Since we've spent some time this week discussing the competing approaches to defense spending from the Obama and Romney campaigns, it's worth noting that the topic came up again during last night's vice presidential debate.
Moderator Martha Raddatz noted the Romney/Ryan plan to "increase the defense budget." Paul Ryan denied that.
"No, we're not just going to cut the defense budget."
Vice President Biden intervened, explaining the Republican plan to spend an additional $2 trillion, and again, Ryan denied it.
After some back and forth, Raddatz asked, "But I want to know how you do the math and have this increase in defense spending?" Ryan replied:
"You don't cut defense by a trillion dollars. That's what we're talking about.... [W]e're saying don't cut the military by a trillion dollars. Not increase it by a trillion, don't cut it by a trillion dollars."
Someone listening to this might assume that Ryan -- an alleged "numbers guy" -- simply wants to avoid cuts to military spending, and doesn't actually intend to increase the defense budget.
But that assumption would be wrong, and Ryan was playing fast and loose with the facts. Thomas Ricks and Travis Sharp fleshed out the details this week, but given what we know of the Romney/Ryan plan, the $2 trillion price tag -- which would include plans for "more warships, more air wings, and a more expanded military presence around the world" -- is hardly an unfair attack. On the contrary, it's an accurate assessment of the GOP ticket's proposal.
As Rachel explained on the show this week, reflecting on the Republicans' proposed increase in defense spending, "People say there's no real difference between the candidates? Holy mackerel! When you're talking about the biggest pile of money in the whole world, the largest amount of discretionary money spent on anything by our government -- boy, howdy, is there a difference here. Boy, howdy, does this election matter."
Incidentally, how does Romney intend to pay for all of this additional defense spending? He refuses to tell anyone.
As for why the United States, which already spends more on our military than most of the major powers combined spend on their militaries, needs to increase defense spending by such an enormous amount, Romney hasn't exactly explained that, either. Apparently, Americans would be in for quite an education in early 2013.
Leave a Comment:
.
What I heard Ryan saying last night was world domination.
Knowing Romney - Ryan wants to sharply increase military spending,
Hearing Ryan talk of "boots on the ground",
Knowing the Mormon believes they can get their own planet,
The Soviet Union and before that Hitlers Germany, and now a Romney United States trying for World Domination.
This is scaring the hell out of me.
.
And in the case of Germany it took the whole rest of the world allying together to defeat Hitler. We have 52% of the total military power in the world. Run by Romney?????
.
I really don't like bringing up Nostradamus and the Judeo-Christian Bible ....
Both say, effectively, the Anti-Christ is coming.
Not that I hold with the Bible as literal, and Seers, well, Seers are a bit of Hocus, but I do know there are "things", can't prove them but I know "things" are there, both good and bad ... No, I'm not Mad, least not today.
False Prophets and such, If there is an Anti-Christ I would rather it come to power in a place other than the United States.
Military buildup for no discernible reason, Boots on the ground, Mormons believing they get their own planet, the Presbyterian of my youth, later readings of other materials ...
I'm afraid.
.
I thought that was supposed to be Kolob - who knew they meant Earth?
Get Enraged and Engaged:
Mooch the Vote 2012!
;-)
Less Big Bird, More Big Bombs. I think that summs it up nicely
But, but the Navy is in dire straights, and I ain't talkin' music!
Do you realize that the only four masted capital ship still in commission is operated by the Coast Guard? And her cannons have not been fired since 1812!
And, as for the Army, they have fewer horses than they did when T.R. charged up San Juan Hill!
If all they were after was Schooners and Caissons I could live with that and wouldn't be so worried about it
What I was thinking as reading:
But, but the Navy is in dire straights, and I ain't talkin' music!
Golly, a Troll.
Do you realize that just about any one ship in todays Navy could wipe out the entire 1916 fleet?
Do you realize that the only four masted capital ship still in commission is operated by the Coast Guard? And her cannons have not been fired since 1812!
What? Four masted what? Capitol Ship?? I haven't seen reference to "Capitol Ship" since ... (reads to end of sentence) ....
LMAO! Sarcasm, Ya Got Me!! Good One!
And, as for the Army, they have fewer horses than they did when T.R. charged up San Juan Hill!
