Which Military Budget Do You Prefer?

Discussion in 'Election Forums' started by Interpol, Oct 8, 2012.

?

Which Military Budget Proposal Do You Endorse?

  1. Post-Cold War Scale Down to $425-50 billion/yr

    9 vote(s)
    69.2%
  2. Sequestration Cuts to $500ish billion/yr

    1 vote(s)
    7.7%
  3. Nail-Trimming, Levelling Off, Status Quo of $550-75 billion/yr

    2 vote(s)
    15.4%
  4. Ramp-Up Immediately to $750-800 billion/yr

    1 vote(s)
    7.7%
  1. Interpol
    Offline

    Interpol Radical Centrist

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2012
    Messages:
    1,466
    Thanks Received:
    480
    Trophy Points:
    210
    Location:
    U.S.
    Ratings:
    +731
    Below is a graph that shows where the defense budget will go depending on the variables currently in play.

    Note: The two wars are separate from this chart through much of the last decade due to the fact that "emergency" spending bills by President Bush covered those conflicts.

    I'm interested in hearing from you. If you were a politician in Washington who got to vote on the defense budget, which would you vote for and why? Where would you take it?

    There's a Post Cold War scale down that would take things down to about $425 billion a year.

    If the gov't can't get its shit together by New Year's Day, than we'll see Sequestration measures that bring it down to about $500.

    There's Obama's plan, which basically cuts the defense budget's nails, leveling things off minus the costs of Afghanistan and Iraq, at about $550 or so billion. Status quo.

    And finally, there is Gov. Romney's plan, which would dramatically increase the defense budget by over $200 billion a year to a total of $800 billion/yr through his first term, and then approaching $900 billion/yr by the year 2020.

    Which budget would you endorse and why? And if you decide to pick the Ramp-Up choice, please talk about how the country could pay for such an escalation.

    I'll post this and then figure out my pick in a few minutes and post about it.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2012
  2. lareinedumonde
    Offline

    lareinedumonde Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2012
    Messages:
    16
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +6
    Actually I am quite ambivalent about the military. There is NO WAY any serious scaling back is going to happen, and it would not be good for the economy if it did. And... If it were up to me, I'd make 1-2 years of military service (substitutable with service projects such as Teach for America, Peace Corps, medical service in poor areas, Americorps, etc) OBLIGATORY for everyone, man and woman. That would cost a lot of money;-)
     
  3. Interpol
    Offline

    Interpol Radical Centrist

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2012
    Messages:
    1,466
    Thanks Received:
    480
    Trophy Points:
    210
    Location:
    U.S.
    Ratings:
    +731
    I took a tricky vote. I went with Sequestration. I don't agree with all the measures in the current one that is scheduled to kick in in the New Year if Congress doesn't get its act together; I like the number, though, as an eventual target we should level down to by 2020.

    Put half the savings towards the debt and the other half to veteran's needs such as health care, social security, and jobs.

    But even if we strike the balance that the President's plan offers, I could accept that.
     
  4. Oldguy
    Offline

    Oldguy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Messages:
    4,328
    Thanks Received:
    590
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +592
    I prefer the military budget which best meets our needs...and I don't give a damn who proposes it.
     
  5. Political Junky
    Offline

    Political Junky Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Messages:
    19,542
    Thanks Received:
    2,948
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +5,534
    How does Willard plan to pay for the increased military spending, after he cuts $5 Trillion in taxes?
    It didn't work for Bush, Jr., what makes anyone think it'll work now?
     
  6. waltky
    Offline

    waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Messages:
    20,801
    Thanks Received:
    1,789
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Okolona, KY
    Ratings:
    +3,865
    Granny says...

    ... the one dat gives us plenty of bunker busters to bomb the schlitz outta Iran...

    ... an' plenty of rockets an' missiles...

    ... to fling at Russia an' China when dey come to Iran's rescue.
    :cool:
     
  7. Interpol
    Offline

    Interpol Radical Centrist

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2012
    Messages:
    1,466
    Thanks Received:
    480
    Trophy Points:
    210
    Location:
    U.S.
    Ratings:
    +731
    So you want to increase the deficit. Cool. Mitt Romney's your guy.
     
  8. DiamondDave
    Offline

    DiamondDave Army Vet

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    18,169
    Thanks Received:
    2,812
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    MD, on the Potomac River
    Ratings:
    +2,816
    One where we stay at the forefront having things before they are needed... auditing all spending and projects to see what can be cut out that is behind, inept, improper, etc
     
  9. Dr.Traveler
    Offline

    Dr.Traveler Mathematician

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    3,925
    Thanks Received:
    650
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    In a Non-Euclidean Manifold
    Ratings:
    +1,047
    I'd like to see the deficit and debt addressed, and I don't see that as possible if you don't actually cut military spending along with the other government programs. It definitely won't happen under a ramp up of spending.

    I'd be happy with sufficient spending to:
    1. Fund special forces and drone technology, as these appear to be the most effective military options against non-state actors.
    2. Fund the Navy sufficiently to protect American boats abroad and the American coast.
    3. Fund the Marines sufficiently to act as an expeditionary force in the event of actual war scenario
    4. Fund the Army sufficiently to maintain an officer core, equipment hubs, and armored divisions in the event of an actual war. Reduce the standing rank and file soldier numbers
    5. Fund the Air Force enough to protect American airspace.
    6. Fund DARPA enough to develop protection against missile, cyberspace, and biological attack.

    Past that, I'd like to see a massive drawdown. The standing army and oversea bases are killing us. Let's get down to what is absolutely necessary.
     
  10. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,938
    Thanks Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,678
    So what would that be?
     

Share This Page