Obama and Military Spending

[Guest BigDaddyShaun]

My wife and I were listening to one of those political shows last night, and we were stunned to hear the following video clip.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE

 

I don't know who was in more shock, me or my wife. And, I'm surprised I hadn't heard this until last night (apparently, the video is from last October. Obama made it for the Caucus4Priorities in October 2007, a 501©4 whose goal is to cut 15% from the DOD Budget.

 

Frankly this is terrifying! I have never liked what we have done in Iraq but the thought of cutting all those things that Obama clearly states he will cut or slow scares me. These cuts will leave our country and our allies unprotected. If these goals were ever realized then the US would quickly lose it's status in the global community. It wouldn't matter which candidate had the most foreign diplomacy experience because no foreign country would listen to us. No, I don't believe countries only pay attention to us because we have big guns. However those big guns create a lot of stability throughout the world. If we can't offer stability then all we have left to offer is money and grain and history has shown that we can't buy many allegiances that way.

 

Even if you forget the weakened military position we would be left with, consider for a moment the economic impact that would have on our nation. There are countless contractors working for the military to develop and provide the things Obama wants to cut. Sure that might help balance the budget but how many jobs would be lost? The military is the single largest part of our budget and other than energy it is the greatest single part of our economy.

 

If any candidates judgment or wisdom should be questioned, clearly is should be Obama's.

[Melinda in VT]

I completely disagree.

 

One of the reasons I voted for Bush the first time around was because I loved his pledge for a humble foreign policy. :tongue_smilie: This is not the Cold War anymore. We don't need to protect the rest of the world, and they would really rather we stop insisting that we do. If we are going to lead, we should do so because we have great ideas, not because we have big guns.

 

I find your assertion that all we have to offer as a country besides military strength is money and grain very sad. I sincerely hope it's not true.

 

As for the economic impact, let's put those military contractors to work on improving our infrastructure and coming up with alternative energy solutions. That's where I want my government money going.

[Mama Lynx]

Politics is such a volatile topic, and we're trying so hard, here, to keep things respectful and even-handed.

 

BigDaddyShaun, I note that this is your first post in this community. Do we know you? Have you lurked here for awhile?

 

Before this gets ugly, I'd like to urge everyone else to consider the potential of a troll here. We have enough work trying to stay respectful wrt politics in this community. I'm automatically suspicious of anyone who pops up with politics as his or her first post.

 

My apologies if the suspicion is unwarranted.

[Bev in B'ville]

A friend of mine just sent this to me. She was flabergasted, as was I. I've heard that the Obama camp is urgently trying to remove this video before too many people see it.

 

Thanks for posting the link.

[Mama Lynx]

Sorry, I looked at your profile AFTER posting, and I see that you are LisaK in VA's husband.

[Danestress]

The military is the single largest part of our budget and other than energy it is the greatest single part of our economy.

 

 

 

Can you tell me where you got that fact? I did some research a few weeks ago on the US Federal Budget, and I saw that there is a lot of controversy about how to classify various expenses, but it seemed clear me that the the DOD and military expenses are far from being the largest part of our economy.

[asta]

I completely disagree.

 

One of the reasons I voted for Bush the first time around was because I loved his pledge for a humble foreign policy. :tongue_smilie: This is not the Cold War anymore. We don't need to protect the rest of the world, and they would really rather we stop insisting that we do. If we are going to lead, we should do so because we have great ideas, not because we have big guns.

 

I find your assertion that all we have to offer as a country besides military strength is money and grain very sad. I sincerely hope it's not true.

 

As for the economic impact, let's put those military contractors to work on improving our infrastructure and coming up with alternative energy solutions. That's where I want my government money going.

 

Might want to check with Georgia on that one. ;)

 

 

asta

[Jean too]

I have seen this before and it is one of the many reasons I will not be voting for Obama. He scares me!

[Dawn E]

I completely disagree.

 

One of the reasons I voted for Bush the first time around was because I loved his pledge for a humble foreign policy. :tongue_smilie: This is not the Cold War anymore. We don't need to protect the rest of the world, and they would really rather we stop insisting that we do. If we are going to lead, we should do so because we have great ideas, not because we have big guns.

