If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   "Ryan disavows Romney's defense spending plan" This campaign will self destruct in five seconds   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 178
    More: Interesting, Travis Sharp  
•       •       •

4668 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Oct 2012 at 10:42 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



178 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-15 08:22:30 AM
FTFA:Ryan, along with all Republican leaders, have disavowed the defense sequester they voted for, and blamed its looming, across-the-board defense cuts on President Obama.

Sadly that is working with the uninformed voters. I had one of my politically incurious friends tell me over the weekend that Obama wants to cut the military. My friend had the impression that the Obama platform was to cut the military to have more money to spend on welfare.

I told him to be sure and make it to the polls Nov. 7th
 
2012-10-15 08:57:09 AM

sammyk: My friend had the impression that the Obama platform was to cut the military to have more money to spend on welfare.


"It's what Democrats do!"
 
2012-10-15 09:14:21 AM

hillbillypharmacist: sammyk: My friend had the impression that the Obama platform was to cut the military to have more money to spend on welfare.

"It's what Democrats do!"


It's the only way they can get votes. I for one would not vote for Obama if I didn't get my awesome Obama phone.
 
2012-10-15 09:30:19 AM

sammyk: FTFA:Ryan, along with all Republican leaders, have disavowed the defense sequester they voted for, and blamed its looming, across-the-board defense cuts on President Obama.

Sadly that is working with the uninformed voters. I had one of my politically incurious friends tell me over the weekend that Obama wants to cut the military. My friend had the impression that the Obama platform was to cut the military to have more money to spend on welfare.

I told him to be sure and make it to the polls Nov. 7th


That doesn't surprise me, given the average American Idiot.
 
2012-10-15 10:01:46 AM

Cythraul: sammyk: FTFA:Ryan, along with all Republican leaders, have disavowed the defense sequester they voted for, and blamed its looming, across-the-board defense cuts on President Obama.

Sadly that is working with the uninformed voters. I had one of my politically incurious friends tell me over the weekend that Obama wants to cut the military. My friend had the impression that the Obama platform was to cut the military to have more money to spend on welfare.

I told him to be sure and make it to the polls Nov. 7th

That doesn't surprise me, given the average American Idiot.


I'm not talking about your average moron. This guy is very intelligent. He's just part of that demographic that is too busy with work and life to have time to follow politics the way farkers that frequent this tab do. Now he is a contractor for the military so to be fair to him voting for Romney would be a vote in his self interest as Romney has said he wants to increase defense spending.

But I don't think Obama wants to cut the military. I think it is simply on the table and has to be if you are going to approach balancing the budget like an adult.
 
2012-10-15 10:16:38 AM
Dear God.

Between Ryan and Romney not communicating and getting on the same message, and Obama faceplanting during the debate, I'm not sure what to think.

sammyk: But I don't think Obama wants to cut the military. I think it is simply on the table and has to be if you are going to approach balancing the budget like an adult.


I don't think *anyone* wants to. I saw a breakdown in another Fark thread about military spending. The largest percentages are on personnel and operational readiness. About 60-70%. R&D was something like 5%. I'm guessing that's where all the money is going when we talk about the military-industrial complex (i.e. Raytheon, etc). To make a meaningful impact on debt reduction, you'd have to cut more than just the MI complex. :/
 
2012-10-15 10:16:59 AM
So Romney won't build 15 new naval ships a year, including 3 submarines?
 
2012-10-15 10:17:37 AM

sammyk: I told him to be sure and make it to the polls Nov. 7th


pffffffffffchchchchchchch....
 
2012-10-15 10:22:36 AM

sammyk: Cythraul: sammyk: FTFA:Ryan, along with all Republican leaders, have disavowed the defense sequester they voted for, and blamed its looming, across-the-board defense cuts on President Obama.

Sadly that is working with the uninformed voters. I had one of my politically incurious friends tell me over the weekend that Obama wants to cut the military. My friend had the impression that the Obama platform was to cut the military to have more money to spend on welfare.

I told him to be sure and make it to the polls Nov. 7th

That doesn't surprise me, given the average American Idiot.

I'm not talking about your average moron. This guy is very intelligent. He's just part of that demographic that is too busy with work and life to have time to follow politics the way farkers that frequent this tab do. Now he is a contractor for the military so to be fair to him voting for Romney would be a vote in his self interest as Romney has said he wants to increase defense spending.

But I don't think Obama wants to cut the military. I think it is simply on the table and has to be if you are going to approach balancing the budget like an adult.


If his career in the military isn't the cornerstone of his support for Romney for President, then what he's doing is not idiotic, as I originally suggested, instead it's just irresponsible when choosing the future leader of your country. Someone would have to be a virtual slave to not have enough time to do some research an educate yourself on the philosophies and political record of two Presidential candidates.
 
2012-10-15 10:46:08 AM

sammyk: But I don't think Obama wants to cut the military. I think it is simply on the table and has to be if you are going to approach balancing the budget like an adult.


And therein lies the issue in Washington...
 
2012-10-15 10:46:46 AM

Cythraul: sammyk: FTFA:Ryan, along with all Republican leaders, have disavowed the defense sequester they voted for, and blamed its looming, across-the-board defense cuts on President Obama.

Sadly that is working with the uninformed voters. I had one of my politically incurious friends tell me over the weekend that Obama wants to cut the military. My friend had the impression that the Obama platform was to cut the military to have more money to spend on welfare.

I told him to be sure and make it to the polls Nov. 7th

That doesn't surprise me, given the average American Idiot.


It's like they live their lives on Holiday.
 
2012-10-15 10:49:31 AM

sammyk: hillbillypharmacist: sammyk: My friend had the impression that the Obama platform was to cut the military to have more money to spend on welfare.

"It's what Democrats do!"

It's the only way they can get votes. I for one would not vote for Obama if I didn't get my awesome Obama phone.


If I hear one more quip about "Obamaphones," I will literally choke a b*tch,

It's another example of how the right's punditry can turn falsehood to fact.
 
2012-10-15 10:50:03 AM

Cythraul: If his career in the military isn't the cornerstone of his support for Romney for President, then what he's doing is not idiotic, as I originally suggested, instead it's just irresponsible when choosing the future leader of your country. Someone would have to be a virtual slave to not have enough time to do some research an educate yourself on the philosophies and political record of two Presidential candidates.


The problem is that doing some research paints a very different picture than doing a whole lot of research. Romney claimed his plan was balanced, so you check his basis and he has 6 studies that support it, including papers from Princeton economists, top advisers to previous presidencies, and think tanks. Seems legit. Finding out that those studies are based on magic, though, is actual work. Those people depend on investigative journalism to do the heavy lifting of digging through and figuring out those documents, and the media isn't doing their job - in relation to either candidate.

I mean, take a really simple example: the $77k tax cut Romney took on his horse. This is a silly, stupid topic, and it also happens to be factually untrue. Most people don't know that it's untrue, because the media assumed it was and most people just took them at their word. Even people who consider themselves otherwise informed on politics believe he took a $77k tax cut. And when you point it out, people will defend to the death the idea that a possible cut in the future is the same thing. About taxes on a farking dancing horse. Is it any surprise that people can't figure out the difficult things (like the GOP list of 'jobs bills' that passed the House but were shot down by Democrats in the Senate?

People have to be totally distrustful of everything and do significant amounts of legwork to inform themselves. It's not as easy as just reading a couple different news sources and opinion pieces.
 
2012-10-15 10:51:11 AM
If there's one thing that we need it's moar defense spending.

i1162.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-15 10:52:24 AM

dickfreckle: sammyk: hillbillypharmacist: sammyk: My friend had the impression that the Obama platform was to cut the military to have more money to spend on welfare.

"It's what Democrats do!"

It's the only way they can get votes. I for one would not vote for Obama if I didn't get my awesome Obama phone.

If I hear one more quip about "Obamaphones," I will literally choke a b*tch,

It's another example of how the right's punditry can turn falsehood to fact.


Nothing was as low as Ohio using military personnel to try to phase out Early Voting.
 
2012-10-15 10:52:32 AM
"So we're saying don't cut the military by a trillion dollars," Ryan said. "Not increase it by a trillion, don't cut it by a trillion dollars."

#1 Blatant lie, the GOP wants to increase the DoD budget that has been set high enough to fight 2 ongoing wars even throughout peacetime.
#2 Cut the DoD budget by a trillion dollars or shut the fark up about the deficit, the cost of Obamacare, or any claim that the GOP gives a rats ass about fiscal responsibility.
 
2012-10-15 10:53:04 AM

sammyk: FTFA:Ryan, along with all Republican leaders, have disavowed the defense sequester they voted for, and blamed its looming, across-the-board defense cuts on President Obama.

Sadly that is working with the uninformed voters. I had one of my politically incurious friends tell me over the weekend that Obama wants to cut the military. My friend had the impression that the Obama platform was to cut the military to have more money to spend on welfare.

I told him to be sure and make it to the polls Nov. 7th


This is why I hate politics. It's completely cynical - politicians, and particularly those from a certain party, know never to bet against the stupidity of the average voter. How do you combat that? If you resort to facts and figures, you're an out-of-touch egghead. If you point out lies, the media blinks like cattle.

Some days I wonder if we wouldn't be better off with a king.
 
2012-10-15 10:56:58 AM
Romneys plans are all retarded, but it's Obama's fault so vote for Romney and then his plans will suddenly all be really awesome too bad libs
 
2012-10-15 10:57:10 AM

Whiskey Pete: If there's one thing that we need it's moar defense spending.

i1162.photobucket.com


/Step 1: right click

//Step 2: select "Save image as....."

///Save image for when I receive the typical "Fw:Fw:Fw:Fw:Fw:Fw:" emails from my foxnews watching relatives

////Not that it will help them, they're beyond hope; although it will help me keep sane.
 
2012-10-15 10:57:14 AM

sammyk: hillbillypharmacist: sammyk: My friend had the impression that the Obama platform was to cut the military to have more money to spend on welfare.

"It's what Democrats do!"

It's the only way they can get votes. I for one would not vote for Obama if I didn't get my awesome Obama phone.


OBAMA PHONE? Hell, I've been voting straight Republican since '84 since they told me it was a REAGAN phone!
 
2012-10-15 10:57:28 AM

indylaw: sammyk: FTFA:Ryan, along with all Republican leaders, have disavowed the defense sequester they voted for, and blamed its looming, across-the-board defense cuts on President Obama.

Sadly that is working with the uninformed voters. I had one of my politically incurious friends tell me over the weekend that Obama wants to cut the military. My friend had the impression that the Obama platform was to cut the military to have more money to spend on welfare.

I told him to be sure and make it to the polls Nov. 7th

This is why I hate politics. It's completely cynical - politicians, and particularly those from a certain party, know never to bet against the stupidity of the average voter. How do you combat that? If you resort to facts and figures, you're an out-of-touch egghead. If you point out lies, the media blinks like cattle.

Some days I wonder if we wouldn't be better off with a king.


encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

'sup biatches?
 
2012-10-15 10:58:13 AM

xanadian: sammyk: But I don't think Obama wants to cut the military. I think it is simply on the table and has to be if you are going to approach balancing the budget like an adult.

I don't think *anyone* wants to. I saw a breakdown in another Fark thread about military spending. The largest percentages are on personnel and operational readiness. About 60-70%. R&D was something like 5%. I'm guessing that's where all the money is going when we talk about the military-industrial complex (i.e. Raytheon, etc). To make a meaningful impact on debt reduction, you'd have to cut more than just the MI complex. :/


I do. I think we should cut the number of personnel and scale back our operational readiness to a more reasonable standard. I think we need to shift some of the defense burden to our allies.
 
2012-10-15 11:02:35 AM
"Ryan reveals African ancestry" This campaign will self destruct in five seconds

/FTFY'all
 
2012-10-15 11:04:11 AM
Defense spending:

Aegis destroyers, cruisers, future development of the SM family (SM-6 improvements, etc), alternative power methods for the cruisers (nuclear navy part ii perhaps), etc. They're farking useful in that they can shoot down missiles, malfunctioning satellites (or hostile sats if we go to war), medium to large sized space debris, etc. You can also use them against piracy (although to be fair it is a bit overkill to crank up an Aegis cruiser to fry some skinnies in a dinghy). Plus what we learn from the whole SM project likely will carry over to asteroid defense which someday could be rather useful to say the least.

Start laying Flight III Burke hulls to increase shipyard jobs. Then as the Flight IIIs go into service, bring the older Flight ABs and Ticonderoga cruisers in to refit. Also get a stealthier Aegis design out and in service. The non stealth hulls can do things like cruise along the American coast and areas where they'd function more as pure ABM assets. The stealthier ones can function in the western Pacific where they could possibly be doing air defense, SSM swatting, and ABM shoot downs.

You actually get decent bang for your buck in terms of jobs created and uses of the ship. Plus in general having an ABM shield might come in handy one day.
 
2012-10-15 11:06:28 AM

sprawl15: I mean, take a really simple example: the $77k tax cut Romney took on his horse. ... Most people don't know that it's untrue....


You'ld be right. Where was it proven false?
 
2012-10-15 11:06:39 AM

dickfreckle: sammyk: hillbillypharmacist: sammyk: My friend had the impression that the Obama platform was to cut the military to have more money to spend on welfare.

"It's what Democrats do!"

It's the only way they can get votes. I for one would not vote for Obama if I didn't get my awesome Obama phone.

If I hear one more quip about "Obamaphones," I will literally choke a b*tch,

It's another example of how the right's punditry can turn falsehood to fact.


This message sent from my Obamaphone
 
2012-10-15 11:06:43 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: I do. I think we should cut the number of personnel and scale back our operational readiness to a more reasonable standard. I think we need to shift some of the defense burden to our allies.


There's a couple problems getting in the way of this. Number one is the USAF's stranglehold on the international air refueling scene; they offer refueling at significantly below cost for any other country. If Germany, for example, has a fully amortized tanker with crew and bla bla ready to go, it's cheaper for them to buy from the US than to fly their own sorties. Air refueling is the #1 requirement for power projection, which is the one thing the US does exceptionally well that no other country on the planet can even fake doing. On top of this, the two main planes being offered as replacements around the world (the A330 and 767) are farking awful, haven't been fully developed for boom operations, and can't meet the rigorous requirements of tanking.

We can shift some defensive operations to allies, but that's about it (and we're already doing that, to an extent). The security for the Southern Pacific region recently was (nominally) ceded to Australian authorities to handle instead of US bases, but their tanker issues (booms falling off their airplanes, among other problems) kicked that right back in the US's court.
 
2012-10-15 11:08:31 AM
I am a Unexploded Ordnance Technician by trade, formerly USAF Explosive Ordnance Disposal.

My livelihood is inexorably tied to the military industrial complex, so I am always leery of cuts in defense spending from a personal stand point.

That said, tying defense spending to our GDP is one of the most ridiculous notions that I have heard in the two decades I have spent inside the industry. In fact anyone that is part of the industry could probably list several very specific ways, in their own respective missions, to save money on defense spending without reduction of capabilities.
 
2012-10-15 11:10:59 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: I do. I think we should cut the number of personnel and scale back our operational readiness to a more reasonable standard. I think we need to shift some of the defense burden to our allies.


Shift more of it onto the Guard. The standing military should only be full time employment for people we want to go career. Fewer people who need complex technical skills and thus are paid at a rate that encourages them to spend 20+ years on active duty. Things that are phasing out, like say armored calvary, can be scaled back. We can keep one giant armored corps on active duty at Fort Hood and pass out the rest of the Bradleys, Abrams, etc to Guard units. They can drive the armored vehicles around for their one weekend a month and go down to Hood for OPFOR drills for their two weeks a year part. The guys at Hood would be busy since every two weeks they'd get a new OPFOR to drill against.

At least Obama scaled us back to one major war in one theater. Now we just need to cut out some of the older stuff. Tanks for example are likely on their way out as a primary offense weapon due to the fact they're just one big juicy target for a predator. So we'll need to rethink how many tanks the Army needs. Same with a lot of other jobs that don't involving flying, drone piloting, missile defense, or other tasks that will be the bread and butter of the next war.
 
2012-10-15 11:12:34 AM

Whiskey Pete: If there's one thing that we need it's moar defense spending.

[i1162.photobucket.com image 675x360]


I'm not sure what's more depressing - the fact that we outspend the rest of the world, combined, on defense spending, or that we still consider a handful of beared goat-herders with shoe bombs and box cutters a national threat in spite of it.

"Spend smarter, not harder" does come to mind.
 
2012-10-15 11:12:55 AM
Article is wrong. Romney is counting on the fact that his other policies will cause the GDP to decrease. By tying military spending to GDP, Romney is guaranteeing that in his administration defense spending will go down.
 
2012-10-15 11:12:55 AM

sprawl15: There's a couple problems getting in the way of this. Number one is the USAF's stranglehold on the international air refueling scene; they offer refueling at significantly below cost for any other country. If Germany, for example, has a fully amortized tanker with crew and bla bla ready to go, it's cheaper for them to buy from the US than to fly their own sorties.


I'm not really all that concerned if Germany's defense budget isn't subsidized by the US tax payer to the same extent any longer.
 
2012-10-15 11:13:22 AM

neenerist: sprawl15: I mean, take a really simple example: the $77k tax cut Romney took on his horse. ... Most people don't know that it's untrue....

You'ld be right. Where was it proven false?


On his tax returns. It was never 'proven true' to begin with, it was just people taking words with a very specific meaning out of context (like 'declared loss') and running with it.

He declared the $77k as a loss under passive activities, losses which do not impact general taxation. These losses can only be applied as offsets to gains under passive activities - were the horse to win prize money, that could be offset. If there is never any passive activity income to offset, then declaring the losses does absolutely zero for you. He offset $49 (not $49k, just forty nine dollars) in 2010.
 
2012-10-15 11:13:46 AM
Question: It's 2014 and President Romney has managed to somehow tie defense spending to a percentage of the GDP. What prevents China, India or Russia from manipulating their currency in order to detract value from the Dollar, making it a worse investment and leading to the shrinking of our economic GDP and therefore our military? Would doing this not provide an easy target for economic subterfuge in order to create an environment for military conflict over resources?
 
2012-10-15 11:14:06 AM

FormlessOne: Whiskey Pete: If there's one thing that we need it's moar defense spending.

[i1162.photobucket.com image 675x360]

I'm not sure what's more depressing - the fact that we outspend the rest of the world, combined, on defense spending, or that we still consider a handful of beared bearded goat-herders with shoe bombs and box cutters a national threat in spite of it.

"Spend smarter, not harder" does come to mind.


FTFM - goat-herders with trained assault bears would be a bit scarier, but that would smack of hyperbole.
 
2012-10-15 11:14:30 AM

neenerist: sprawl15: I mean, take a really simple example: the $77k tax cut Romney took on his horse. ... Most people don't know that it's untrue....

You'ld be right. Where was it proven false?


He will take a 77k tax deduction on his horse he just hasn't as of yet, that's the "untrue" part of it.
 
2012-10-15 11:16:36 AM

FormlessOne: FormlessOne: Whiskey Pete: If there's one thing that we need it's moar defense spending.

[i1162.photobucket.com image 675x360]

I'm not sure what's more depressing - the fact that we outspend the rest of the world, combined, on defense spending, or that we still consider a handful of beared bearded goat-herders with shoe bombs and box cutters a national threat in spite of it.

"Spend smarter, not harder" does come to mind.

FTFM - goat-herders with trained assault bears would be a bit scarier, but that would smack of hyperbole.


We could fight them with genetically-engineered super-salmon.
 
2012-10-15 11:17:26 AM

sprawl15: neenerist: sprawl15: I mean, take a really simple example: the $77k tax cut Romney took on his horse. ... Most people don't know that it's untrue....

You'ld be right. Where was it proven false?

On his tax returns. It was never 'proven true' to begin with, it was just people taking words with a very specific meaning out of context (like 'declared loss') and running with it.

He declared the $77k as a loss under passive activities, losses which do not impact general taxation. These losses can only be applied as offsets to gains under passive activities - were the horse to win prize money, that could be offset. If there is never any passive activity income to offset, then declaring the losses does absolutely zero for you. He offset $49 (not $49k, just forty nine dollars) in 2010.


But we can still make fun of the fruity horse, right?
 
2012-10-15 11:18:15 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: sprawl15: There's a couple problems getting in the way of this. Number one is the USAF's stranglehold on the international air refueling scene; they offer refueling at significantly below cost for any other country. If Germany, for example, has a fully amortized tanker with crew and bla bla ready to go, it's cheaper for them to buy from the US than to fly their own sorties.

I'm not really all that concerned if Germany's defense budget isn't subsidized by the US tax payer to the same extent any longer.


That isn't what we're talking about, though. To shift worldwide defense responsibilities away from the US without sacrificing (much) security requires a massive geopolitical shift that simply can't be met by modern technology. Now, you could be fine with that, but it's important to be honest and know the exact effects of things like saying "we should cut defense in specific areas to make Europe do the heavy lifting for NATO" (for example). Well, they can't. They aren't going to be able to for probably more than a decade.
 
2012-10-15 11:19:27 AM

Headso: He will take a 77k tax deduction on his horse he just hasn't as of yet, that's the "untrue" part of it.


I should have wished for a lottery ticket:

sprawl15: And when you point it out, people will defend to the death the idea that a possible cut in the future is the same thing.

 
2012-10-15 11:21:05 AM

Whiskey Pete: If there's one thing that we need it's moar defense spending.

[i1162.photobucket.com image 675x360]


This is what drives me crazy about people who won't even consider defense spending because "it'll make us weak!". We could cut our spending in half and still spend almost as much as the next five countries combines (and far more than the rest of the world). It's just a stupid argument. We spend too much on defense, especially considering our economic problems.
 
2012-10-15 11:22:19 AM

sammyk: FTFA:Ryan, along with all Republican leaders, have disavowed the defense sequester they voted for, and blamed its looming, across-the-board defense cuts on President Obama.

Sadly that is working with the uninformed voters. I had one of my politically incurious friends tell me over the weekend that Obama wants to cut the military. My friend had the impression that the Obama platform was to cut the military to have more money to spend on welfare.

I told him to be sure and make it to the polls Nov. 7th


My roomate is absolutely certain that Obama literally hates the military, and so even though he hates Romney he's going to vote for him.
 
2012-10-15 11:23:21 AM

indylaw: Some days I wonder if we wouldn't be better off with a king emperor.


It is with great reluctance that I have agreed to this calling. I love democracy. I love the republic. Once this crisis has abated, I will lay down the powers you have given me! And as my first act with this new authority, I will create a grand army of the Republic to counter the increasing threats of the Separatists Islamists.

The Jedi liberal progressive rebellion has been foiled and the remaining Jedi liberals will be hunted down and defeated. The attempt on my life has left me scarred and deformed. But, I assure you, my resolve has never been stronger. In order to ensure our security and continuing stability, the republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic American Empire for a safe and secure society.
 
2012-10-15 11:24:03 AM
This president spends too much! Vote for me and I will spend even more, but I'll tell you that it's not happening!
 
2012-10-15 11:24:14 AM

Chelsea Clinton Is Carrot Top's Lost Twin: /Step 1: right click

//Step 2: select "Save image as....."

///Save image for when I receive the typical "Fw:Fw:Fw:Fw:Fw:Fw:" emails from my foxnews watching relatives


Why? More than likely, they see absolutely nothing wrong with such a breakdown.
 
2012-10-15 11:24:20 AM

macadamnut: "Ryan reveals African ancestry" This campaign will self destruct in five seconds

/FTFY'all


Trick quesiton. Was it South African ancestry?
 
2012-10-15 11:24:20 AM

Mentat: So Romney won't build 15 new naval ships a year, including 3 submarines?


The second Gerald Ford class aircraft carrier,coont9, will be named the Willard Mitt Romney. Its GPS will be programmed so that any time it is ordered to head to war, it instead sails to the sunny coast of France.
 
2012-10-15 11:24:35 AM
This from the party that high-fived each other after cutting military pay?

Fark your mothers, GOP.
 
2012-10-15 11:24:38 AM

Epoch_Zero: Question: It's 2014 and President Romney has managed to somehow tie defense spending to a percentage of the GDP. What prevents China, India or Russia from manipulating their currency in order to detract value from the Dollar, making it a worse investment and leading to the shrinking of our economic GDP and therefore our military? Would doing this not provide an easy target for economic subterfuge in order to create an environment for military conflict over resources?


He'll be tough on China!
 
2012-10-15 11:24:59 AM

xanadian: Dear God.

Between Ryan and Romney not communicating and getting on the same message, and Obama faceplanting during the debate, I'm not sure what to think.

sammyk: But I don't think Obama wants to cut the military. I think it is simply on the table and has to be if you are going to approach balancing the budget like an adult.

I don't think *anyone* wants to. I saw a breakdown in another Fark thread about military spending. The largest percentages are on personnel and operational readiness. About 60-70%. R&D was something like 5%. I'm guessing that's where all the money is going when we talk about the military-industrial complex (i.e. Raytheon, etc). To make a meaningful impact on debt reduction, you'd have to cut more than just the MI complex. :/


I want to.
 
Displayed 50 of 178 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report