Romney's Proposed Defense Budget ...
 

... Demonstrates the GOP's fealty to the Military/Industrial Complex. For those who somehow believe that the GOP party is the party of fiscal discipline, check out his proposed increased Defense spending (over and above war spending).

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/op...-pentagon.html

Isn't the difference in the parties simply where they wish to (over)spend the public's money, not that one is fiscally disciplined and the other not? Neither are fiscally disciplined, but maybe the GOP is even worse because they don't want to even pay for their such spending (with anything other than fairy dust).

In effect, Romney wants to borrow more money from China to build up our military so we can protect ourselves from an ever-stronger China. Feckin' brilliant.:confused: As someone who worked in the belly of the DoD beast for 20 years, I feel they waste money like no other agency, both in relative and absolute terms.

The craziest part is linking the defense budget to GDP. Totally arbitrary and totally unrelated to actual defense needs.

I'm becoming more and more concerned that the state of the economy (plus a dollop of ballot tampering) will hand the election to the Three Evil Rs, Romney, Ryan and Republicans. If that happens this country may well be finished.

John

Finn - referring to the article, Romney stated he would not pay for the spending with additional borrowing. You have posted on numerous occasions about gross inefficiencies with the DOD. If those wasted dollars can be redirected to properly equip and resupply the military, so much the better. There are any number of folks on both sides of the aisle who have observed that the military preparedness has declined since the latter part of the last decade. Sounds like a reasonable proposal to fix some issue sat the DOD while also addressing preparedness.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a1...romneyryan.jpg

:D

Money is fungible and Romney can't make an argument that he's going to take the money from a non-borrowed pot rather than a borrowed pot. As long as the country is running a deficit, the Defense budget is part of that deficit.

Military preparedness has declined by virtue of two wars going on for a decade. We're done with one and will soon be done with the other. This budgetary increase isn't about preparedness, it's about buying expensive weapons systems we don't need (and the Pentagon doesn't even want).

Awwww. How cute and touching, R & R are having a bonding moment....playing Etch a Sketch in their skivvies. Ain't they precious?:rolleyes:

Yep.

Preparedness for what? I see the potential for conflict on the horizon, but it shouldn't be anything we cannot handle at current levels.

Here's a question for you; Is the problem "equipment" or or policies that hinder our military from being more efficient and fully effective?

I vote for the second option.

Anyone who has witnessed the military procurement system in action knows precisely what I am talking about.

Dave

Their cosy cost-plus contracts are a big part of the problem and a penchant for unnecessary bleeding edge technology, sometimes against imaginary foes (B-2, F-22, F-35, Coast Guard Deepwater program, Marine Osprey aircraft, Star Wars ....) have led to a host of crazy expensive weapons systems too unreliable/dangerous for deployment. DoD pisses more money in minutes than the GAO did in the much bally-hoed Vegas conference.

Moreover, we go in so heavy (in terms of infrastructure & support) that troop deployments in places like Afghanistan cost us $1 million/soldier/year (Iraq was ~$750K/soldier/year). Put in several hundred thousand troops in each place for a decade, and pretty soon you're talking about real money. You piss away your resources like this and then bitch about "preparedness?"

Romney promising 4% per year GDP for Defense is nothing but a sloppy, wet kiss to ensure support from the MIC. DoD (and its willing contractors) are fully able of spending unlimited funds without breaking a sweat (and not delivering the goods, be it a "victory" (whatever that means) or a plane that reliably flies or can be used in the rain).

Here's a somewhat dated WSJ article (it's worse now) that reinforces and illuminates these points:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124787043032160493.html

How do you think the GOP to this degree of malfeasance at a government agency providing social services? None come even close, BTW.

Some smart person once said that the use of the military as a tool of diplomacy was counter-productive besides being counter-intuitive.:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunny_Greenhouse

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/2..._receives_970k