 

I find your assertion that all we have to offer as a country besides military strength is money and grain very sad. I sincerely hope it's not true.

 

As for the economic impact, let's put those military contractors to work on improving our infrastructure and coming up with alternative energy solutions. That's where I want my government money going.

 

I don't know the facts about Bush's pledge for a humble foreign policy, though I do know that the first time he ran was in a world pre-9/11. Also, Putin is a very dangerous man, and I wouldn't be so sure the cold war is dead for good, especially with the moves he's made lately. I saw where the Russian polls support Putin and Obama. That doesn't make me comfortable. Of course the rest of the world would love to see us diminish in influence and strength. Some people are raised to hate America from birth. Some people gladly choose to die in order to kill as many of us as possible. That is not something you can assuage with rhetoric.

[Danestress]

I'm still totally on the fence presidentially. Everyday I wake up with the anxiety of not knowing who I am going to vote for. I try to just stick with issues and not get side tracked by who has the cutest wife (or VP) or who is too old or too young or wears the right lapel pin or has a pregnant daughter, none of which seems important to me.

 

But as the wife of a veteran who has already pitched his tent with Obama in and is currently mad at me for defending McCain, I have to say I thought that was an excellent video and that he promotes exactly what my husband would approve of. I actually don't believe that Obama will be able to save much money pulling out of Iraq. Being there is expensive, pulling out is expensive, and I think we are there in some capacity for a while, like it or not. So I don't think Obama will be able to deliver on this promise and surely as his supporters will like.

 

But I think he is right to want to cut wasteful spending. I believe that America would still be safe having cut some of the types of spending he's talking about (though granted I am no expert, but my husband, who is professionally much more current on these defense issues would say so too).

 

So anyway, thanks for posting that. It was an interesting video.

[Guest BigDaddyShaun]

Mama Lynx - yes, I've been lurking over my wife's shoulder for a while. I'm not just trying to spark off a flame war. If I wanted to do that I'd post over on FARK. However, I thought that some on this forum might appreciate seeing the video and that there might be some worthwhile discussion as a result.

 

Danestress - As for the budget...this graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fy2008spendingbycategory.png

shows Soc Sec largest at 21% of the national budget but when you combine DOD with GWOT then military is slightly larger. Homeland Security and NASA could arguably be related to some of the things Obama would cut as well based on the video. Regarding the part about the economy, I haven't found a pretty graph to backup that claim. My recollection of that fact come from something I read a while back.

[TXMomof4]

I agree that there is wasteful spending in the military. However, cutting spending isn't going to make it less wasteful. It will just make it smaller. It's just like any other bureaucratic organization

 

But I know that one of the reasons troops are being deployed every other year in most cases is because there simply isn't enough of them. We weren't prepared for a conflict of this sort, and unfortunately, I don't think Iraq will be the last conflict of this sort.

 

Even with the best diplomats in the world, we need to have the forces to back up our words and we don't right now. Otherwise, there is no power behind our statements. For example, what sort of ultimatum could we give to the president of Iran (whose name I can't spell at all)? He *knows* we can't threaten him right now. Trade embargos, etc. will have very little effect on him. He knows we're between a rock and a hard spot here. If we pull troops from Iraq, we could easily lose the advances we've made. If we don't, where will they come from?

 

Recruiters are having a hard time because no one wants to go in knowing they will be deployed every other year. But unless numbers go up, people will continue to be deployed all the time. Quite honestly, I don't know that I would have supported dh joining the NG I had known what was coming.

 

I didn't watch the video - I'm trying to avoid anything that makes my blood pressure go up today. Yesterday was too hard. But there's my thoughts on that subject!

[hsmamainva]

I will make one comment, as the wife of a government contractor, who also supports Obama.

 

There is ALOT of wasteful spending in the defense industry!!! I should know - that's what my husband does.

 

The month of September is a very busy one for him. Why? Because that's the end of the fiscal year. If XYZ Miltary Base is authorized to spend x number of dollars, they run around like chickens with their heads cut off, buying anything and everything they can because....they have to spend the money. If they don't spend the money, they won't get at least that much the next year (and they ALWAYS ask for more, under the justification that they spent everything they were allotted last year and it "wasn't enough")

 

Your tax dollars at work.