At least TR would have had something to eat if the military budget bankrupted the country. Now we would have only cannibalism.
Not funny.
,
Day is on a roll. Good one, thanks for the laugh!
Not a complaint, but the USS Constitution, the ship you are talking about, is still in commission with the US Navy. Not the Coast Guard. It actually sailed under its own power in Boston Harbor for 2 hours for the first time in 130 years this past August on the 200th anniversary of its victory over HMS Guierriere, where it got it's nickname "Old Ironsides".
Snarking in the reality-based community requires proper use of the facts. :-)
And at least the Constitution looks more elegant than a modern warship!
@TCinLA- I stand corrected.
I was speaking of the The USCGC Eagle (WIX-327) (ex-SSS Horst Wessel) is a 295-foot (90 m) barque used as a training cutter for future officers of the United States Coast Guard. She is one of only two active commissioned sailing vessels in American military service, the other being the USS Constitution.[1]
TC
Odd fact. The USS Constitution got her nickname not from a battle but the fact that her sides are sheathed in metal not bare wood. Even odder fact the metal sheeting is really copper not iron. But Old Coppersides just doesn't have as good a ring to it as Old Ironsides.
@TCinLA They are NOT talking about the USS Constitution. They are talking about the USCGC Eagle, a three-masted bark based at the Coast Guard Academy based in New London, CT. It is a training vessel. This one was built in Germany in 1936 as a training vessel for the German Navy. It was taken as a prize the WW II. The original Coast Guard vessel Eagle was built in 1792.
Today, even the smallest Navy ships have more fire-power than any ship the US Navy sailed in WW II, including battleships -- modern technology makes that possible. The number of ships in the fleet compared to decades ago is irrelevant. Romany/Ryan's proposed spending the the neo-con dream of world military domination is a hoary indulgence in the age pf electronic and economic warfare engaged in by what enemies we have and will bankrupt the country.
I, too, am really sick and tired of this "number of Navy ships" nonsense the both candidates on the Rape-Public-CON ticket keep dragging out. Personally, I hope that if Willard trots this one out again in one of the remaining debates, the President turns to him and says something like:
"Well, you can take the entire US Navy from 1916. I'll take today's modern Navy, with fewer, but far more powerful ships, and we'll see who wins!"
Get Enraged and Engaged:
Mooch the Vote 2012!
;-)
“Who oversees the safety of compounding facilities?
Although the FDA regulates drug manufacturers, it does not have the same authority over drug compounders such as NECC.
This week, lawmakers in Washington called for a congressional investigation of the outbreak. "This incident raises serious concerns about the scope of the practice of pharmacy compounding in the United States and the current patchwork of federal and state laws and systems that oversee this practice," Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) and others wrote in a letter to the leaders of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.”
This was from –http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-meningitis-q-and-a-20121012,0,58615.story?track=rss
Now here is a good example of how Republicans would like to get rid of regulation and laws that really help people. Republicans speak so boldly that all these regulations and laws are detrimental to businesses generating their huge amounts of profits. These Republicans and rich people want to keep pushing workers to work longer hours under strained conditions with less and less wages and benefits and for what? To have sloppy work done just so some rich bastard can have huge profits at the very expense of everybody’s lives and health. Now I know of a person who got this spinal meningitis and it has literally down graded the quality of her life. She cannot even walk anymore, because of this mess and lack of proper regulation. And the Republicans are going to sit there and try to tell me they are working on my and others behalf BULL CRAP. Republicans are doing the same typical crap they have always done and that is working for extreme greed at the very price of everybody else. You will never catch me voting for one of these bastard politicians again, you blood sucking low life leeches.
Deb,
Sorry about your friend. That is the reality of the policies that that politicians enact, their policies have consequences on real people.
Government has a job to do in society. I am amazed that 4 years after our economy was wrecked because of deregulation. People yell that we need government out of business. I do not think that enough was done to fix our financial corporate gamblers. And then you have this contamiated medicine damaging peoples lives.
Governence is an on going process. We have governments because we know that societies cannot function without them. This is not new, the people yelling for less government (except when it comes to women's health and defense spending) need to read a history book.
People who are against regulation either choose to net remember the pre regulation world, or weren't alive to experience the pre reg world.
