Sense of something wrong

[Anonymous]

“it is unfair to saddle Obama with the carryover from the congress and administration which preceded him.”

Uh… Obama was in the Congress that preceded his presidency, and was in the majority at that. It is entirely appropriate to saddle Obama with the massive debt/spending that Bush signed into law, since Obama… VOTED for it.

[Anonymous]

[quote=AN]We’re spending less on defense than we have ever been. Why are we only having a deficit problem now?[/quote]

Your link uses the statistic most often used to argue that military spending is not high: spending to GDP ratio.

As a percentage of GDP, military spending is actually low by historical standards.

The amount of spending compared to GDP is interesting, but it doesn’t tell us how much is the “right” amount to spend. It is true that the relative number today is less than half of what was in the 1960s, but how do we know we weren’t spending way to much in 1961 also?

Our military need only be large enough to defeat any enemies. A very basic, but effective, measure of military strength is military spending. Using that measure, we are now prepared to fight every other nation in the world at the same time. This is absurd, especially when we consider that many of the next largest military forces are our closest allies.

http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1467

Finally, this Department’s approach to requirements must change. Before making claims of requirements not being met or alleged “gaps” – in ships, tactical fighters, personnel, or anything else – we need to evaluate the criteria upon which requirements are based and the wider real world context. For example, should we really be up in arms over a temporary projected shortfall of about 100 Navy and Marine strike fighters relative to the number of carrier wings, when America’s military possesses more than 3,200 tactical combat aircraft of all kinds? Does the number of warships we have and are building really put America at risk when the U.S. battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies combined, 11 of which belong to allies and partners? Is it a dire threat that by 2020 the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China? – Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates

We don’t go to war with ourselves, so comparing our military spending to our own GDP is an almost nonsensical measure.

We only need to have superior force against any possible enemy. The possibility of invasion from any country (yes, even China) is zero. One of our most capable enemies, Iran, has a military budget 1/35 the size of ours, most of which goes toward dated, inferior equipment.

Another reason for the numbers in your link is that we are spending much more on other discretionary programs. After defense, the biggest categories are: Health and Human Services ($84 billion), Transportation ($76 billion), Education ($46.8 billion), Housing and Urban Development ($43.6 billion) and Agriculture ($25 billion). The total of all of these combined is only about 2/3 the defense budget. There are certainly opportunities to cut out fat in these areas, but is mathematically impossible to balance the budget without massive cuts in defense.

[Anonymous]

[quote=AN]We’re spending less on defense than we have ever been. Why are we only having a deficit problem now?[/quote]

Your link uses the statistic most often used to argue that military spending is not high: spending to GDP ratio.

As a percentage of GDP, military spending is actually low by historical standards.

The amount of spending compared to GDP is interesting, but it doesn’t tell us how much is the “right” amount to spend. It is true that the relative number today is less than half of what was in the 1960s, but how do we know we weren’t spending way to much in 1961 also?

Our military need only be large enough to defeat any enemies. A very basic, but effective, measure of military strength is military spending. Using that measure, we are now prepared to fight every other nation in the world at the same time. This is absurd, especially when we consider that many of the next largest military forces are our closest allies.

http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1467

Finally, this Department’s approach to requirements must change. Before making claims of requirements not being met or alleged “gaps” – in ships, tactical fighters, personnel, or anything else – we need to evaluate the criteria upon which requirements are based and the wider real world context. For example, should we really be up in arms over a temporary projected shortfall of about 100 Navy and Marine strike fighters relative to the number of carrier wings, when America’s military possesses more than 3,200 tactical combat aircraft of all kinds? Does the number of warships we have and are building really put America at risk when the U.S. battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies combined, 11 of which belong to allies and partners? Is it a dire threat that by 2020 the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China? – Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates

We don’t go to war with ourselves, so comparing our military spending to our own GDP is an almost nonsensical measure.

We only need to have superior force against any possible enemy. The possibility of invasion from any country (yes, even China) is zero. One of our most capable enemies, Iran, has a military budget 1/35 the size of ours, most of which goes toward dated, inferior equipment.

Another reason for the numbers in your link is that we are spending much more on other discretionary programs. After defense, the biggest categories are: Health and Human Services ($84 billion), Transportation ($76 billion), Education ($46.8 billion), Housing and Urban Development ($43.6 billion) and Agriculture ($25 billion). The total of all of these combined is only about 2/3 the defense budget. There are certainly opportunities to cut out fat in these areas, but is mathematically impossible to balance the budget without massive cuts in defense.

[Anonymous]

[quote=AN]We’re spending less on defense than we have ever been. Why are we only having a deficit problem now?[/quote]

Your link uses the statistic most often used to argue that military spending is not high: spending to GDP ratio.