[pqr]

"A world without nuclear weapons." well that may be a goal but to me it demonstrates terrifying naiveté. Why even make such a comment? In today's world where our enemies have demonstrated wheir willingness to use any and all weapons at their disposal, in a world where nuclear powers now include, or may soon include, US, UK, Pakistan, India, Russia, China, Israel, Iran, North Korea how could anyone speak about such a "goal" and keep a straight face. Does anyone actually think that all these nations would agree to anything. They can not even all agree that there was genocide in WWII

 

"Unproven missile defense systems"......? In 1942 many would have said that the atomic bomb was "unproven"... three years later. Everything is unproven till developed, rather silly statement don't you think.

 

"Slow development of future combat systems"?????... is this actually a man who would be the Commander in Chief?

[Melinda in VT]

I don't know the facts about Bush's pledge for a humble foreign policy, though I do know that the first time he ran was in a world pre-9/11. Also, Putin is a very dangerous man, and I wouldn't be so sure the cold war is dead for good, especially with the moves he's made lately. I saw where the Russian polls support Putin and Obama. That doesn't make me comfortable. Of course the rest of the world would love to see us diminish in influence and strength. Some people are raised to hate America from birth. Some people gladly choose to die in order to kill as many of us as possible. That is not something you can assuage with rhetoric.

 

Yes, some people do hate Americans and would die to kill us. However, there are many more people who do not hate us and don't want to see us dead, and yet have IMO legitimate concerns about the way we are using our strength and influence in the world. I don't think they are rubbing their hands together in glee when things go wrong for us (remember all the international support after 9/11?) but you can hardly blame them for wanting us to play a bit nicer in the world. To listen a little more. To not be so quick to assume we know what's best for other countries and regions.

 

I do not think our behavior as a nation does much to assuage their concerns. I think they like Obama (and pretty much every country prefers Obama to McCain) because he comes across as someone who will listen to other countries and not be so arrogant and so quick to use military might to solve problems.

[hsmamainva]

:iagree: Excellent post, Melinda!!!

[Guest BigDaddyShaun]

...But I think he is right to want to cut wasteful spending. ...

 

I agree. Cutting wasteful spending is always a good thing. Unfortunately, there is a longstanding practice by both parties to heap on the pork whenever a spending bill works it's way through. To be sure, there are plenty of programs in the military that could stand to be cut back as well.

 

I'm not predisposed to vote for McCain. I'm 39 and as long as I've been old enough to vote I've fell like I was always been voting against someone rather than for someone. I'd really like that to change. A few years back when I heard about Obama and all the attention he was getting I thought that maybe there would be someone worth voting for. However, the more things I hear him speak such as in this video the more I feel I must vote against him.

 

Both candidates claim they will bring change to Washington. Both candidates have a relevant record. I just can't see what Obama has worked to change in his short time in the Senate.

 

The college I graduated from has the motto ACTA NON VERBA ... Deeds Not Words for those Latin skills are rusty.

[LizzyBee]

The month of September is a very busy one for him. Why? Because that's the end of the fiscal year. If XYZ Miltary Base is authorized to spend x number of dollars, they run around like chickens with their heads cut off, buying anything and everything they can because....they have to spend the money. If they don't spend the money, they won't get at least that much the next year (and they ALWAYS ask for more, under the justification that they spent everything they were allotted last year and it "wasn't enough")

 

 

That's interesting to me, because it was the opposite when my xh was in the AF 20 years ago. He was an F15 crew chief, and they spent most of every September grounded because they had no funds to buy fuel.

[Guest BigDaddyShaun]

...There is ALOT of wasteful spending in the defense industry!!! I should know - that's what my husband does.

 

The month of September is a very busy one for him. Why? Because that's the end of the fiscal year. If XYZ Miltary Base is authorized to spend x number of dollars, they run around like chickens with their heads cut off, buying anything and everything they can because....they have to spend the money. If they don't spend the money, they won't get at least that much the next year (and they ALWAYS ask for more, under the justification that they spent everything they were allotted last year and it "wasn't enough")

 

Your tax dollars at work.