Going through a tunnel into Pittsburgh, entering the tunnel from sunlight and exiting the tunnel to Pitt Prober and it being gray and dreary.
The time when the only guards on machinery were to prevent down time, that if a worker got sucked into the machines workings the Boss would have to shut down the machine and clean out the workers goo because the belts were slipping.
I was born in 1958 and I remember these things.
Food seems to have lost its flavor but thats because food doesn't have near the nasty funk growing on it as it use to have, before tighter regs.
Sure, get rid of the EPA, I'll go back to shooting used motor oil on poison ivy, why wouldn't I? There wouldn't be a law against it any longer. Why would I care if it ran off into the county drinking water reservoir? No law, nothing can be done.
Why should the Koch Boys be the only ones polluting the water table and reservoirs with their waste?
I don't like regulations, I don't like being told what to do and how to do it more than any other Guy or Gal, but having seen the pre regulation world I understand the point and purpose of regulations.
.
The Koch brothers are funding a house bill in OK to have an anonymous committee review Judicial findings. The timeing would be a brilliant business move since the pipeline will be coming through any time now- and they could influence court decisions in case of liability. The appointments to the committee would be "secret"-sort of like the Romney Ryan plans for the US and the huge military spending.Didn't Romeny raid the retirements in the Bain companies, and load them with debt, then pocket the $ after shipping jobs overseas? Sounds like the "secret" plans for the US are about the same thing. Loss Social Security & medicare, then give to the wealthy.
@Deb The sad news is that conservatives in Congress have created places like the compounding laboratories to be deliberately free of regulation so the hustlers who contribute to their campaign cam assemble and sell their snake oil like the old days before regulation -- it's all about freedom of choice, of course. Sorry to hear about your friend. He is a victim of conservative Congressional irresponsibility.
At least we know Biden watches the show.
Where ever there is not a lie with the Teabuggers, there is an extreme policy they are afraid to talk about. Let the last debate be under oath. Mitt would get laryngitis.
.
Seems to me Romney-Ryan want to prepare for land invasions and naval battles.
All the major players in this world have so much money and capitol RPIE (real property installed equipment, manufacturing equipment and such) invested in each other that for one country to invade another country the invaders would be cutting their own throat.
And I may be wrong here but I've heard that if every navy in the world collectively came after the U.S. Navy the U.S. Navy could at least hold their own.?
Then there is the Nuclear Option, as we take our last breath we turn the keys and the world ends. MAD was insane when I served in SAC 30 years ago, MAD is no more sane now. But then neither is world wars.
The Pentagon knows there isn't a need for a military build up, unless we start national wars the need will be for more in country intelligence and more concentrated and specialized forces to act o that intel.
No. I'm afraid the real reason for the massive buildup of the military proposed by Romney - Ryan is a manifest destiny of the Mormon to get his own planet and of world domination, and we've already fought a few wars to prevent that.
But I guess being the despot is OK when your Dictator. Right Righties?
.
The other reason is 'starve the beast' which the GOP has been doing since Raygun. Big military, wars, tax cuts, more wars, more tax cuts etc. Then put of the blue we can not afford Medicare, Medicaid, education and anything else that benefits the not so rich. Wikipedia has a nice article on this.
The LDS pyramid scheme has a lot to worry about. Unlike the 1800's, today their "lost civilization" simply has no place left to still be lost in. So yeah, the guys at the top of the pyramid are feeling the squeeze.
But the explanation of why the far right wants to build up the military AND treats our armed forces personnel like so much canon fodder (Boss Tweed, "You can always hire half of the poor to kill the other half.") may be more mundane than some mad world-domination scheme. Remember the military-industrial complex President Eisenhower warned of?
Oh Yeah RNOHB,
I was born in '58 and I first heard of the Mil Ind Comp at the end of the 60's, least thats the first time I remember hearing the phrase.
Didn't stop me from becoming a SAC Trained Killer because I believed and still believe in my country.
Rightie likes War, they point to WWII and the post war boom as proof that War is good for the country.
What they don't want anyone to realize is, if all those bombs and planes and guns and bullets and etc were produced and then dropped into the ocean, and if you sequester millions of people who are accumulating that amount of back pay, then dump them into the economy, then there would be another "post war" boom .... only without the war.
