A question for Republicans that I've had for a long time

[Jludo]

I'm saying I don't think you have a clue about where the military budget goes, what goes into determining the force structure, or what effects various geopolitical machinations have on preparations for the security of this country. You appear to be spouting talking points from anti-military sources.

My talking points are from Eisenhower, Smedley Butler, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson etc. It's not anti military to say we could survive only spending 3x as much as the next guy or to suggest we can probably survive with only 6 super carriers.
Also don't pretend like you're talking about defending the US mainland, that could be done with a 400 billion dollar budget. You're talking about maintaining global military hegemony. Don't conflate the two.

 

[jamil]

My talking points are from Eisenhower, Smedley Butler, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson etc. It's not anti military to say we could survive only spending 3x as much as the next guy or to suggest we can probably survive with only 6 super carriers.
Also don't pretend like you're talking about defending the US mainland, that could be done with a 400 billion dollar budget. You're talking about maintaining global military hegemony. Don't conflate the two.

We don't need to be 200 times more powerful than anyone else. 100 times will do.

 

[Johnny C]

Not starting anything and its a good question. I tend to think republican, but am a Democrat in name only.

"

Lots of RINO'Saround, but you dont see a DINO very often!

 

[CarmelHP]

Fact is our military budget is bloated and run by the military industrial complex. At least in the past there were other super powers to point to as justification, today none such exist and we could maintain global hegemony with a 500 billion dollar a year military budget.

Could you please post your budget, I'd like to see the line items to see where you came up with this figure. Thanks.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Someone upthread mentioned that he disagreed with my theory that politicians are in it for the power and outlined his reasoning. My point was that in any society where officials are not paid, it becomes accepted that they will earn their living through graft. It was true with tax collectors in the Roman times and its true in various asian nations today. If we really want to reign in government, perhaps we should only allow the amount of government that politicians are willing to pay for out of their own pockets - not ours.

 

[jamil]

Someone upthread mentioned that he disagreed with my theory that politicians are in it for the power and outlined his reasoning. My point was that in any society where officials are not paid, it becomes accepted that they will earn their living through graft. It was true with tax collectors in the Roman times and its true in various asian nations today. If we really want to reign in government, perhaps we should only allow the amount of government that politicians are willing to pay for out of their own pockets - not ours.

That people are in it for the power seems too much a truism even to argue.

 

[Leo]

For the record, Germany did have it's eyes on England as demonstrated by multiple bombing raids on civilian residential areas. I grew up with an English survivor of those times. The reason the nazi's did not get to England is because the Brit's and the Americans were putting up a strong defense.

 

[CarmelHP]

For the record, Germany did have it's eyes on England as demonstrated by multiple bombing raids on civilian residential areas. I grew up with an English survivor of those times. The reason the nazi's did not get to England is because the Brit's and the Americans were putting up a strong defense.

Operation Sea Lion was shelved before the U.S. entered the war. The Battle of Britain was meant to completely destroy the British air defense, which was never sufficiently achieved to satisfy the German war planners.

 

[churchmouse]

Operation Sea Lion was shelved before the U.S. entered the war. The Battle of Britain was meant to completely destroy the British air defense, which was never sufficiently achieved to satisfy the German war planners.

Those air battles were epic. The German fighters were limited as to time spent on target due to fuel consumption at full military power. The Brits had home field advantage/radar and fighting for mother England.
They also had the Spitfire.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Those air battles were epic. The German fighters were limited as to time spent on target due to fuel consumption at full military power. The Brits had home field advantage/radar and fighting for mother England.
They also had the Spitfire.

AND their war production finally started to catch up with their aircraft losses. IIRC, once it became evident that the British were replacing their losses faster than the Germans, it finally became evident to the Germans that they were not going to have the air superiority necessary to sustain an invasion. Contrast that to the overwhelming air supremacy amassed by the Allies when they invaded at Normandy four years later.

 

[copperhead-1911]

Lots of RINO'Saround, but you dont see a DINO very often!

LOL

I hear that often. Sadly there are not moderate or conservative democrats in the senate anymore. They have all shown themselves to be obamanites.

I actually probably make Jeff Sessions ( R-AL) look conservative

 

[MisterChester]

Lots of RINO'Saround, but you dont see a DINO very often!

They have already been voted out in recent years, or they have been walking on egg shells and avoiding a lot of national democratic issues. You'll find these people mostly in the south, where state dem parties are comparable to northern GOP parties.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Lots of RINO'Saround, but you dont see a DINO very often!

How's that?

 

[copperhead-1911]

How's that?

Notice the DINO eats meat. Most of us also drink beer, like guns and carry them, SPeak English and all the other stuff that made America a great nation

 

[Cerberus]

Once we have trimmed the unconstitutional social programs down to the single digit percetages in the budget, then by all means feel free to trim the constitutional mandated military spending that is already in the single digit. For a nation of our size we have one of the smallest percentages of citizens serving in it's armed forces.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Once we have trimmed the unconstitutional social programs down to the single digit percetages in the budget, then by all means feel free to trim the constitutional mandated military spending that is already in the single digit. For a nation of our size we have one of the smallest percentages of citizens serving in it's armed forces.

Not sure if srs????

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Not sure if srs????

What is the percentage of the budget spent on the military? Do you know what it is?

 

[Kutnupe14]

What is the percentage of the budget spent on the military? Do you know what it is?

I figured a "general" idea of the % was well known. Typically, at it's absolute lowest 15-16%, and at it's highest just shy of 25% (as far as modern expendatures go). 2012 was 19%. It's estimated to be at 23% by years end.

 

[Jludo]

I figured a "general" idea of the % was well known. Typically, at it's absolute lowest 15-16%, and at it's highest just shy of 25% (as far as modern expendatures go). 2012 was 19%. It's estimated to be at 23% by years end.

Ya, 23%, single digits, duh ...

 

[halfmileharry]

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_budget_2012_3.html

I couldn't get this to paste out so here's a link I found interesting.