Why can't we reduce our military spending

Okay,  I'll give you this much.  You did reveal that the all powerful all omniscient OZ (aka Putin) only has one lousy aircraft carrier at this disposal.

I will say that is a shocking revelation to me.  I never heard of a "superpower" who can kick the world's ass with his big old muscles having only one aircraft carrier to do so. 
And I would like to get gator's take on that.

But bothsiderism and wrastlin still rules.  lol

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:BoF needs to stick to his little BLS charts and 2SO needs to get a clue. If those two had their way the U.S. would be a one political party country with absolutely no trade or contact with any country outside our borders eliminating the need for ANY military force to protect our International trade interests and support our many treaty partners.

It’s amazing how narrow-minded but highly opinionated two absolutely uniformed people can be. Neither has a minute of military experience but they pretend to understand force structure and requirements placed on those forces by politicians.

Their “understanding” of the military is barely Wikipedia deep.

Thanks for the laugh.

So you don't have anything to say in response to my post then?  I responded to you point by point, and now your only response is to essentially ignore everything I just said and instead attack a strawman?  Now you're implying that I'm an isolationist (I'm not), though I never said anything that would even remotely suggest that.

Last chance for gatorfan.  I directly responded to your comments on the budget deal, I directly responded to your comments on the 11 air craft carriers, and I directly responded to your "both sides are to blame" point of view.  Have you anything to say in response or can we conclude that you concede that what I said is accurate?

Actually I should simplify for you. You would prefer a one political party country while 2SO would prefer to be isolationist.

You don't understand the military or the obligations forced on it by politicians as is obvious from your lengthy but essentially empty of fact post. Those politically driven requirements result in a certain force structure requirement. Like I said, stick to your BLS charts.

Your 2nd response is typically full of BoFshit. And Bob is right - you are just like the Trumpet, you love to hear yourself but refuse to accept any disagreement with your typically childish and narrow world view comments.

You are Trumpet Light.

"Trumpet light"

Regardless of democrats, republicans, hawks,  doves,  toasters, bothsiderism,  wrastlin or anything else,  that there is funny.  lol

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:BoF needs to stick to his little BLS charts and 2SO needs to get a clue. If those two had their way the U.S. would be a one political party country with absolutely no trade or contact with any country outside our borders eliminating the need for ANY military force to protect our International trade interests and support our many treaty partners.

It’s amazing how narrow-minded but highly opinionated two absolutely uniformed people can be. Neither has a minute of military experience but they pretend to understand force structure and requirements placed on those forces by politicians.

Their “understanding” of the military is barely Wikipedia deep.

Thanks for the laugh.

So you don't have anything to say in response to my post then?  I responded to you point by point, and now your only response is to essentially ignore everything I just said and instead attack a strawman?  Now you're implying that I'm an isolationist (I'm not), though I never said anything that would even remotely suggest that.

Last chance for gatorfan.  I directly responded to your comments on the budget deal, I directly responded to your comments on the 11 air craft carriers, and I directly responded to your "both sides are to blame" point of view.  Have you anything to say in response or can we conclude that you concede that what I said is accurate?

Actually I should simplify for you. You would prefer a one political party country while 2SO would prefer to be isolationist.

But here is the problem.  I do not prefer one political party.  I never said anything in this thread that would suggest that I prefer one political party.  All you're doing is moving from strawman argument to strawman argument because it appears that you don't have a direct response to my post.  You made a fairly long, detailed post.  I responded point by point.  And your response is to say "You're an isolationist!".  When I point out that that is a strawman, your next response is "Uh...well....well...You just want one party!!"

How about this, gatorfan, rather than argue against strawmen, why not simply respond to what I actually said?   You made certain claims about the budget bill and I responded to those claims.  I gave you the final result of that bill which directly refutes what you said.  Have you anything to say in response?  You said Obama has dug is deeper in the ME and I directly responded to that.  Have you anything to say in response?  

Have you anything to say in direct response to my post, or are you basically tapped out and arguing against strawmen at this point?  

gatorfan wrote:You don't understand the military or the obligations forced on it by politicians as is obvious from your lengthy but essentially empty of fact post. Those politically driven requirements result in a certain force structure requirement. Like I said, stick to your BLS charts.

Using this same logic, I should be the only one able to speak to economic issues on this forum.  Using this same logic, no one on this forum should have anything to say about any aspect of government or anything else unless they have worked in that field professionally.  No sports talk.  No energy policy talk.  No healthcare talk.  Nothing.  No one can discuss the minimum wage here unless they have worked for minimum wage at McDonalds.  Period.  I realize how idiotic this sounds, but that is in fact the line of reasoning that you're employing here.

And aside from that, I merely pointed out that your comment with respect to the 11 carriers is a strawman argument.  Military experience isn't required to point out a strawman argument.  It is an understanding of logical fallacies that is needed to spot a strawman argument.  

gatorfan wrote:Your 2nd response is typically full of BoFshit. And Bob is right - you are just like the Trumpet, you love to hear yourself but refuse to accept any disagreement with your typically childish and narrow world view comments.

You are Trumpet Light.

Actually, this is your typical response.  You made a lenghty post that presented several assertions.  I directly refuted those assertions point by point.  What generally happens next is 1) you don't respond directly to anything I said and then 2) you say "typical BoFshit".  This is in fact what you're doing here.

boards of FL wrote:
But here is the problem.  I do not prefer one political party.

And neither does merkel.

Bob wrote:

boards of FL wrote:
But here is the problem.  I do not prefer one political party.

And neither does merkel.

Looks like I'm going to have to clarify for Bob.

Bob, what I meant there is that I don't prefer a one-party political system.  This is what gatorfan is suggesting and that isn't even remotely accurate.  I have created countless threads here about district gerrymandering and have made if painfully clear that I am against district gerrymandering.  District gerrymandering is a path to a one-party political system and I'm clearly against that.

And beyond that, I haven't said anything in this thread that would even remotely suggest that I want a one-party political system; hence, that is a strawman argument.

boards of FL wrote:

Bob wrote:

boards of FL wrote:
But here is the problem.  I do not prefer one political party.

And neither does merkel.

Looks like I'm going to have to clarify for Bob.

Bob, what I meant there is that I don't prefer a one-party political system.  This is what gatorfan is suggesting and that isn't even remotely accurate.  I have created countless threads here about district gerrymandering and have made if painfully clear that I am against district gerrymandering.  District gerrymandering is a path to a one-party political system and I'm clearly against that.

And beyond that, I haven't said anything in this thread that would even remotely suggest that I want a one-party political system; hence, that is a strawman argument.

I see.  I'm glad you clarified that because it sure sounded like you saying you don't prefer one party over the other.  And that would be like you saying you've converted to bothsideserism and toasterism.  lol

Gator fan is like a foolish poker player who overplays his hand ignoring what the other players have. In 1974 I worked in graduate school gathering military deployments of our Naval assets in the middle east for a conference in Toronto, and the professor who reviewed my thesis was the speaker at that conference. Sorry, you are a fool to think that 11 carrier groups makes a lick of sense in 2015 when they can be neutralized by tactical nuclear weapons, leaving the only response full fledged nuclear war.....an option which may be escalated when we become toothless putting most of our eggs in one basket.

The Department of Defense should not be the Department of subsidy for War profits. It should create weapons systems which protect America, and not fatten the profits of those who lobby for more war. I know fully what I say when I say that fighting the next war with the technology of success in 1945 is a budget busting futility. The next war will be won with missiles and aircraft. The Nato emplacements against Russia are tenuous if there was an elevated threat, and we were threatened by a war of attrition, but the Chinese have no method to export war.........that is our specialty.

According gatorfan's brand of logic and reasoning, no one can say that this seaplane-carrier-tank pictured below is a useless waste of money unless they spent time peeling potatoes in the military.  If you haven't used a rope ladder to scale a wooden wall, well, you simply don't posses the level of military strategy and expertise required to fully appreciate the capabilities of such a tool of destruction.  There is really no need to offer your opinion on this seaplane-carrier-tank unless of course you can run mile in under nine minutes and you know how to properly iron a uniform.  

