Correcting the liberal lies about the defense budget

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
54,200
Reaction score
7,042
Points
1,860
Location
United States
The false liberal narrative is that we have some insane, unimaginable defense budget that is "bloated", "unnecessary", and "wasteful". They of course follow that false narrative up with "take that money and use it on public assistance". And that is why they are lying about the defense budget. Because the socialist "public assistance" agenda is unsustainable. It is bankrupting this nation and the left doesn't want to let go of it. So they create a false narrative about something (defense) which is not only exponentially more vital, but also the constitutional responsibility of the federal government.

The military has actually been forced under Barack Obama to scavenge museums for the airplane parts they need to keep their aircrafts flying. That is absolutely inexcusable. It's something one would expect from the Soviet Union as they were collapsing - not from the world's elite super-power. And it is the result of liberals gutting the defense budget over and over and over while throwing trillions of dollars at the welfare class in order to purchase votes.

The men and women who server in our military deserve much better than this. They deserve the best. The best supply chain. The best parts. The best technology. The best equipment. And the best benefits (healthcare, education, etc.). Traditionally, the military has voted Republican for this very reason. The left should be ashamed at how they not only treat our military (which is worse than dirt) but also how they advocate to take more money from them and treat them even worse than they do now. Not only should we not cut the defense budget one penny more - we should increase the defense budget at least 50% (if not double it).

  • Marine Corps mechanics have had to scavenge F-18 parts from museums to keep their planes flying. Even with the scavenging, only 30% of those F-18s are ready to fly today. Unfortunately, similar serious challenges face all the military services.
  • The 2016 Index of U.S. Military Strength looked at the size, capabilities, and readiness of each part of the military and concluded that as a package the military is only “marginal” in its ability to protect America.
Congress Must Act Now to Start Rebuilding the US Military
 
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
54,200
Reaction score
7,042
Points
1,860
Location
United States
Thornberry outlined five alarming facts caused by the readiness crisis:
  1. “The Air Force is short 4,000 maintainers and more than 700 pilots today.” It doesn’t matter how many planes the Air Force has, or how modern they may be, if they can’t fly. Without qualified mechanics to maintain the aircraft and properly train pilots to fly them, the Air Force will struggle to accomplish its mission.
  2. “In 2015 the Navy had a backlog of 11 planes in depot, next year in [20]17 they are going to have a backlog of 278.” Readiness levels for the entire fleet have fallen as the Navy’s maintenance crews are being asked to work longer hours with less funding. More planes in maintenance mean fewer are available to meet mission requirements.
  3. “Less than one-third of the Army is ready to meet the requirements of the Defense Strategic Guidance—it’s supposed to be no less than two-thirds.” The Army is already at a historically small level, and much of what remains of the service is not ready for combat. If a major war were to break out, the U.S. Army simply isn’t ready.
  4. “Marine Corps aviation requires on average 10 hours of flight time a month and they are getting about four.” Like any skill, practice is essential. Pilots without practice make more mistakes, which become deadly when flying complex aircraft, especially when in combat. The lives of Marines are at greater risk because of these funding cuts.
  5. “Less than half of the Air Force combat forces are ready to face a peer competitor such as China and Russia.” While the U.S. military faces this readiness crisis, America’s potential adversaries are increasing defense spending and modernization efforts as U.S. spending declines.
Here's Why the U.S. Military is in Trouble
 
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
54,200
Reaction score
7,042
Points
1,860
Location
United States
As you can see - the only thing "bloated" is the liberal misinformation about defense...
  • Headlines of “increased shipbuilding and aircraft” are likely misleading. Recent stories about the budget include 10 destroyers and nine Virginia-class submarines, but this was already the shipbuilding plan for the next five years.
  • When it comes to fighter aircraft, while the headlines talk about more F-18s and F-35s, those are all likely in future years of the budget (2018 and beyond).
  • Indications are that in 2017, we will actually see a cut to these same fighter programs.
  • Promising things in future years is easy, particularly when you won’t be around.

Don’t Believe the Defense Budget Hype
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
148,014
Reaction score
16,459
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
The false liberal narrative is that we have some insane, unimaginable defense budget that is "bloated", "unnecessary", and "wasteful". They of course follow that false narrative up with "take that money and use it on public assistance". And that is why they are lying about the defense budget. Because the socialist "public assistance" agenda is unsustainable. It is bankrupting this nation and the left doesn't want to let go of it. So they create a false narrative about something (defense) which is not only exponentially more vital, but also the constitutional responsibility of the federal government.

The military has actually been forced under Barack Obama to scavenge museums for the airplane parts they need to keep their aircrafts flying. That is absolutely inexcusable. It's something one would expect from the Soviet Union as they were collapsing - not from the world's elite super-power. And it is the result of liberals gutting the defense budget over and over and over while throwing trillions of dollars at the welfare class in order to purchase votes.

The men and women who server in our military deserve much better than this. They deserve the best. The best supply chain. The best parts. The best technology. The best equipment. And the best benefits (healthcare, education, etc.). Traditionally, the military has voted Republican for this very reason. The left should be ashamed at how they not only treat our military (which is worse than dirt) but also how they advocate to take more money from them and treat them even worse than they do now. Not only should we not cut the defense budget one penny more - we should increase the defense budget at least 50% (if not double it).