 

If you look around, you will see that this is the case throughout the government. I'm not saying that makes it okay...just pointing out that the military is not unique in our government budget.

 

I work for the Navy (DOD civilian) and can say in all honesty that there are several parts of the military that are working to do the job cheaper and to manage the budgets more responsibly. However, as always, there is much more that can be done. I just don't feel that sacrificing our national security in the fashion Obama described should be our path to save a buck.

[Dawn E]

Yes, some people do hate Americans and would die to kill us. However, there are many more people who do not hate us and don't want to see us dead, and yet have IMO legitimate concerns about the way we are using our strength and influence in the world. I don't think they are rubbing their hands together in glee when things go wrong for us (remember all the international support after 9/11?) but you can hardly blame them for wanting us to play a bit nicer in the world. To listen a little more. To not be so quick to assume we know what's best for other countries and regions.

 

I do not think our behavior as a nation does much to assuage their concerns. I think they like Obama (and pretty much every country prefers Obama to McCain) because he comes across as someone who will listen to other countries and not be so arrogant and so quick to use military might to solve problems.

 

I don't disagree with you. I apologize for posting in haste, as I have tried to abstain from these political threads because I get too hot-tempered.

 

I mistook your original post to suggest that there was no longer any threat or concern needed to possess a strong military presence. I agree with TXMomof4 that even when relying on diplomacy first, our words mean nothing without a strong military to back them up. I also understand the despair over the need for more personnel as my father has already served twice in Iraq. The first year he was deployed, the second he volunteered just for this reason--a group of soldiers had no maintenance crew for their vehicles and equipment.

[Amy in NH]

I agree that there is wasteful spending in the military. However, cutting spending isn't going to make it less wasteful.

 

 

 

My father was in defense industry contracting for a *long* time.

 

Perhaps if the military has less money to spend, they will make wiser choices, which will lead to less wasteful spending.

[LisaKinVA]

The month of September is a very busy one for him. Why? Because that's the end of the fiscal year. If XYZ Miltary Base is authorized to spend x number of dollars, they run around like chickens with their heads cut off, buying anything and everything they can because....they have to spend the money. If they don't spend the money, they won't get at least that much the next year (and they ALWAYS ask for more, under the justification that they spent everything they were allotted last year and it "wasn't enough") Your tax dollars at work.

 

This is true in pretty much every aspect of the budgeting process for the USFG -- the military is hardly unique. It's a use-it-or-lose-it scenario. It's one that I, personally detest.

 

My dh (BigDaddy) and I used to have a Health Care Savings Plan through his private employer. We faithfully put money into it, but whatever was left at the end of the year (that we didn't spend), the company got to take back. (Man, was I TICKED, I don't care if I saved the money pre-tax dollars, I still earned it, it wasn't given to me!) There was no saving for a rainy day. So, when I had a baby, three oral surgeries, gall bladder surgery, or needed new contacts, the money we could have saved up over time for these expenses wasn't there.

 

The same is true for the way the budgeting system works. USAID (for example) may not need new computers this year, but they will next year. In order to be assured they can purcahse computers next year... they have to keep spending the money on other things year over year to cover the costs of new computers every five... It's ridiculous.

 

This is perhaps an over-simplified version of what happens with the budget process, but a IMHO, a fairly accurate assessment of how it works. I'd like to see that entire process changed.

 

But, if anyone recalls the draw-downs of the Carter and Clinton years, it takes longer and is much more expensive to get back up to speed, than to move forward at a steady pace.

 

Plus, with so much technology going into new systems -- it is outdated quickly, and slowing down the process makes us vulnerable.

 

It's like the tortise and the hare. The hare lost because he was cocky and felt he was far enough ahead... he took a nap and the tortise overtook him and won the race.

 

We may currently have a strong technological advantage -- but keeping that advantage means continually working to improve that technology and being able to implement it. If we slow down (as much as it sounded like Obama wanted to slow down), who could say what China, Iran, North Korea and Russia would not be able to catch up or even overtake whatever advantage we currently have?

 

It's not a position I want to be in again.

 

This video brought a bunch of raw emotions from me -- as well as horrible memories of Somalia during the early part of the Clinton Administration. Those images are burned into my brain as the collapse of the World Trade Center, and the attack on the Pentagon -- a few miles from where my brother and I worked.

 

I'm thankful my dh is out of the Reserves... but I still have many, many Navy and Marine Corps friends from my USNA coaching days, wives of those stationed at the Pentagon and Quanitco, who are still actively serving, and whose lives are on the line all around the world.

 

I was -- and am -- still in a bit of shock.

[Melinda in VT]

I don't disagree with you. I apologize for posting in haste, as I have tried to abstain from these political threads because I get too hot-tempered.

 

I mistook your original post to suggest that there was no longer any threat or concern needed to possess a strong military presence. I agree with TXMomof4 that even when relying on diplomacy first, our words mean nothing without a strong military to back them up. I also understand the despair over the need for more personnel as my father has already served twice in Iraq. The first year he was deployed, the second he volunteered just for this reason--a group of soldiers had no maintenance crew for their vehicles and equipment.

 

I agree we need a strong military presence. I bet Obama does too. I think you and I just disagree on where the "strong" cut-off is. :001_smile:

[Sammy]

 

Actually, the DOD budget accounts for 20% of the federal budget for 2008. Social security and medicare/medicaid are the largest recipients with 21% each. They are all bloated beyond belief, imo.

[sarahli]

Once we are out of Iraq it will save us 8.4 billion a month. How's that for cutting spending?

Obama wants to redirect resources to Afghanistan and put pressure on Pakistan.

Or.... We could continue to borrow money from Saudi Arabia and China. I personally am not comfortable with us being in debt to those countries.

[lovemyboys]

Yes, some people do hate Americans and would die to kill us. However, there are many more people who do not hate us and don't want to see us dead, and yet have IMO legitimate concerns about the way we are using our strength and influence in the world. I don't think they are rubbing their hands together in glee when things go wrong for us (remember all the international support after 9/11?) but you can hardly blame them for wanting us to play a bit nicer in the world. To listen a little more. To not be so quick to assume we know what's best for other countries and regions.

 

I do not think our behavior as a nation does much to assuage their concerns. I think they like Obama (and pretty much every country prefers Obama to McCain) because he comes across as someone who will listen to other countries and not be so arrogant and so quick to use military might to solve problems.

 

Then again, they might just see him as much more malleable than the other options....including Hillary, a few months ago.

 

They might just see that the potential to influence and even push around Obama would be a lot more possible than McCain, who has been through war and stated openly that he hates it. But he would be a tough opponent.

 

I could easily see Putin, Kim Jong Il's successors, Akmenajab (?), etc. hoping for the inexperience and naivete that Obama probably presents to them. Putin is no fool, he makes his move while the world's eye is focussed on Beijing for the happy event of the Olympics. He waits til nearly the end of Bush's presidency, a person who has stood firm with him (despite that wacky "soul" comment), while the US attention is focussed on the election. And one of his ships apparently tailed our relief ship on a good part of the journey near Georgia.

 

This sure gives me pause.

[LisaKinVA]

Actually, the DOD budget accounts for 20% of the federal budget for 2008. Social security and medicare/medicaid are the largest recipients with 21% each. They are all bloated beyond belief, imo.

 

The DOD budget you're quoting doesn't include GWOT -(Global War on Terror) and many of the things Sen. Obama is talking about cutting also come from the NASA and Homeland Security (Coast Guard) Budgets.

[lovemyboys]

Once we are out of Iraq it will save us 8.4 billion a month. How's that for cutting spending?

Obama wants to redirect resources to Afghanistan and put pressure on Pakistan.

 

I haven't done any research recently, but the problem with shear numbers is that they don't take into account that the men and women who serve in the military are on our payroll, we're still buying and flying the planes, the ships, the deployments. Yes, some numbers would be reduced. But a big percentage of that is personnel and inventory. It's not like we leave Iraq and the next month have 8.4 billion extra in our account, kwim?

[pqr]

I agree we need a strong military presence. I bet Obama does too. I think you and I just disagree on where the "strong" cut-off is. :001_smile:

 

How is slowing down development of weapons systems supportive of a "strong military presence"? How is a comment about "unproven" weapons systems and opposing a missile shield supportive of a strong military presence?

 

Pray tell just where is he supportive of a strong military presence? Only a complete neophyte, when it comes to military history, could argue against development of weapons systems that protect against future (or current) enemies.

 

I want my children to grow and live in a free nation that can stand against her enemies. Rolling the US back into a position similar to that she occupied prior to WWII vis a vis the rest of the world is not the way to do it.

 

I must say that while I never supported Obama, he is more and more scary the more I learn about him.

[hsmamainva]

That's interesting to me, because it was the opposite when my xh was in the AF 20 years ago. He was an F15 crew chief, and they spent most of every September grounded because they had no funds to buy fuel.

 

Some run out of money before September!!!

 

There's one particular large government agency that my husband does business with and they haven't had any money since mid-August. That really harms him, being a small-business owner because they can't pay their bill. He's heard 30 more days, at least...maybe more. This year, in particular, has been the worst he's seen in 13 years of doing business. The only thing he can think of is it's the economy...because, you would think that the war in Iraq would keep the money flowing through the defense channels, but that hasn't been the case - at least for him.

[Melinda in VT]

How is slowing down development of weapons systems supportive of a "strong military presence"? How is a comment about "unproven" weapons systems and opposing a missile shield supportive of a strong military presence?

 

Pray tell just where is he supportive of a strong military presence? Only a complete neophyte, when it comes to military history, could argue against development of weapons systems that protect against future (or current) enemies.

 

I want my children to grow and live in a free nation that can stand against her enemies. Rolling the US back into a position similar to that she occupied prior to WWII vis a vis the rest of the world is not the way to do it.

 

I must say that while I never supported Obama, he is more and more scary the more I learn about him.

 

You can read about Obama's position on the military here

[pqr]

Funny, much of what he says in your link is diametrically opposed to what he stated on the video clip. Which Obama would you have me believe? If I believe one I do not believe the other, a quandry? One may think he is simply insincere, or perhaps we should say flip flop.

 

I wish I could believe the man, really I do, but the two links must show us all that we can not.

 

"I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems"-- youtube (not the same as what he says below)

 

"An Obama administration will support missile defense, but ensure that it is developed in a way that is pragmatic and cost-effective."--Obama web site

 

"I will slow our development of future combat systems" -- youtube (he must be joking! In today's world he would make a comment like this. In case he did not notice we are at War, nobody makes a statement like this when his country is at war.)

 

"Review Weapons Programs: We must rebalance our capabilities to ensure that our forces have the agility and lethality to succeed in both conventional wars and in stabilization and counter-insurgency operations. " -- Obama web site

 

I ask again which Obama can we believe? Before you make the argument that it is one and the same, I must say that it is a real stretch to argue that in both cases he is saying the same thing and if one does (make the argument) then where are his vaunted communications skills?)

 

 

Come on the youtube video was scary.

[Mama Lynx]

You can read about Obama's position on the military here

 

I'll be honest. Obama is promising a great deal. On almost every issue, including defense, he has a huge list of sweeping reforms he plans to make.

 

His lists make me nervous. I think he's being overambitious. It's good to aim high and be ambitious, yes; but a President should, IMO, go into the office with the expectation of having four years in which to get things done. Four years is *not* a long time. I'd so rather see someone go in with specific, achievable goals across the board. I don't understand how *anyone* could accomplish all the things that Obama says he will. He'd have to be superhuman, work around the clock for four years, *and* not be hampered by existing bureaucracy or disagreements.

 

So rather than reassuring me, the link made me nervous. Plus, the list is full of ways he will increase programs and increase funding. He does plan to do away with wasteful spending, yes, and inappropriate contracting. That would save money. But enough for the increases he is proposing? Would cutting wasteful spending *and* increasing in all the areas he plans to increase ... would that really lead to an overall cut in military spending?

 

So, I'm confused too. I don't feel like I came away from that link with a clear picture of what Obama really plans to do.

[1cat2ferrets]

no matter who gets to be president we're all SCREWED either way!!

[5kidsforME]

no matter who gets to be president we're all SCREWED either way!!

 

Come on now, tell us how you REALLY feel! Don't hold back! :lol:

[Mrs Mungo]

"Unproven missile defense systems"......? In 1942 many would have said that the atomic bomb was "unproven"... three years later. Everything is unproven till developed, rather silly statement don't you think.

 

Very few people actually believe the missile defense system is ever going to work as promised.

 

"Slow development of future combat systems"?????... is this actually a man who would be the Commander in Chief?

 

That's Future Combat Systems. It's a *specific program* that John McCain is *ALSO* in favor of eliminating.

 

Here is one of McCain's people explaining this to the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/13/AR2008071301643.html

 

Balance the budget requires slowing outlay growth to 2.4 percent. The roughly $470 billion dollars (by 2013) in slower spending growth come from reduced deployments abroad ($150 billion; consistent with success in Iraq/Afghanistan that permits deployments to be cut by half -- hopefully more), slower discretionary spending in non-defense and Pentagon procurements ($160 billion; there are lots of procurements -- airborne laser, Globemaster, Future Combat System -- that should be ended and the entire Pentagon budget should be scrubbed) and reductions in mandatory spending ($160 billion) from a mix of excessive agricultural and ethanol subsidies, slower health care cost growth, Medicaid savings from the expansion of private insurance, and other reforms.

 

This is therefore nothing more than *smear/scare tactics* that have zero basis in reality. Anyone who knows *anything* about these *knows better*. But a large portion of the American people do NOT pay attention to Congress or know much about the military other than what they see in movies.

 

There is a LOT of pork where military spending is concerned. I believe I mentioned before that the military is *required* in many cases to buy from specific contractors. An example of this is there is a specific bolt that was needed often in one of my husband's units. Through their contractor they paid $5 per bolt. My husband asked for the blueprints and specifications, asked around and discovered they could order a 5 gallon bucket of the *same exact bolt* for $20 through most hardware stores. They did so. Since then the programs that allowed for that have been eliminated. The waste is *astounding*.

 

But, to answer Amy in NH a LOT of this is the fault of *Congress* telling the military from whom they can buy instead of the military's fault.

 

LizzyBee-The military has changed a lot. There was a time my husband's unit didn't have the money to keep its vehicles running or even buy dry sweep. The military *did* need more money, it's true but there is still a lot of waste.

[Mrs Mungo]

The fact is, if you don't pay any attention to politics except once every four years your vote is a crapshoot.

[nakitty]

no matter who gets to be president we're all SCREWED either way!!

 

Honey, when did you start posting on my board??? Oh, wait...you aren't my husband!?! :lol:

[pqr]

Very few people actually believe the missile defense system is ever going to work as promised.

 

 

The military *did* need more money, it's true but there is still a lot of waste.

 

 

Very few people ever believed that the Wright Brothers would develop an aircraft,

Very few people believed that we would ever put a man on the moon,

Very few people ever believed that the Navy could shoot down a satellite http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/22/america/satellite.php

 

Given the competencies of our scientists I have no doubt that this could be made to work. All that is required is the belief of men like Kennedy or Reagan, not....I suppose Obama.

 

As to waste, unfortunately you are correct, this is something that has to be corrected, but then again if we are talking cutting waste which set of candidates have the best "woman" for the job:-)

[Mrs Mungo]

Very few people ever believed that the Wright Brothers would develop an aircraft,

Very few people believed that we would ever put a man on the moon,

Very few people ever believed that the Navy could shoot down a satellite http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/22/america/satellite.php

 

Given the competencies of our scientists I have no doubt that this could be made to work. All that is required is the belief of men like Kennedy or Reagan, not....I suppose Obama.

 

I strongly suggest you research this issue further. Research what has been said in Congress. Research what has been said in Europe. Research what Russia has said. Research what the military thinks about it.

 

You have nothing to say about McCain not supporting Future Combat Systems?

 

As to waste, unfortunately you are correct, this is something that has to be corrected, but then again if we are talking cutting waste which set of candidates have the best "woman" for the job:-)

 

The woman who took per diem for sleeping in her house? Is that the one you think will cut waste?

eta link: http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/521329.html

[pqr]

I strongly suggest you research this issue further. Research what has been said in Congress. Research what has been said in Europe. Research what Russia has said. Research what the military thinks about it.

 

 

 

 

What Russia says about it???!!!!

 

I hardly ever use these but here goes :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Mrs Mungo]

What Russia says about it???!!!!

 

I hardly ever use these but here goes :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

Your mockery clearly indicates your ignorance on the subject.

[TXMomof4]

 

 

The woman who took per diem for sleeping in her house? Is that the one you think will cut waste?

eta link: http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/521329.html

 

 

And in the process still managed to cut the governor's expenses by 80%?

 

Overall, Palin's travel spending pales in comparison with that of predecessor Frank Murkowski, who charged $463,000 for air fare in 2006. Palin charged $93,000 in 2007.

[pqr]

I strongly suggest you research this issue further. Research what has been said in Congress. Research what has been said in Europe. Research what Russia has said. Research what the military thinks about it.

 

You have nothing to say about McCain not supporting Future Combat Systems?

 

 

 

 

 

I have actually done a fair amount of reasearch. The military says costly, difficult, but not impossible. Programs like this are not easy, but they are achievable. As for Congress, Europe and ahem yes Russia, lets look beyond the science and see if they just possibly have other motivations.

 

Regarding Future Combat Systems, I must confess that like many others I heard something different when I listened to the clip. If he was referring the FCS then you may have me there. I must do a little more research.

[Mrs Mungo]

And in the process still managed to cut the governor's expenses by 80%?

 

Overall, Palin's travel spending pales in comparison with that of predecessor Frank Murkowski, who charged $463,000 for air fare in 2006. Palin charged $93,000 in 2007.

 

He's not running for national office. She sold his jet which probably accounts for a lot of that expense. However, that has no bearing on whether or not what she did was ethical.

[Mrs Mungo]

I have actually done a fair amount of reasearch. The military says costly, difficult but not impossible. Programs like this are not easy, but they are achievable. As for Congress, Europe and ahem yes Russia, lets look beyond the science and see if they just possibly have other motivations.

 

The question is *not only* is it *possible*. There are many questions: what is the cost/benefit ratio? How do other countries feel about it? Is it going to be reliable *especially* when it risks so much from a diplomacy standpoint?

 

Regarding Future Combat Systems, I must confess that like many others I heard something different when I listened to the clip. If he was referring the FCS then you may have me there. I must do a little more research.

 

That's why these sorts of clips are so dangerous and should not be relied upon for information.

[Slartibartfast]

As to waste, unfortunately you are correct, this is something that has to be corrected, but then again if we are talking cutting waste which set of candidates have the best "woman" for the job:-)

 

That seems to be implying something that is other than factual so I am going to assume you are not familiar with her spending habits. :)

 

How much would it cost government if every US citizen got the same amount of earmark money as Palin's Wasilla townspeople?

 

$422,302,519,152

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/216132.php

 

The McCain camp is trying to paint her as low on spending, but that is simply not true.

[pqr]

Your mockery clearly indicates your ignorance on the subject.

Come on now, you are really referencing Russia when talking about the direction that the US should take in our national defense posture?

 

If we had referenced Russia on how we should fight the Cold War we would still be flying P-51s and B-17s.

[nakitty]

And in the process still managed to cut the governor's expenses by 80%?

 

Overall, Palin's travel spending pales in comparison with that of predecessor Frank Murkowski, who charged $463,000 for air fare in 2006. Palin charged $93,000 in 2007.

 

Sooooo....if I were to get a job in a department store ....and thanks to my talent I was able to prevent losses in the tune of $100,000 dollars.... would it then be ok for me to start taking office supplies and discretionary spending money for my own personal use...trips to the spa...lunches...whatever. I mean, it is money that *I* am allowed to use...to my discretion.... and I *did* save the company thousands of dollars.... so isn't it my right?

[Mrs Mungo]

Come on now, you are really referencing Russia when talking about the direction that the US should take in our national defense posture?

 

If we had referenced Russia on how we should fight the Cold War we would still be flying P-51s and B-17s.

 

?? What? That makes zero sense.

 

Let me put this a different way. Putting a missile defense system in Europe would be the equivalent of Russia putting a missile defense system in Cuba. We know how that ended.