So spending billions and trillions in prep to killing then killing people is productive and good, but stimulus is non productive and bad ... if the disconnect from reality wasn't so tragic it would be funny.
.
Yes, I've read about Eisenhower's speech, unfortunately too many have forgotten and the end goal is FASCISM - government run by the corporation for the corporation - with WE as the minions! The military-industrial-complex is far too big and entrenched into our government. World domination - while we can "joke" about it, it is serious. Exactly why were we in Iraq? Phoney WMD's not with-standing, our military goes where they are told to go, and as it is now an "all volunteer" force, the rich & corporate know that they're children will not be going to any war, but they will be reaping the profits.
It may sound far-fetched, but with the current crop of anti-intellectual, short term vision, warmongering chickenshyts that are currently in and trying to get back into government - WE need to keep our eye on them, and run them out!!
And somewhere right now, a corporate "person" is saying: minions sounds so negative - we prefer the term "human resources". Also, they're renewable, which is very "green". The more you know... !
Get Enraged and Engaged:
Mooch the Vote 2012!
;-)
Chickenhawks unite! Send the 47% fleet into battle! It will fix the economy but good this time! We're going on a rocket ride! Yeehaw!
"Yeehaw"? Perhaps this explains why you think we persons of Native American lineage are humorless and anal when we don't laugh at your taking the Scott Brown privilege to smite our heritage. Being a "progressive" is not a pass. I believe it's worth one moment of considerate thought.
Or shall we dance?
...
Whatever betch.. I suggest Senna or you might try a Fleet enema, now in balsamic vinegar and cheesy potato flavor!
That's the first thought you were capable of?! holy @!$%#!! =D You poor bigot...
oh. you edit added. Who's Senna?
Lock: I suspect (though I could be wrong) that Trollop's 'yeehaw' was a 'Dr. Strangelove' reference. I also don't understand your interpretation that 'yeehaw' is a slur to Native Americans. But I grew up in a part of the country where there was seemingly very little NA presence or opposition, so I may have missed the cultural significance.
Thank you for the clarification Not Dave. But it was a previous post I observed a few weeks ago with a classic stereotypical racial denigration that I was referencing. If this commenter had mistakenly spoken, or was blind of it's harm, they could have made that apparent, then or now. Instead they buckled down.
After noticing that particular post thread, it has been festering in me for some time. I tried to accept it, to ignore it, to not call it out, but apparently I also have need to get it off my chest in order to let it go.
We need representatives who clean up their own mess. Romney doesn't do that, case in point...that little restaurant he did an interview in a long time ago, he left it more of a mess than when he got there. Bush did the same thing, the Republican Congress and Senate are doing the same thing, they have made a mess that they refuse to help clean up. They are only interested in buying more weapons without paying for the old ones first, spend, spend, spend. Noone likes it when they have a guest over and they leave a big mess behind for us to clean up, same thing. They are slobs they desecrate holy water, no respect. If they want to dress up and play adult then they should start acting like adults. They seem more interested in playing footsy in the hot tub, sipping martinis. And if you think women do a better job of cleaning things up, then you better start respecting them more. After all, it is usually the women who have to try and recreate heaven every single day of our lives. And it's not easy sometimes, especially when the little wild ones want to paint the kitchen with cottage cheese.
"More air wings" - full of F-35s that don't work, where the pilot's helmet system (which has all the control information on the inside of the faceplate) is 2 seconds delayed with Reality (which means a fatal mid-air collision waiting to happen)? More Naval air wings with the F-35C where they forgot to put the tail hook on the, you know, TAIL (where it's been placed for 90 years now???), so it can't actually land on an aircraft carrier?
Oh, I forgot, it's "more air wings" so Romney's CEO buddy at Lockheed-Martin can qualify for that billion dollar bonus on top of his $200 million annual salary. And all the Congresscritters who have a "piece of the action" in their district can crow about what "job savers" they are while qualifying for support from the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex Super PAC.
Silly me. Never mind!! (/snark)
#8: Chickenhawks unite! Send the 47% fleet into battle! It will fix the economy but good this time! We're going on a rocket ride! Yeehaw!
