gatorfan wrote: 2seaoat wrote:Why do Republicans sell fear? Because they are accepting contributions from the MIC and they propagate fear to profit. The choices are clear a year from now. Our country has been bankrupted by tax cuts and foreign adventures that kill innocents and grow the problem of terrorism.
I guess you didn't get the memo. Democrats in the Senate killed the defense bill in Sept because they wanted to INCREASE defense and non-defense spending.
"Democrats have repeatedly called on Republicans to sit down and negotiate a deal on a larger budget that rolls back the congressionally mandated spending caps."
You're citing a procedural vote here rather than the actual bill that was passed. The ultimate bill that was passed prevented another government shutdown - which was being threatened in the name of Planned Parenthood - and funded defense for the remainder of Obama's term. When you say "
democrats wanted to increase defense and non-defense spending", you're leaving out a key phrase there. They wanted to increase those spending levels over the levels that were mandated by way of sequestration. Imagine if there were some asinine bill passed that said defense spending would fall to $1 unless Ted Cruz says something reasonably intelligent. I think in that context, everyone would agree that increased defense spending would be needed. That is, increased defense spending over a $1 budget that is constrained by Cruz's inability to say something intelligent. Context, gatorfan. Context. You're taking a procedural vote - that you don't even appear to understand - and you're using that to create a false narrative that states it is really democrats - not republicans - who are the pro-military spending wing of government. You're either being intentionally deceptive or you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about.
Why don't we look at the actual bill that was passed rather than at commentary on a procedural vote? Wouldn't that have more meat? The final bill that passed stripped $5 billion from amount the House and Senate Armed Service Committee had been lobbying for. It is republicans - not democrats - who are upset about that.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/10/27/budget-deal-defense/74678048/
From the article:
Several members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees indicated that they would support the measure, even though the $607 billion in fiscal 2016 defense spending falls about $50 billion short of the mark they've been lobbying for all year.
Earlier this month, 102 House Republicans sent a letter to chamber leaders calling for a federal budget that "fully funds defense" at a $612 billion total. Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, who helped organize that effort, on Monday indicated that he would back the new deal, despite the shortfall.
gatorfan wrote:You also realize the Commander-in-Chief is the one responsible for prioritizing military activity, do you not? He happens to be a liberal, like you but keeps digging in deeper in the M/E.
In what sense is Obama "digging us deeper in the ME"? As far as I can tell, when Obama took office we were engaged in two full scale occupations in the ME, and our presence since then has been significantly scaled back. This is the exact opposite of "digging us in deeper in the ME." Here again, you're asserting a narrative that isn't based on facts or reality.
gatorfan wrote:Military spending could be downsized but you apparently don't understand why 11 carriers are needed because you don't understand the limitations of maintaining ships and aircraft squadrons at sea vs administration mandated commitments. There must be time for repairs, systems upgrades, crew training and even a little crew rest. There are NEVER 11 carriers available at one time.
I can't speak for 2seaoat, though I can tell you that this is a strawman. You're argument assumes that 11 carriers are needed, and any objection to that must therefore be rooted in a misunderstanding of of how the military operates. 2seaoat didn't say anything that would indicate that...unless of course you begin with the assumption that 11 carriers are either less than or equal to a practical number of needed carriers. On the other hand, if you view that as excessive...
We can't explain this lopsided investment in defense by simply saying "Well, you don't understand how the military cycles this and that..." If someone suggests that maybe, just maybe, we don't need to have a naval presence that is nearly equal to the rest of the world's combined, we can't necessarily jump straight to the idea that their viewpoint is rooted in ignorance, which is what you're suggesting.
gatorfan wrote:If you were honest about military spending you would agree both Dem's and Rep's have a vested interest in spending - particularly when they divvy up systems so their districts get money which BTW, equals jobs.
And here we arrive at the preferred argument from fence-sitting toasters. "Both sides are to blame." Yes, of course. Though one is clearly more to blame than the other, and that is the point. One is the
lesser of two evils within the context of defense spending and military adventurism. It's like someone who was just diagnosed with cancer after having smoked two packs a day for 50 years while also eating one slice of bacon a week ago, and then saying "Well, both my smoking and that strip of bacon are to blame." Well, technically, yes. Though they're certainly not equal. The "both sides are to blame" line only serves to spread the blame from one side to the other and paint a narrative as if both are equal when, in reality, they are not.
Home
