an alternative
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
'cept the whole leaving iraq and then afghanistan. You know, there's that.Jay wrote:
Besides, Obama has already increased defense spending while he's been in office. It's not like he's offering an alternative
And the drone strikes all over the planet and bombing in Libya etc. He's no different. Don't fool yourself.AussieReaper wrote:
'cept the whole leaving iraq and then afghanistan. You know, there's that.Jay wrote:
Besides, Obama has already increased defense spending while he's been in office. It's not like he's offering an alternative
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Romney wouldn't stay either.AussieReaper wrote:
'cept the whole leaving iraq and then afghanistan. You know, there's that.Jay wrote:
Besides, Obama has already increased defense spending while he's been in office. It's not like he's offering an alternative
I doubt the decision to stay in Iraq or Afghanistan would change in any presidential candidate.
Considering Bush set up the end of Iraq...Cybargs wrote:
Romney wouldn't stay either.AussieReaper wrote:
'cept the whole leaving iraq and then afghanistan. You know, there's that.Jay wrote:
Besides, Obama has already increased defense spending while he's been in office. It's not like he's offering an alternative
I doubt the decision to stay in Iraq or Afghanistan would change in any presidential candidate.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
And there was already plans to leave Afghanistan.Jay wrote:
Considering Bush set up the end of Iraq...Cybargs wrote:
Romney wouldn't stay either.AussieReaper wrote:
'cept the whole leaving iraq and then afghanistan. You know, there's that.
I doubt the decision to stay in Iraq or Afghanistan would change in any presidential candidate.
Jay is it difficult to perform the mental gymnastics to make yourself believe that
Obama did something bad = see this is why Obama sucks
Obama did something good = both parties are the same, don't fool yourself
Obama did something bad = see this is why Obama sucks
Obama did something good = both parties are the same, don't fool yourself
attributing the iraq pull out because of obama's platform is like saying you did all the work to cook a steak when all you did was add the salt at the end.
I think I'm being fair to both sides to be honest. Your problem is that you watch Jon Stewart or read HuffPo and think you're not getting a completely biased and one sided account of American politics.AussieReaper wrote:
Jay is it difficult to perform the mental gymnastics to make yourself believe that
Obama did something bad = see this is why Obama sucks
Obama did something good = both parties are the same, don't fool yourself
Bush set up the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Yeah, Obama could've rescinded the plan and kept the war going longer, but he didn't do anything to speed up the end. Instead, he dumped more troops into the unwinnable Afghanistan war, got more of them killed, and now he's getting credit for ending it. There's nothing about Obama's foreign policies that are worthy of praise. Well, I guess he's good at making Euros like him, so there's that (not exactly difficult as a democrat but whatever).
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
They were trying to implement the comprehensive approach/surge in afghanistan that worked pretty well for Iraq. Reason they did this because Comp Approach worked really well in SE Asia. But Obama Half-assed it and should've sent in 40k more troops but it would've been too unpopular. Funniest thing about Obama is that people like him since he's "not republican, not white and not bush" but has the exact same foreign policy, if not more finely executed.Jay wrote:
I think I'm being fair to both sides to be honest. Your problem is that you watch Jon Stewart or read HuffPo and think you're not getting a completely biased and one sided account of American politics.AussieReaper wrote:
Jay is it difficult to perform the mental gymnastics to make yourself believe that
Obama did something bad = see this is why Obama sucks
Obama did something good = both parties are the same, don't fool yourself
Bush set up the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Yeah, Obama could've rescinded the plan and kept the war going longer, but he didn't do anything to speed up the end. Instead, he dumped more troops into the unwinnable Afghanistan war, got more of them killed, and now he's getting credit for ending it. There's nothing about Obama's foreign policies that are worthy of praise. Well, I guess he's good at making Euros like him, so there's that (not exactly difficult as a democrat but whatever).
That's largely the only difference between this presidency and the last one. The media is happier thoughCybargs wrote:
They were trying to implement the comprehensive approach/surge in afghanistan that worked pretty well for Iraq. Reason they did this because Comp Approach worked really well in SE Asia. But Obama Half-assed it and should've sent in 40k more troops but it would've been too unpopular. Funniest thing about Obama is that people like him since he's "not republican, not white and not bush" but has the exact same foreign policy, if not more finely executed.Jay wrote:
I think I'm being fair to both sides to be honest. Your problem is that you watch Jon Stewart or read HuffPo and think you're not getting a completely biased and one sided account of American politics.AussieReaper wrote:
Jay is it difficult to perform the mental gymnastics to make yourself believe that
Obama did something bad = see this is why Obama sucks
Obama did something good = both parties are the same, don't fool yourself
Bush set up the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Yeah, Obama could've rescinded the plan and kept the war going longer, but he didn't do anything to speed up the end. Instead, he dumped more troops into the unwinnable Afghanistan war, got more of them killed, and now he's getting credit for ending it. There's nothing about Obama's foreign policies that are worthy of praise. Well, I guess he's good at making Euros like him, so there's that (not exactly difficult as a democrat but whatever).
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat