Will Obama and his Democrat Congress slash the military budget?

[PLC1]

The rant radio pundits are saying he will. Are they right?

Here is what his predecessor did:

Even by Bush administration standards, the military spending proposal for Fiscal Year 2008 - the budget year beginning on October 1, 2007 -- is enormous. The request for the "regular" military budget, which includes Pentagon spending plus work on nuclear warheads and naval reactors at the Department of Energy, was $499 billion. This represents a $46 billion increase from the current budget year.

So, how much can that "enormous" military budget be slashed and still keep this great and wealthy land feeling secure? Is half that much enough? Will the Obama administration support a 249.5 billion budget?

Here is what Robert Gates is proposing:

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has proposed an overall increase to the US defence budget for 2010, although some major weapons programmes will be cut.

An increase? An increase from the "enormous" $499 billion budget of the Bush Administration? No way, can't be! Everyone says Obama plans to cut the military.

Can something that "everyone says" possibly be wrong?

Well, maybe so:

Mr Gates's $534bn budget also includes increased healthcare funding for military personnel and investments in the Pentagon's civilian staffing budget, in an attempt to reduce the department's reliance on private contractors.

The military is to be "cut" from $499 billion to $534 billion. We can all sleep well tonight.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Right wing hack math is great, increase spending = cuts

 

[GenSeneca]

Right wing hack math is great, increase spending = cuts

Kinda like your left wing hack math where spending freezes = cuts

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The rant radio pundits are saying he will. Are they right?

Speaking of hacks....

Obama has been saying he will...

The Democrats were saying they would cut the military budget by 10-25%...

Now that they failed to actually follow through, here you are attacking the pundits for having taken Obama and the Democrats seriously.

I said long ago the Obamatons were smoking crack if they thought he'd actually save money with his plans for the military.

Obama has made "cuts" and the ones he has made are dangerous because they limit our capabilities moving forward.

Its no surprise you got so much of this so wrong, all you know about whats said on "Rant Radio" comes from people who hope to see it destroyed.

If you bothered listening to the "Rant Radio" complaints, they center around the elimination of our missile defense systems and future combat platforms.

Everyone says Obama plans to cut the military.

Including Obama and the Democrats in charge of budgets and spending...

but hey... don't let me interrupt your smear campaign against "Right Wing Rant Radio"... Even though I have no idea what you seek to gain by using this very shallow and transparent tactic typically employed by the Progressives.

 

[PLC1]

Kinda like your left wing hack math where spending freezes = cuts

-----------------------------------------------------------------



Speaking of hacks....

Obama has been saying he will...

The Democrats were saying they would cut the military budget by 10-25%...

Now that they failed to actually follow through, here you are attacking the pundits for having taken Obama and the Democrats seriously.

I said long ago the Obamatons were smoking crack if they thought he'd actually save money with his plans for the military.

Obama has made "cuts" and the ones he has made are dangerous because they limit our capabilities moving forward.

Its no surprise you got so much of this so wrong, all you know about whats said on "Rant Radio" comes from people who hope to see it destroyed.

If you bothered listening to the "Rant Radio" complaints, they center around the elimination of our missile defense systems and future combat platforms.

Including Obama and the Democrats in charge of budgets and spending...

but hey... don't let me interrupt your smear campaign against "Right Wing Rant Radio"... Even though I have no idea what you seek to gain by using this very shallow and transparent tactic typically employed by the Progressives.

I'm not sure what Obama is saying on your video link, as it says "embedding disabled by request". I'm guessing that it had to do with such as the F22 and other sorts of cold war programs that are no longer necessary in today's world.

And I did bother listening to Hannity, at least, saying that Obama was "slashing the military" at at time when North Korea was "shooting off missiles" and Iran was "building a nuclear bomb", thus leaving us vulnerable to enemies. Try tuning in to your local station. If you can catch them between commercials, you will hear what they have to say.

Or, as a secondary source, if you don't want to listen directly, you can follow this link.

Warning! That is a left wing link! It is no more unbiased than the rant radio stations are unbiased, and may require some thought. Listening to both sides and then making up your own mind is difficult, so beware!

 

[GenSeneca]

Warning! That is a left wing link! It is no more unbiased than the rant radio stations are unbiased, and may require some thought. Listening to both sides and then making up your own mind is difficult, so beware!

