JMS Posted February 5, 2007 Author Share Posted February 5, 2007 You are naive. In a dangerous kind of way.A pipe bomb is not the problem. A nuclear bomb is. People do not "just get" a nuclear bomb. They get them from nations that can (or will) produce them. SO yes the only viable "strategery" is to eliminate that as an option. And we do not need 300,000 men in Iraq. We just need 300,000,000 Americans acting like Americans and understand what is at stake. Instead of hoping for some social utopia with peace, love, joy, and candy canes. And expect it to be done without a legitimate and strong military. Excelent post. If in fact we wish to fight nuclear proliferation why are we allies with Pakistan. Didn't Pakistani scientists aid North Korea in obtaining the bomb. Weren't they aiding Libia? Isn't the Pakistani bomb program the foundation of the Iranian program? If we were invading to stop proliferation why invade Iraq which had no nuclear program, and make allies of Pakistan; who's bomb program and scientists were at the basis of all the middle eastern proliferations with one notable exception ( Israel ). I would also argue that while Iraq had no operational contact with Al Quada, The same could not be said of Pakistan. I would suggest that while Bin Laudin likely never visited Iraq; many believe he lives in Pakistan today. You're argument isn't valid against Iraq who had no nuclear program, but it is valid against Pakistan; our allies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 5, 2007 Author Share Posted February 5, 2007 I'm sorry, you are just incorrect.3rd chart http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebt.html Your graph shows that we are currently running at a smaller deficite as a percentage of our economy than under Regan and Bush I? Your graph is the one which is wrong. It does not take into account all of the off budget spending which Bush has executed. For instance two off budget wars and the entire Katrina recovery budget. After the next appropriations the government will have appropriated approximately 600 billion for the off budget wars. Most experts believe that we will incure an additional 1.1 - 1.6 trillion dollars in back end costs as we replace equipment, retrain our troops, and pay for the lifetime medical costs of the 70,000 american soldiers who have been retired from the service due to their wounds or mental ilnesses related to their iraqi deployment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 5, 2007 Author Share Posted February 5, 2007 this is golden, not cause its accurate of the democrats stance but cause of the constant attacks the democrat slave voters make. The dems in power will spend just about as much on the military as the repubs do, but the dem slaves like to make this attack and think the party they vote for is different from it. Its actually pretty funny. Vote democrat to destroy the industrial-military complex, and it only gets bigger cause of it. Its really a beautifull system if you think of it. A big part of the balanced budget which we experienced with a Republican Congress and a Democratic President in the late 1990's was their ability to hold military spending constant for six years while reducing domestic spending. At the end of this period, in 2000 the american budget was still greater than the next 15 greatest countries combined, so it wasn't exactly a pacifist allience. I remember when fiscal responsibility was a core conservative belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 5, 2007 Author Share Posted February 5, 2007 If you add 100,000 troops you have to pay for them don't you?You then have to re-open some of the closed bases don't you? You then have to pay for people to use some of these bases don't you? You then have to pay for contractors/maintenance etc... BAQ, Rations, clothing, va benefits... its at least 10 billion just to think about adding 100k troops. Nobody thinks about where they are going to go train (basic, Advanced) then be stationed. Bush came into office with a defense budget of around 260 billion anually in 2000. Which was as great as the worlds next 15 largest militaries combined. Knowing that the wars we are waging are off budget and therefore not contained in the Pentagon's budget. Bush is on pace to have nearly trippled that budget before he leaves office while decreasing the overall number of soldiers up to this point. Bush's proposed Military budget in 2008 is 620 Billion for a pentagon yearly growth rate of around 20% anually. So if he keeps this trend his final defense budget for the year 2009 will be around 675 billion dollars. Nobody is arguing about an extra 10 billion here and there... It's the 400 billion which has our attention... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 A big part of the balanced budget which we experienced with a Republican Congress and a Democratic President in the late 1990's was their ability to hold military spending constant for six years while reducing domestic spending. At the end of this period, in 2000 the american budget was still greater than the next 15 greatest countries combined, so it wasn't exactly a pacifist allience. I remember when fiscal responsibility was a core conservative belief. No, that would be to DECREASE military spending for seven years, and give it a small boost for campaign puposes in 00. WE are paying the price for that now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 5, 2007 Author Share Posted February 5, 2007 I think you missed what the Democrats really did to the military when they last had "real" power. It might be why we have had to budget so much money now. Thiebear makes the case. actually when military spending was heald constant from roughly 1994-2000 it was a Republican House and Senate which controlled the budget. It was Newt Gingrich's contract on/with America which promised more fiscal responsibility in Government which lead to cuts in domestic spending and holding the line on military spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 5, 2007 Author Share Posted February 5, 2007 What we're starting to see here is the combined effect of waging a war, bringing new systems on line and having to replace our worn out stuff.Let this be a lesson about 8 year procurement holidays Sarge. The wars being fought are not coming out of the defense budget. They are off budget expenses which are paid for by additional and separate budget items. That separate budget includes replacing equipment damaged or left in Iraq. And as for nearly trippling the defense budget in 8 years being the combined effect of bringing systems on line and replacing our worn out stuff; Hasn't the military been doing that since WWII? Is an increase by 3x explained by these costs which we've always incured? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 5, 2007 Author Share Posted February 5, 2007 No, that would be to DECREASE military spending for seven years, and give it a small boost for campaign puposes in 00. WE are paying the price for that now The defense budget had been shrinking since Ronald Regans first term in office. That's because the cold war was over and there wasn't a potential enemy on the horizon which justified the spending. There still isn't. Even so it wasn't Bill Clinton who was responsible for the largest cuts in military spending. That would be George Bush Senior who cut the Military budget by 10%, 8% in the years 1991, 1993. 