Right, gatorfan?

Bob wrote:Okay,  I'll give you this much.  You did reveal that the all powerful all omniscient OZ (aka Putin) only has one lousy aircraft carrier at this disposal.

I will say that is a shocking revelation to me.  I never heard of a "superpower" who can kick the world's ass with his big old muscles having only one aircraft carrier to do so. 

And I would like to get gator's take on that.

But bothsiderism and wrastlin still rules.  lol

They don't need to use one aircraft carrier. They could simply destroy a couple of a nations satellites.

You also forget they have the entire inventory of all the nuclear weapons of the USSR.

2seaoat wrote:The Russians are not exporting death.  We have the ability to kill people all over the world.  Our founding fathers did not want a standing army.  They wanted a free nation not burdened by a military which always creates a problem for free people.   We have become a militarized society which is trading freedom for security and terrorizing the world with our bombs and killing innocent civilians.  As we speak, folks want to change our rules of engagement like Mr. Trump and bomb the hell out of them.......the them being anybody, and the means are 11 carrier groups which have less to do with defending America, and much more to do with an out of control MIC which Ike warned us.  It is time for Patriots to take a stand and not join the stampede of frightened Americans who clamor for more killings.

Your desperation go to.

Did our founding fathers, who founded a Christian nation, have to worry about any city, anywhere in the nation being totally destroyed in a matter of seconds from either ocean or the gulf?

2seaoat wrote:If the irrational fear which requires military response to an operation in Paris which some have said cost less than 10k to pull off, who do you think has won the battle.  President Obama has attempted to restrain this nation from more stupidity.  75% of Americans do NOT want further engagement in the Middle East.  Yet, the tracking of known terrorist has doubled, yet we spend resources on bombs and weapon systems when in this battle increasingly our intelligence capabilities should be expanded and our military spending cut.  It is time to quit being scardy cats.   Like lightening striking, there are known risks with terrorism.   It will never be brought to zero.  However, the idea that the military can stop lightening or terrorism is absurd.  Yes, precise military strikes have a purpose......11 carrier groups in these times only insure that the use of the military tools will once again bankrupt this nation.  It simply is time to cut the military budget.  

How about we reduce SS for old people like you? SS, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP and other entitlements are more of the budget than defense. Why are we spending 14% of the budget on education? Why?

2seaoat wrote:Gator fan is like a foolish poker player who overplays his hand ignoring what the other players have.  In 1974 I worked in graduate school gathering military deployments of our Naval assets in the middle east for a conference in Toronto, and the professor who reviewed my thesis was the speaker at that conference.  Sorry, you are a fool to think that 11 carrier groups makes a lick of sense in 2015 when they can be neutralized by tactical nuclear weapons, leaving the only response full fledged nuclear war.....an option which may be escalated when we become toothless putting most of our eggs in one basket.  

The Department of Defense should not be the Department of subsidy for War profits.  It should create weapons systems which protect America, and not fatten the profits of those who lobby for more war.   I know fully what I say when I say that fighting the next war with the  technology of success in 1945 is a budget busting futility.  The next war will be won with missiles and aircraft.  The Nato emplacements against Russia are tenuous if there was an elevated threat, and we were threatened by a war of attrition, but the Chinese have no method to export war.........that is our specialty.

You're wrong again because, like BoF, you cherry pick comments. If the POLITICIANS would reduce military commitments then the force structure could be reduced. With your mindset NYC could be policed by 3 private, unarmed security guards....

boards of FL wrote:According gatorfan's brand of logic and reasoning, no one can say that this seaplane-carrier-tank pictured below is a useless waste of money unless they spent time peeling potatoes in the military.  If you haven't used a rope ladder to scale a wooden wall, well, you simply don't posses the level of military strategy and expertise required to fully appreciate the capabilities of such a tool of destruction.  There is really no need to offer your opinion on this seaplane-carrier-tank unless of course you can run mile in under nine minutes and you know how to properly iron a uniform.  