Yawn... Media matters just tried to use the exact same propaganda trick that you did with this post... Did you even read it?

Sean was complaining about cutting the missile defense program - Thats ONE program that WAS cut.

Now you're precious media matters jumps to talking about the TOTAL budget for defense so they can make the claim he's lying about Obama slashing the entire defense budget... when he wasn't... he was complaining about specific cuts to the military budget...

Here's a snippet to show you just where it happens:

Hannity: "President Obama has ordered his secretary of Defense to make drastic cuts in the military budget, particularly in the area of missile defense."
He's talking about cuts to specific programs that are part of the military budget but they cut him off at missile defense...

Propaganda 101: Take something out of context, add your own context, and people who don't recognize these tactics will fall for it.

In fact, the Obama administration has proposed increasing defense spending by billions of dollars over the amount enacted in fiscal year 2009.

They intentionally took Hannity out of context, to paint him as saying something he wasn't... so they could refute it and sound credible... typical strawman tactic.. and you fell for it.

 

[BigRob]

The point is that in terms of defense spending as a percent of GDP (the real way to measure defense spending) we will be at one of the lowest levels since the Carter administration.

 

[PLC1]

Yawn... Media matters just tried to use the exact same propaganda trick that you did with this post... Did you even read it?

Sean was complaining about cutting the missile defense program - Thats ONE program that WAS cut.

Now you're precious media matters jumps to talking about the TOTAL budget for defense so they can make the claim he's lying about Obama slashing the entire defense budget... when he wasn't... he was complaining about specific cuts to the military budget...

Here's a snippet to show you just where it happens:

Hannity: "President Obama has ordered his secretary of Defense to make drastic cuts in the military budget, particularly in the area of missile defense."
He's talking about cuts to specific programs that are part of the military budget but they cut him off at missile defense...

Propaganda 101: Take something out of context, add your own context, and people who don't recognize these tactics will fall for it.

In fact, the Obama administration has proposed increasing defense spending by billions of dollars over the amount enacted in fiscal year 2009.

They intentionally took Hannity out of context, to paint him as saying something he wasn't... so they could refute it and sound credible... typical strawman tactic.. and you fell for it.

Except that I heard him myself ranting about how Obama had "slashed the military budget." I heard him in context, going on about his point, talking to callers, and never once did he say that it was simply a reorientation of priorities. It was a slashing of the budget, leaving us defenseless, and so on and over and over again. There was no mistaking his point.

Propaganda 101: Take something out of context, add your own context, and people who don't recognize these tactics will fall for it.

Like going on about how one particular, most likely wasteful program had been cut and leading listeners to think that the entire budget had been cut. Yes, that's a good point.

President Obama has ordered his secretary of Defense to make drastic cuts in the military budget, particularly in the area of missile defense.

"Drastic cuts to the military budget, particularly in the area of missile defense" does not say that missile defense was cut in order to make room for something else. It says drastic cuts, most of them to missile defense.

I warned you that it was a liberal site, and that it was necessary to hear both sides, then make up your mind. Hannity is hardly an unbiased source, either.

 

[GenSeneca]

The point is that in terms of defense spending as a percent of GDP (the real way to measure defense spending) we will be at one of the lowest levels since the Carter administration.

And what would that % of GDP be now as opposed to last year?

 

[GenSeneca]

Like going on about how one particular, most likely wasteful program had been cut and leading listeners to think that the entire budget had been cut. Yes, that's a good point.

It is a good point, because Media Matters used the same tactic they were accusing Hannity of using... Bravo for making up your own mind.

 

[PLC1]

It is a good point, because Media Matters used the same tactic they were accusing Hannity of using... Bravo for making up your own mind.

I'm not sure just what your point is. I didn't make up my mind by reading Media Matters, but by listening to the radio program and hearing just what Hannity had to say first hand. The problem is, I can't find anything on the net to show just what his exact words were, and so had to rely on secondary sources in order to have a link of some kind.

It would be best to listen to the station and make up your own mind. You don't have to take my word for it, or Media Matters, or anything else.


Oh, and here's the figures on military spending as a percentage of GDP:

3.6% in 2001, 5.6% in 2008 Change: +2.0%

Which is pretty much what one would expect, given the wars in Iraq and Afganistan.

 

[GenSeneca]

I'm not sure just what your point is.