1994's cut of a further 8% would be associated with Clinton. President years in office Reagan, Ronald ....................................1981-89 Bush, George H.W. ..............................1989-93 Bill Clinton ...........................................1993-01 Bush, George W. .................................2001-present Now knowing that budgets are passed a year a head of time... you would associate the yearly budgets with the following presidents Reagan, Ronald ....................................1982-89 Bush, George H.W. ...............................1990-93 Bill Clinton ............................................1994-01 Bush, George W. ..................................2002-present http://www.dod.mil/execsec/adr95/tablevii_2.gif But your point is valid. Over all Clinton did cut defense spending early in his first term. Increasing it very slightly in his final two budgets. For a net effect of holding the line on over all spending in dollars but slightly decreasing the over all budget when accounting for inflation. http://www.dod.mil/execsec/adr95/budget_5.html So Bill took office with roughly a 263 billion dollar military budget in 1994 dollars and he left office with with 270 billion dollar military budget in 2001 dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 5, 2007 Author Share Posted February 5, 2007 In 2003 for example Bush's second Budget.. The United States spent roughly equivelent to the next 48 largest militaries combinned.. In two years bush had increased the budget by roughly 30% on his way to 300% over his eight years in office. Remember these numbers don't include the wars which are not taken out of the defense budget but are handled by off budget appropriations. US military total spending in 2003 .......................................396 billion Next 45 greatest militaries combined ...................................420 billion So which of these military "giants" does the 620 billion dollar budget protect us from ? Selected Countries.................................................(2003) Military Budget United States..........................................................$396.1 Billion Russia* .................................................................$60.0 China* ..................................................................$42.0 Japan ....................................................................$40.4 United Kingdom .......................................................$34.0 Saudi Arabia ...........................................................$27.2 France ..................................................................$25.3 Germany ................................................................$21.0 Brazil* ...................................................................$17.9 India .....................................................................$15.6 Italy .....................................................................$15.5 South Korea ...........................................................$11.8 Iran ......................................................................$9.1 Israel ....................................................................$9.0 Taiwan ..................................................................$8.2 Canada .................................................................$7.7 Spain ...................................................................$6.9 Australia ..............................................................$6.6 Netherlands ..........................................................$5.6 Turkey .................................................................$5.1 Singapore ............................................................$4.3 Sweden ...............................................................$4.2 United Arab Emirates* ............................................$3.9 Poland .................................................................$3.7 Greece ................................................................$3.3 Argentina* ...........................................................$3.1 Pakistan ..............................................................$2.6 Norway ................................................................$2.8 Kuwait .................................................................$2.6 Denmark ..............................................................$2.4 Belgium ................................................................$2.2 Colombia ..............................................................$2.1 Egypt ..................................................................$2.1 Vietnam ...............................................................$1.8 Iraq ....................................................................$1.4 North Korea .........................................................$1.3 Portugal ..............................................................$1.3 Libya.................................................................. $1.2 Czech Republic .....................................................$1.1 Philippines ...........................................................$1.1 Luxembourg .........................................................$0.9 Hungary .............................................................$0.8 Syria .................................................................$0.8 Cuba .................................................................$0.7 Sudan ................................................................$0.6 Yugoslavia ..........................................................$0.5 Coarse this is in 2003, we've since increased our military spending by more than 50%. Bush's 2007 budget is 620 Billion!! http://www.cdi.org/issues/wme/spendersFY03.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DixieFlatline Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 So which of these military "giants" does the 620 billion dollar budget protect us from ? So, are we supposed to reduce our spending closer to their levels just to be fair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 So, are we supposed to reduce our spending closer to their levels just to be fair? :laugh: It is really getting my goat that he continues to ignor the time value of money and ignors the historical lows we are spending right now on our military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 5, 2007 Author Share Posted February 5, 2007 So, are we supposed to reduce our spending closer to their levels just to be fair? Should the defense of the nation be based upon a percieved threat to the nation? Or should we continue to base the defense of the nation on whatever arbitrary number Big Business and their cronnies can force through congress with no refferece to what we can afford, a percieved threat or an actual threat? Remember the 400 billion in defense spending increases are being financed by Red China who is under writting the massive government spending deficites by accumulating American dollars through the massive unbalanced trade policy of this administration. How secure does it make you knowing that Red China can basically decide to stop accumulating American dollars and sink our economy. Sure this would negitively effect China's economy but since when do we put the control of our economy in the hands of Red China and call ourselves more secure? What would you rather have, an economically strong America with a military budget of the next 15 greatest nations combinned. Or a country dependent upon Red China for it's very economic existance, with a military budget 3 times higher? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 5, 2007 Author Share Posted February 5, 2007 :laugh: It is really getting my goat that he continues to ignor the time value of money and ignors the historical lows we are spending right now on our military. Historic lows? Where does that come from?...... What you are ignoring is that the United States Government no longer handles wars nor desaster releif on budget. So your economic numbers comparing WWII data and current data aren't valid comparisons. In WWII we actually paid for the war on budget for each fiscal year. Iraq and Afghanistan wars currently some 600 billion, and 1.1-1.4 trillion in back end costs aren't part of the 620 billion dollar pentigon budget. So when you say the budget deficites are smaller currently than the Regan years. The only way you can make that claim is if you don't include all the numbers. When you say we are spending a smaller percentage of the GDP today on deficites than in 1984 you're not counting the big dollar items!! You would have to go back to WWII to reach a time when we spent a highter percentage of our GDP on defense. And in WWII we did that for 3 years. We are currently on our 6th year of Bush's war plan. Are we closer to the beginning or the end? It's anybodies guess.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 So, are we supposed to reduce our spending closer to their levels just to be fair? It shows how crazy our military budget really is. But hey we have to feed the machine that is the military industrial complex. Like I said another thread, the small government conservative is a myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Historic lows? Morron...... What you are ignoring is that the United States Government no longer handles wars nor desaster releif on budget. So you don't count all the money we are spending on this war.. nor Katrina releif. ...or our Public Education system...or welfare..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Historic lows? Where does that come from?...... Your website. http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php#gdp-graph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 5, 2007 Author Share Posted February 5, 2007 It shows how crazy our military budget really is. But hey we have to feed the machine that is the military industrial complex. Like I said another thread, the small government conservative is a myth. A myth in this Congress. A myth in this White House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 5, 2007 Author Share Posted February 5, 2007 ...or our Public Education system...or welfare..... public education and welfare are both on budget and always have been. What you are thinking of is Social Security which is off budget. Because it's a net positive for governmental income and has for it's entire existance. It will only stop making money and require us to pay back some of the money we've borrowed from it in the next decade or two depending upon what steps we take to put off that date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 public education and welfare are both on budget and always have been. . :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: wait a minute................. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 As it is right now: Lose 2000 soldiers in a war that we planned 10000 body bags for and at the time called them the 4th largest army in the world. THE HORROR, at 3k, pull them out now.. We are a technological machine that shouldnt take a loss. Now cut the budget and lets stop spending so much.. See more troops dying = what were you thinking fire everyone for killing my boys... Can't ever win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/joint.chiefs/index.html Military chiefs call for tens of billions more in defense spending September 27, 2000 Web posted at: 5:26 p.m. EDT (2126 GMT) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- America's top military leaders told Congress on Wednesday that the U.S. military needs tens of billions of dollars in additional funds to reverse its recent decline in readiness, and to replace aging weapons and equipment. Testifying before the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, the Joint Chiefs of Staff presented a unified front, saying budget cuts in the mid 1990s "mortgaged the future" of the military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 5, 2007 Author Share Posted February 5, 2007 Your website.http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php#gdp-graph http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size-graph.php?meas=GDP Brilliant.. So you want to refute modern military spending by this graph which convienently ends prior to the March 2003 beginning of the Iraq war. It's not that your numbers don't include the off budget items of the War and Katrina disaster relief. It's because you aren't even considering the correct period of time. I misjudged your sophistication. I thought I was dealing with Enron, and you cleaverly followed the World Com model of accounting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Brilliant.. So you want to refute modern military spending by this graph which convienently ends prior to the March 2003 beginning of the Iraq war. It's not that your numbers don't include the off budget items of the War and Katrina disaster relief. It's because you aren't even considering the correct period of time. I misjudged your sophistication. I thought I was dealing with Enron, and you cleaverly followed the World Com model of accounting. You got a more recent graph. This is YOUR site. The one you started this ill advised crusade with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Here scroll down...... http://www.heritage.org/Research/features/issues/issuearea/Defense.cfm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 5, 2007 Author Share Posted February 5, 2007 You got a more recent graph. This is YOUR site. The one you started this ill advised crusade with. I didn't post that graph. Nor did I try to use it to show that Modern day military budgets were justified based upon historic data. You're the one who posted the graph. You're the one who didn't read it. And you're the one who's argument is not validated by the graph which you posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.