Right, gatorfan?

No child, stick to your little BLS charts and you won't sound so foolish. Or maybe you still would. Who cares.

Oat, I think the GOP senate did just what you were asking for Friday and blocked one of the largest Veteran's bills in history.

Did our founding fathers, who founded a Christian nation, have to worry about any city, anywhere in the nation being totally destroyed in a matter of seconds from either ocean or the gulf?


Yes our founding fathers did have that fear and some of them experienced the British burning Washington from the ocean where they invaded and successfully destroyed the city. I know you do not understand history, but they understood that threats from other nation states must be met with an army raised, not a permanent standing army. We have a criminal justice system which has been effective in dealing with terrorism without bankrupting this nation by over reaction.

In regard to Pace's false portrayal of the American budget, it is the discretionary budget where we make choices and priorities. The actuarial tables and 2 trillion dollar surplus currently in SS and the methods of balancing those insurance systems are separate and apart from the American budget, and NEVER are part of the same. You can argue adjustments to that insurance system with larger contributions and later retirement, but it has NOTHING to do with the discretionary budget. Here is the discretionary budget.

The defense budget is consuming 60% of discretionary spending in America with 6% going to Veteran benefits and 54% going to annual defense obligations. It is apparent with our adventurism in the Middle East that Veteran obligations are going up, but it is essential that we cut defense spending back to the 30-40% range. We cannot have a balanced budget again, nor invest in capital improvements in America until we stop the corporate subsidy to the MIC and free this country from the militarism which has doomed us to extinction in the long term. Our best defense is a vibrant growing economy not burdened by this type of defense spending.

We spend the same amount on veteran benefits as we do on the entire operation of the federal government. It is mind boggling how many are on the government teat, but that stat clearly establishes that our militarism has completely gone out of control. It is time to say no to the Saudis and Israelis. It is time to say no to MIC. It is time to say no to those on the government teat who think their benefits are more worthy than a grandmother getting food stamps. No, it is time for all thinking Americans to demand cuts and support those at the polls who are willing to do the same. Kasich has cut the military budget. He understands the abuse. It is time to elect people who can return this nation to sanity.

Oat, I think the GOP senate did just what you were asking for Friday and blocked one of the largest Veteran's bills in history.


The Democrats are notorious for just flat giving away the store in veteran benefits and police and fire grants. The truth is that these are popular and get votes, but it does not keep our fiscal house in order. 54% of discretionary spending is military spending, yet those same Republicans are not willing to cut the military spending as a whole. Reward programs which make America safer and bringing down boondoogles which have entrenched Congress support by spreading the MIC facilities all over the fifty states. We need to make cuts. We need to look at the overall national interest, and that means closing down defense spending on wasteful programs, and even some that are not wasteful but unnecessary.

2seaoat wrote:Did our founding fathers, who founded a Christian nation, have to worry about any city, anywhere in the nation being totally destroyed in a matter of seconds from either ocean or the gulf?


Yes our founding fathers did have that fear and some of them experienced the British burning Washington from the ocean where they invaded and successfully destroyed the city.  I know you do not understand history, but they understood that threats from other nation states must be met with an army raised, not a permanent standing army.   We have a criminal justice system which has been effective in dealing with terrorism without bankrupting this nation by over reaction.

In regard to Pace's false portrayal of the American budget, it is the discretionary budget where we make choices and priorities.   The actuarial tables and 2 trillion dollar surplus currently in SS and the methods of balancing those insurance systems are separate and apart from the American budget, and NEVER are part of the same.  You can argue adjustments to that insurance system with larger contributions and later retirement, but it has NOTHING to do with the discretionary budget.  Here is the discretionary budget.

BOGUS...AGAIN! Please show some dignity and use the ENTIRE budget rather than leaving out most of the budget and counting only DISCRETIONARY spending.

You seem intent on embarrassing yourself. Why?