I remember that movie -- was in the Strategic Air Command at the time so we all knew it could so easily be true . . . Well, maybe now?
Let's hope not. Vote properly, friends . . .
Speaking of wise security spending. We should take Joe Biden's lead from the debate and stand up for the Democrats strength on national security and foreign-policy, especially on the Benghazi tragedy. What's worse? An administration immediately engaged in carrying out a thorough investigation so we know all the facts to adjust the mission accordingly and bring justice to those responsible. Or, Republicans attacking this administration before the facts are in, while ignoring the facts we already know, that Republicans cut $300 million from embassy security against the president's request for more. What's worse? A president whose first statement after the Benghazi tragedy called it an “act of terror” while some administration officials had to correct their original statements that the attack grew out of a protest. Or, a presidential candidate whose first statements attacked our President and embassy officials on the front lines for sympathizing with the terrorists and are still to this day, using this baseless attack.
Just don't ever be fooled by the republicans/corporations...money, greed, and power are their three holy entities...We all know there is a genuine attempt by the corporations/wealthy/God whisperers to force their agenda upon the rest of the country...the implications are too severe to even contemplate...and it looks as though the rest of the world is in the gunsights of the extremists as well. No wonder...Mitt/Ryan don't have a real grasp of world politics hence they can't talk about foreign policy in a meaningful way.
Do we remember how well Haliburton did as a result of the Iraq war? I wonder if Bain stands to benefit from defense spending if Romney is elected and the defense budget is increased?
He has said in the past he wants our military to be such that no one would even dare think of screwing with us. Well, in so many words.
Also, on mittromney.com, I think under military, it lays out that he wants to spend 4% of GDP on military including building 100 ships and 3 submarines. That percentage comes out to about $2 trillion bucks.
Ryan, again, is lyin'. Oh, how will they pay for it? The website mentions cutting staff that's not needed because supposedly Obama greatly expanded the defense department and we don't need all those people working there.
I read this earlier this week on the Romney website. Unless something has drastically changed....
Nope, the website has all the same info as last month.
In a nutshell, build more weaponry, planes and ships. Threaten Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, China, Russia, maybe send forces into South America or Africa or Iraq (again). Also, build a nuclear defense shield.
Remember this is more stuff than the Joint Chiefs of Staff ever asked for. And while Romney views climate change as something of a joke, the JCS see it as a national security risk.
Au contraire, the mittromney.com website provides many insights as to the whys and wheres of his defense spending.
Remember, Romney wants to spend more than the Joint Chiefs of Staff have asked for.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/05/barack-obama/obama-says-romney-would-spend-2-trilllion-military/
Not only that, but while Romney views climate change as something of a joke, the JCS view it as a national security risk.
http://osintdaily.blogspot.com/2012/09/joint-chiefs-of-staff-disagree-with.html
Romney's idea of building up the fleet, to outmatch the Afghan Navy, sounds so serious when we would have to import those gigantic wheels from China. (Attachable paddles extra.)
It should be possible to discuss these things, but I would want those ideas to go beyond those that are politically correct.
So put on your neo-con tin foil hat, or get one of those reflector lights from the hardware store, remove the light bulb, so that no light shines there either. (They make those in China too.)
If we occupy the 'military high ground' in Afghanistan, with luck we could use those wheeled ships, to ferry troops to Iran, and carry enough radiation shielding to protect our fighting land sailors.
This assuming that Iran gains nuclear importance, as well known commentator with initials TB articulates. I always assume that Iran gets the bomb in one of three ways; makes them, borrows from Pakistan's, or has the Afghan Navy deliver one from North Korea. (I could be more ridiculous, but you get the point about an Iran surprise?)
If Iran gets the bomb, so what, I say so because TB et al, have to look beyond to the 'consequences'. Yes there will be political posturing, yawn, but what deep in the marsh reeds, do we find at stake?
Ultimately it seems to me, all BS aside, that the Oil in the Middle East remains the driving force. Just to point out that it is the world economy that is being held hostage by Oil. Not to mention that the world financial system depends on revenues from Oil. Did I mention that all the worlds' factories, products, and lots and lots of transportation requires lots of Oil. Always remember, that we have built a highway system that has provided a huge demand for Oil, and along the roadside many, many places requiring an automobile. Remember before or after the election Oil. Oil.
