Republicans abandon interest in defence

[Argus]

It used to be you could rely on the Republicans, if for nothing else, to be big defenders of the military. No more. Now only taxes matter, and cutting them as far as possible. If that means slashing defense spending to the bone and endangering security, well, so be it. Mothball the warships, truck the fighter out to the desert and shut down those army bases. Perhaps one day they'll simply outsource the military's job to India or China. Think of how much money that might save the Kochs and Waltons!

[Bonam]

It is the nature of political parties to be more interested in the welfare of the party than the nation. That is the danger of having parties hold so much power, as they do in the US.

[TimG]

No more. Now only taxes matter, and cutting them as far as possible. If that means slashing defense spending to the bone and endangering security, well, so be it.

Why so one sided with your criticism? When have democrats shown any willingness to do something about the unsustainable entitlement programs? All they want to do is raise taxes. I was absolutely disgusted when I heard Obama whining about how 5% cut to federal budget would kill jobs because it would reduce the profits companies make - as if raising taxes does not have exactly the same effect.

The fact that the Republicans were willing to sacrifice one of their own sacred cows in order to get a modest reduction in spending shows that in this debate the Republicans are the only party that understands the problem and are willing to do something about it.

Edited March 2, 2013 by TimG

[Wilber]

It is the nature of political parties to be more interested in the welfare of the party than the nation. That is the danger of having parties hold so much power, as they do in the US.

As opposed to to Canada where one party holds all the power?

[The_Squid]

If the Americans cut their military to reasonable levels there would be more than enough money in the budget to cover everything else.

http://armscontrolcenter.org/issues/securityspending/articles/fy09_dod_request_global/

[ReeferMadness]

Why so one sided with your criticism? When have democrats shown any willingness to do something about the unsustainable entitlement programs? All they want to do is raise taxes. I was absolutely disgusted when I heard Obama whining about how 5% cut to federal budget would kill jobs because it would reduce the profits companies make - as if raising taxes does not have exactly the same effect.

The fact that the Republicans were willing to sacrifice one of their own sacred cows in order to get a modest reduction in spending shows that in this debate the Republicans are the only party that understands the problem and are willing to do something about it.

Your post assumes much. "unsustainable entitlement program"? What is that exactly? Forget about money for a moment - it's an abstraction. Focus on reality.

If the US is finally able to move forward from its obsession with building machines that kill people,that would be a good thing. I'm still skeptical, though.

[TimG]

Your post assumes much. "unsustainable entitlement program"? What is that exactly? Forget about money for a moment - it's an abstraction. Focus on reality.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323485704578257753243530078.htm

Government spending levels are unsustainable. Higher taxes, however advisable or not, fail to come close to solving the problem. Discretionary spending must be reduced but without harming the safety net for our most vulnerable, or sacrificing future growth (e.g., research and education). Defense and homeland security spending should not be immune to reductions. Most consequentially, the growth in spending on entitlement programs—Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare—must be curbed.

Anyone who denies the bolded points is part of the problem and unfortunately most democrats are part of the problem. The republicans should be lauded that they were willing to let one of their sacred cows take part of the pain but the 5% cut really nothing. Edited March 2, 2013 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

...If the US is finally able to move forward from its obsession with building machines that kill people,that would be a good thing. I'm still skeptical, though.

Machines don't kill people....people kill people.

[waldo]

The fact that the Republicans were willing to sacrifice one of their own sacred cows in order to get a modest reduction in spending shows that in this debate the Republicans are the only party that understands the problem and are willing to do something about it.

The republicans should be lauded that they were willing to let one of their sacred cows take part of the pain but the 5% cut really nothing.

who are you kidding, other than yourself? The only reason the Republicans have gone along with sequestration (with a/the emphasis on U.S. defense spending) is that they're all afraid of being 'primaried' by an alternate TeePartee candidate. Apparently, you don't follow U.S. politics, hey?

[Bonam]

As opposed to to Canada where one party holds all the power?

I didn't make any comparison with Canada, but if you would like one to be made, I would say that the parties in Canada hold less power than the two parties do in the US in some ways. American parties are deeply entrenched and have a stranglehold on media debate, and they exist as a unified body on all levels of government from local to state to federal. Canadian parties on the other hand are much less entrenched, we have had many major parties rise and fall over the last several decades, their hold on the media is less solid, with third, fourth, and fifth parties gaining access to publicized national debates.

In Canada, a party like the Liberals or the PCs can be all but destroyed in a single election, as we have seen, with new ones rising to take their place, bringing forth a new mixture of ideas and ideologies. This is in deep contrast with the current state of American politics.