Would you agree, or disagree, that the Media Matters "article" did exactly what they accused Hannity of doing in his radio show? I.E. False claims and misleadingly cropped comments for the purpose of criticism.

As for the second part of my comment, you're welcome to your opinion, we just disagree. I think your prejudice taints what you heard because I've been listening to Hannity rail about the budget cuts for a long time and have never come away with the impression you have of his comments.

Are we safer limiting our missile defense? I don't think so. Obama thinks we can rid the world of nukes by unilaterally disarming ourselves and hoping the rest of the world follows, I think that tactic is nuckin futs...

I'd much prefer we make nuclear missiles obsolete by perfecting a missile defense system. We can't put the genie back in the bottle, but we can build a new bottle around the genie.

 

[BigRob]

Oh, and here's the figures on military spending as a percentage of GDP:

3.6% in 2001, 5.6% in 2008 Change: +2.0%

Which is pretty much what one would expect, given the wars in Iraq and Afganistan.

This is accurate. You will get different estimates depending on who you ask, but OMB has it right around 5% for 2009. (some figures say 4.6 some say 5.6, but you get the idea) If the proposed (being the key word) Obama cuts come in, it is estimated it will fall below the Clinton levels and well below 4%.

In my mind, the defense budget is like an insurance policy. You can either have a low monthly payment and a high deductible, or a higher monthly payment, and have a lower deductible. Personally, given that historically we can easily maintain defense percent levels at 4% and higher, I see no reason to take it any lower than that.

 

[BigRob]

Would you agree, or disagree, that the Media Matters "article" did exactly what they accused Hannity of doing in his radio show? I.E. False claims and misleadingly cropped comments for the purpose of criticism.

As for the second part of my comment, you're welcome to your opinion, we just disagree. I think your prejudice taints what you heard because I've been listening to Hannity rail about the budget cuts for a long time and have never come away with the impression you have of his comments.

Are we safer limiting our missile defense? I don't think so. Obama thinks we can rid the world of nukes by unilaterally disarming ourselves and hoping the rest of the world follows, I think that tactic is nuckin futs...

I'd much prefer we make nuclear missiles obsolete by perfecting a missile defense system. We can't put the genie back in the bottle, but we can build a new bottle around the genie.

Obama does want to cut missile defense, but in his defense, he is cutting boost phase targeting systems. While I think this is a terrible idea, he is not completely eliminating GMD systems or Aegis, but cutting their funding is not something we should be doing in my view.

On top of that, I do not believe that Obama actually wants unilateral disarmament. He called for a "world without nukes" and said the US should lead the way, but he stopped short of saying that would involve unilateral disarmament. No one thinks that is a good idea, and most people think a world without nukes is a bad idea as well. I think this sentiment extends into the Obama administration, even though those on the far left might not appreciate that.

On top of that, while I am a big supporter of missile defense, it is not going to make nukes obsolete. Right now, there is not a manner to differentiate between a conventionally topped missile and a missile with a nuclear payload. Therefore, a mere 30-40 missiles could overwhelm our GMD system. Given the number of missiles that rouge states possess, it would not be that hard to accomplish (assuming they eventually develop the missile capacity to reach the United States with these numbers, which they eventually will)

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I read a article in Newsweek, stated that the cost in cost overruns alone for the US military, where greater then the total spend on military for China, Russia, Britain and France...But yet when anyone talks about cutting the military budget...people act like it means we are going to be weak and die or be unsafe...If we cant be safe with outspending anyone else by more then 2 -1 ...I think maybe we should get attacked then..for poor use of money.

 

[BigRob]

I read a article in Newsweek, stated that the cost in cost overruns alone for the US military, where greater then the total spend on military for China, Russia, Britain and France...But yet when anyone talks about cutting the military budget...people act like it means we are going to be weak and die or be unsafe...If we cant be safe with outspending anyone else by more then 2 -1 ...I think maybe we should get attacked then..for poor use of money.

Well we are the world superpower...hyperpower even. China does not face the same threats we do, neither does Russia. Further, we are coping with aging forces and are not allocating money to replace them. This is a serious problem in my view. We need to ensure that we are capable to face any threat at any time anywhere. I think that at current rates we are still below where we need to do be, but at lower levels, we are certainly below where we need to be.

I think the analogy of defense spending to an insurance policy is a pretty good way to look at it.