The point is that there are two ways to solve this 'defense of oil problem'. First we have, at length, ramped up the Military Option, made a necessity of having troops in Afghanistan, of needing huge expenditures against the contrary ideas of Iran et al, of having a naval fleet capable of supporting air superiority over half a planet. These are all currently 'reasonable' military policies. (At no cost to anyone?)
Supporting this 'reasoning', not much, is 'the possibility' of 'the possibility' of not quite ever connecting actions with consequences. You have very likely heard about actions, but as rare as moss covering a rolling stone heard about consequence's (economic collapse 2008), but as far as news goes the 'news' cannot seriously predict 'consequences'. Consequences are perceived as being documented after the fact, consequences are not palatable before the fact, soothsayer's aside, the problem is that consequences in advance are easily dismissed as 'speculations', and open to all kinds of error. It is either a problem causes during child development, or the poor power of the English Language to describe things that haven't happened. Child development uses parents to warn of 'consequences'. Pushing the language to describe new things, in new ways, creative language aside, is as demonstrably difficult as it is to read my sentences (itisincode).
Example: The reaction to Iran using nuclear bombs on Israel would have consequences! Iran turned into porcelain, being one possibility. The secondary consequences become more difficult to define, but the major nuclear powers of the world will want this to stop (late? but then). The Middle East Oil, is defended by the full faith and currency of the USA, whose offensive efforts will be conventional, due to MAD principles, taking those conventional arms up against, oh say everyone who bows to the holy land, is a self-problematically dependency on Oil. Now faced with an enemy armed only with fists full of sand, cartable stones and dull knives the USA will, maybe, see its choices as being limited as the Oil supply becomes unavailable.
Untried: Second way to solve this 'defense of oil problem'. The alternative is to slowly turn away from building more and more things that depended on foreign oil and things that demand oil from local sources. And the Oil Companies policy, 'profits buy everything else foreign and domestic' with or without venture capitalists leveraged buyouts has to go. This unfortunately means investment in America, but not necessarily by Americans, who cannot make this choice without help. Enter the Saudi American Investment Development to Save Oil (SAIDSO). This project will loan money only if it reduces Oil dependency and domestic energy waste. Highways needing snow removal will designed to capture the Sun, homes needing winter heat or summer cooling with have passive architectures, with active equipment potential. Louvered roof tops, positioned white by day to deflect heat, black by night to radiate heat, alternative black by day to absorb heat, white by night to conserve heat, solar, weather allowing. These investments should be locally produced, using local materials, local designs and provide local jobs, in planning, on logistics, in design, in manufacturing, in installation, in maintenance, in repair. Why would Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Oil states want this investment? Perhaps because it is a positive alternative to living in underground in a bunkered state, surrounded by American fleets, and literally God forbid having boots on the ground.
But if you like your current millionaire or favorite billionaire oppose this idea at all costs, it would not be nice to fire your own private billionaire, even if you felt that they were just not working out. (Marketing Idea, make plush stuffed toys of billionaires, like create a bear.)
So the Afghan Navy is not looking so bad after all!
What about a handshake have you tried that ...cut to scene, hands shaking, the angelic choir sings...You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you get what you need. Hats off!
GOP's lazy secondary strategy to create jobs: An obese military. War.
Their daddy got rich by getting four f-ed and then working for defense contractors during WWII. They themselves got defererals from Nam then protested against the anti-war crowd so they could become the ideal republican. Well some of them got into guard units that never got activated.
Heck fire they want this State to give reservists that were never activated Veteran status stamped on their drivers license. Republicans are sumpin'
One of the biggest truths missing from any discussion on defense speding is what "defense spending" really means. It means huge contracts to the defense contractors for weapons systems that the military doesn't want or need. It means politicians taking care of their buds. I am retired and have worked with the military for fifty years and I can tell you unequivocably that increases in defense spending never means increases in personnel or their salaries. It means hardware. The more the contractors can sell the happier they are. So they line the pockes of the politicians who sell fear and hatred to get us to spend more money. The cold war is over, alliances have kept the peace in Europe, China and Japan for the last 60 years. Any "wars" will be wars of choice. We don't need welfare for the major defense contractors.