Edited March 3, 2013 by Bonam

[Guest Derek L]

It used to be you could rely on the Republicans, if for nothing else, to be big defenders of the military. No more. Now only taxes matter, and cutting them as far as possible. If that means slashing defense spending to the bone and endangering security, well, so be it. Mothball the warships, truck the fighter out to the desert and shut down those army bases. Perhaps one day they'll simply outsource the military's job to India or China. Think of how much money that might save the Kochs and Waltons!

The Americans should take a scythe to the number of bases they have……….Every single State, sans Rhode Island and New Hampshire, have at least one Army base/post/depot/training center (and this doesn’t include National Guard armouries) in it……….nearly 2/3rds of States have air force bases/posts/training centers etc within them…….The Navy at least one in nearly every coastal state, sans Oregon and Alaska, and even some bases in landlocked States……….Well the always thrifty Marines are limited to (IIRC) six states and DC……….Many of these training centers and logistics hubs could be reduced and/or combined with the differing services to find efficiencies……Couple this with retiring (and cancelling the Minuteman IIII) the entire land based ICBM component of the United States nuclear deterrent and said DoD cuts would have a invariable effect on National Security……..

Edited March 3, 2013 by Derek L

[ReeferMadness]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323485704578257753243530078.htmAnyone who denies the bolded points is part of the problem and unfortunately most democrats are part of the problem. The republicans should be lauded that they were willing to let one of their sacred cows take part of the pain but the 5% cut really nothing.

Nice link (page unavailable).

"the" problem? There's only one and you know what it is? How fortunate for all of us. Please enlighten us.

[ReeferMadness]

Machines don't kill people....people kill people.

Yes, they sure do. Too bad they don't kill the people who deserve it.

[Moonlight Graham]

The US needs to cut its debt/deficit. This is going to slow the economy almost undoubtedly, because the gov simply wont be spending as much money (that they don't have). But it's necessary. Growth in the US, Canada, and other Western nations has been in large part based on debt spending by both governments and individuals increasingly over the last 30 years or more. So we're living in a fantasy world, spending money nobody has, which on day must be paid back and sh*t hitting the fan. If people and governments mainly just spend what they actually have (ie: balance their budgets w/o big debt) this will mean less spending, less consumption, and a slower economy.

I'm surprised the GOP (and Democrats, let's face it) let such a deal go by that slashes Pentagon and other military spending so much.

[Guest American Woman]

If the US is finally able to move forward from its obsession with building machines that kill people,that would be a good thing. I'm still skeptical, though.

Those machines defend people.

[eyeball]

They also offend people and perpetuate hate.

[Guest American Woman]

A lot of things offend a lot of people and a lot of people hate for all sorts of reasons.

[eyeball]

The reasoning behind the offending is pretty hateful alright.

[eyeball]

In any case it's good to see there'll be less money available for it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, they sure do. Too bad they don't kill the people who deserve it.

Fortunately, the U.S. doesn't depend on Canadians to determine who "deserves it", like another member here who suggested that about 9/11 victims.

[bush_cheney2004]

The reasoning behind the offending is pretty hateful alright.

Perfectly legal in the U.S., where there is no hate speech law nonsense.

Edited March 3, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

It's legal to prop up murderous dictatorships - there's actually legislation enabling that?

[bush_cheney2004]

It's legal to prop up murderous dictatorships - there's actually legislation enabling that?

No, but there is funding. The U.S. sells war materials to Canada all the time. Canada uses these materials to "hate" and "kill" people.

[Argus]

Why so one sided with your criticism? When have democrats shown any willingness to do something about the unsustainable entitlement programs?

Lets leave aside the nonsense about them being 'unsustainable' which is nothing more than propaganda. The Democrats have always supported social welfare programs. The Republicans have always supported a strong military. The Democrats continue to support social welfare programs. The Republicans have abandoned their support for a strong military. Why? The Republican base still believes in a strong military. But the Republican leadership doesnt' care about the base. It cares about money from its benefactors. And its benefactors care about nothing BUT money.

[Argus]

If the Americans cut their military to reasonable levels there would be more than enough money in the budget to cover everything else.

http://armscontrolcenter.org/issues/securityspending/articles/fy09_dod_request_global/

What these sorts of comparisons tend to ignore is that a Chinese soldier earns about $100 a month. Likewise, benefits are awfully cheap over there. So the cost of an American (or Canadian or British or French) soldier is about twenty to thirty times the cost of a soldier in some of these other military organizations. Direct money comparisons are thus irrelevant and pointless.