As a percentage of GDP, military spending is actually low by historical standards.

The amount of spending compared to GDP is interesting, but it doesn’t tell us how much is the “right” amount to spend. It is true that the relative number today is less than half of what was in the 1960s, but how do we know we weren’t spending way to much in 1961 also?

Our military need only be large enough to defeat any enemies. A very basic, but effective, measure of military strength is military spending. Using that measure, we are now prepared to fight every other nation in the world at the same time. This is absurd, especially when we consider that many of the next largest military forces are our closest allies.

http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1467

Finally, this Department’s approach to requirements must change. Before making claims of requirements not being met or alleged “gaps” – in ships, tactical fighters, personnel, or anything else – we need to evaluate the criteria upon which requirements are based and the wider real world context. For example, should we really be up in arms over a temporary projected shortfall of about 100 Navy and Marine strike fighters relative to the number of carrier wings, when America’s military possesses more than 3,200 tactical combat aircraft of all kinds? Does the number of warships we have and are building really put America at risk when the U.S. battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies combined, 11 of which belong to allies and partners? Is it a dire threat that by 2020 the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China? – Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates

We don’t go to war with ourselves, so comparing our military spending to our own GDP is an almost nonsensical measure.

We only need to have superior force against any possible enemy. The possibility of invasion from any country (yes, even China) is zero. One of our most capable enemies, Iran, has a military budget 1/35 the size of ours, most of which goes toward dated, inferior equipment.

Another reason for the numbers in your link is that we are spending much more on other discretionary programs. After defense, the biggest categories are: Health and Human Services ($84 billion), Transportation ($76 billion), Education ($46.8 billion), Housing and Urban Development ($43.6 billion) and Agriculture ($25 billion). The total of all of these combined is only about 2/3 the defense budget. There are certainly opportunities to cut out fat in these areas, but is mathematically impossible to balance the budget without massive cuts in defense.

[Anonymous]

[quote=AN]We’re spending less on defense than we have ever been. Why are we only having a deficit problem now?[/quote]

Your link uses the statistic most often used to argue that military spending is not high: spending to GDP ratio.

As a percentage of GDP, military spending is actually low by historical standards.

The amount of spending compared to GDP is interesting, but it doesn’t tell us how much is the “right” amount to spend. It is true that the relative number today is less than half of what was in the 1960s, but how do we know we weren’t spending way to much in 1961 also?

Our military need only be large enough to defeat any enemies. A very basic, but effective, measure of military strength is military spending. Using that measure, we are now prepared to fight every other nation in the world at the same time. This is absurd, especially when we consider that many of the next largest military forces are our closest allies.

http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1467

Finally, this Department’s approach to requirements must change. Before making claims of requirements not being met or alleged “gaps” – in ships, tactical fighters, personnel, or anything else – we need to evaluate the criteria upon which requirements are based and the wider real world context. For example, should we really be up in arms over a temporary projected shortfall of about 100 Navy and Marine strike fighters relative to the number of carrier wings, when America’s military possesses more than 3,200 tactical combat aircraft of all kinds? Does the number of warships we have and are building really put America at risk when the U.S. battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies combined, 11 of which belong to allies and partners? Is it a dire threat that by 2020 the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China? – Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates

We don’t go to war with ourselves, so comparing our military spending to our own GDP is an almost nonsensical measure.

We only need to have superior force against any possible enemy. The possibility of invasion from any country (yes, even China) is zero. One of our most capable enemies, Iran, has a military budget 1/35 the size of ours, most of which goes toward dated, inferior equipment.

Another reason for the numbers in your link is that we are spending much more on other discretionary programs. After defense, the biggest categories are: Health and Human Services ($84 billion), Transportation ($76 billion), Education ($46.8 billion), Housing and Urban Development ($43.6 billion) and Agriculture ($25 billion). The total of all of these combined is only about 2/3 the defense budget. There are certainly opportunities to cut out fat in these areas, but is mathematically impossible to balance the budget without massive cuts in defense.

[Anonymous]

[quote=AN]We’re spending less on defense than we have ever been. Why are we only having a deficit problem now?[/quote]

Your link uses the statistic most often used to argue that military spending is not high: spending to GDP ratio.

As a percentage of GDP, military spending is actually low by historical standards.

The amount of spending compared to GDP is interesting, but it doesn’t tell us how much is the “right” amount to spend. It is true that the relative number today is less than half of what was in the 1960s, but how do we know we weren’t spending way to much in 1961 also?

Our military need only be large enough to defeat any enemies. A very basic, but effective, measure of military strength is military spending. Using that measure, we are now prepared to fight every other nation in the world at the same time. This is absurd, especially when we consider that many of the next largest military forces are our closest allies.

http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1467

Finally, this Department’s approach to requirements must change. Before making claims of requirements not being met or alleged “gaps” – in ships, tactical fighters, personnel, or anything else – we need to evaluate the criteria upon which requirements are based and the wider real world context. For example, should we really be up in arms over a temporary projected shortfall of about 100 Navy and Marine strike fighters relative to the number of carrier wings, when America’s military possesses more than 3,200 tactical combat aircraft of all kinds? Does the number of warships we have and are building really put America at risk when the U.S. battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies combined, 11 of which belong to allies and partners? Is it a dire threat that by 2020 the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China? – Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates

We don’t go to war with ourselves, so comparing our military spending to our own GDP is an almost nonsensical measure.

We only need to have superior force against any possible enemy. The possibility of invasion from any country (yes, even China) is zero. One of our most capable enemies, Iran, has a military budget 1/35 the size of ours, most of which goes toward dated, inferior equipment.

Another reason for the numbers in your link is that we are spending much more on other discretionary programs. After defense, the biggest categories are: Health and Human Services ($84 billion), Transportation ($76 billion), Education ($46.8 billion), Housing and Urban Development ($43.6 billion) and Agriculture ($25 billion). The total of all of these combined is only about 2/3 the defense budget. There are certainly opportunities to cut out fat in these areas, but is mathematically impossible to balance the budget without massive cuts in defense.

[an]

pri_dk, again, if you think the cause of the deficit is defense spending, why do we have a deficit problem now, when defense spending is at a historical low?

I’m not debating whether we’re spending too much or too little compare to other country. I’m debating whether we should blame the deficit problem on defense spending.

[an]

pri_dk, again, if you think the cause of the deficit is defense spending, why do we have a deficit problem now, when defense spending is at a historical low?

I’m not debating whether we’re spending too much or too little compare to other country. I’m debating whether we should blame the deficit problem on defense spending.

[an]

pri_dk, again, if you think the cause of the deficit is defense spending, why do we have a deficit problem now, when defense spending is at a historical low?

I’m not debating whether we’re spending too much or too little compare to other country. I’m debating whether we should blame the deficit problem on defense spending.

[an]

pri_dk, again, if you think the cause of the deficit is defense spending, why do we have a deficit problem now, when defense spending is at a historical low?

I’m not debating whether we’re spending too much or too little compare to other country. I’m debating whether we should blame the deficit problem on defense spending.

[an]

pri_dk, again, if you think the cause of the deficit is defense spending, why do we have a deficit problem now, when defense spending is at a historical low?

I’m not debating whether we’re spending too much or too little compare to other country. I’m debating whether we should blame the deficit problem on defense spending.

[Anonymous]

The reason we have a deficit problem is that we are spending more than we bring in. Comparisons to the past are interesting, but they do not offer a solution. We can’t go back to the 1960s. Demographics have changed, public expectations of the role of government have changed, and the global threats have changed. We have to deal with the reality that is today.

If we are spending too much on the overwhelmingly largest component of the budget, then that is the obvious place to cut.

It’s not a question of “blame” – it’s a question about what solutions will actually be effective.

[Anonymous]

The reason we have a deficit problem is that we are spending more than we bring in. Comparisons to the past are interesting, but they do not offer a solution. We can’t go back to the 1960s. Demographics have changed, public expectations of the role of government have changed, and the global threats have changed. We have to deal with the reality that is today.

If we are spending too much on the overwhelmingly largest component of the budget, then that is the obvious place to cut.

It’s not a question of “blame” – it’s a question about what solutions will actually be effective.

[Anonymous]

The reason we have a deficit problem is that we are spending more than we bring in. Comparisons to the past are interesting, but they do not offer a solution. We can’t go back to the 1960s. Demographics have changed, public expectations of the role of government have changed, and the global threats have changed. We have to deal with the reality that is today.

If we are spending too much on the overwhelmingly largest component of the budget, then that is the obvious place to cut.

It’s not a question of “blame” – it’s a question about what solutions will actually be effective.

[Anonymous]

The reason we have a deficit problem is that we are spending more than we bring in. Comparisons to the past are interesting, but they do not offer a solution. We can’t go back to the 1960s. Demographics have changed, public expectations of the role of government have changed, and the global threats have changed. We have to deal with the reality that is today.

If we are spending too much on the overwhelmingly largest component of the budget, then that is the obvious place to cut.

It’s not a question of “blame” – it’s a question about what solutions will actually be effective.

[Author]

Posts