  • Marine Corps mechanics have had to scavenge F-18 parts from museums to keep their planes flying. Even with the scavenging, only 30% of those F-18s are ready to fly today. Unfortunately, similar serious challenges face all the military services.
  • The 2016 Index of U.S. Military Strength looked at the size, capabilities, and readiness of each part of the military and concluded that as a package the military is only “marginal” in its ability to protect America.
Congress Must Act Now to Start Rebuilding the US Military
It would be hard to scavenge for parts of an F-35.......Oh and sequestration was a GOP idea.....
 
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
54,200
Reaction score
7,042
Points
1,860
Location
United States
Based on your 'logic' all of these other countries are doomed to annihilation:

What do you know - a liberal points to another country because they can't defend their indefensible position. I keep posing this question but no liberal will answer it for me Carb. Maybe you'll be the first. If these other nations are so great - how come none of you liberal denounce your citizenship and go live in them? And how come people from all over the world risk their lives (literally risk their lives) to come here to the U.S.?

To answer your question - yes, everyone of those nations is in very serious danger of being "doomed to annihilation". If you had studied history, you would realize that the last time there was a World War - France got their pitiful little asses kicked and surrendered. They would still be speaking German had the U.S. not come in and rescued their ass. The rest of the nations towards the top of your list (Russia, Japan, Italy) with the exception of the UK were the axis of evil (who ultimately lost World War II).

Congrats - you literally just made the worst case ever for why the U.S. needs to cut the defense budget. The nations you listed were either overthrown and surrendered or were part of the aggressors that got their ass kicked by the United States. So basically - you want the U.S. to be so weak another nation could over throw us? Typical liberal.
 
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
54,200
Reaction score
7,042
Points
1,860
Location
United States
The false liberal narrative is that we have some insane, unimaginable defense budget that is "bloated", "unnecessary", and "wasteful". They of course follow that false narrative up with "take that money and use it on public assistance". And that is why they are lying about the defense budget. Because the socialist "public assistance" agenda is unsustainable. It is bankrupting this nation and the left doesn't want to let go of it. So they create a false narrative about something (defense) which is not only exponentially more vital, but also the constitutional responsibility of the federal government.

The military has actually been forced under Barack Obama to scavenge museums for the airplane parts they need to keep their aircrafts flying. That is absolutely inexcusable. It's something one would expect from the Soviet Union as they were collapsing - not from the world's elite super-power. And it is the result of liberals gutting the defense budget over and over and over while throwing trillions of dollars at the welfare class in order to purchase votes.

The men and women who server in our military deserve much better than this. They deserve the best. The best supply chain. The best parts. The best technology. The best equipment. And the best benefits (healthcare, education, etc.). Traditionally, the military has voted Republican for this very reason. The left should be ashamed at how they not only treat our military (which is worse than dirt) but also how they advocate to take more money from them and treat them even worse than they do now. Not only should we not cut the defense budget one penny more - we should increase the defense budget at least 50% (if not double it).

  • Marine Corps mechanics have had to scavenge F-18 parts from museums to keep their planes flying. Even with the scavenging, only 30% of those F-18s are ready to fly today. Unfortunately, similar serious challenges face all the military services.
  • The 2016 Index of U.S. Military Strength looked at the size, capabilities, and readiness of each part of the military and concluded that as a package the military is only “marginal” in its ability to protect America.
Congress Must Act Now to Start Rebuilding the US Military
It would be hard to scavenge for parts of an F-35.......Oh and sequestration was a GOP idea.....
Except that Obama made the sequestration cuts to defense instead of to public assistance as the GOP fought for. Epic fail Moon (something you're used to by now though!).
 

Conservative65

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
26,127
Reaction score
2,205
Points
265
The false liberal narrative is that we have some insane, unimaginable defense budget that is "bloated", "unnecessary", and "wasteful". They of course follow that false narrative up with "take that money and use it on public assistance". And that is why they are lying about the defense budget. Because the socialist "public assistance" agenda is unsustainable. It is bankrupting this nation and the left doesn't want to let go of it. So they create a false narrative about something (defense) which is not only exponentially more vital, but also the constitutional responsibility of the federal government.

The military has actually been forced under Barack Obama to scavenge museums for the airplane parts they need to keep their aircrafts flying. That is absolutely inexcusable. It's something one would expect from the Soviet Union as they were collapsing - not from the world's elite super-power. And it is the result of liberals gutting the defense budget over and over and over while throwing trillions of dollars at the welfare class in order to purchase votes.

The men and women who server in our military deserve much better than this. They deserve the best. The best supply chain. The best parts. The best technology. The best equipment. And the best benefits (healthcare, education, etc.). Traditionally, the military has voted Republican for this very reason. The left should be ashamed at how they not only treat our military (which is worse than dirt) but also how they advocate to take more money from them and treat them even worse than they do now. Not only should we not cut the defense budget one penny more - we should increase the defense budget at least 50% (if not double it).

  • Marine Corps mechanics have had to scavenge F-18 parts from museums to keep their planes flying. Even with the scavenging, only 30% of those F-18s are ready to fly today. Unfortunately, similar serious challenges face all the military services.
  • The 2016 Index of U.S. Military Strength looked at the size, capabilities, and readiness of each part of the military and concluded that as a package the military is only “marginal” in its ability to protect America.
Congress Must Act Now to Start Rebuilding the US Military
Everything you said is on the mark. Two things stuck out. First, it IS the responsibility of the government, as stated in the Constitution, to provide defense. Secondly, it's NOT the responsibility of the government to financially support individuals that won't support themselves.

The ranting and raving by Liberals about military spending can't revolve around a lack of authority the government has to do so. Their entire argument centers around their not liking the amount that is spent. Sad thing is they don't mind spending billions on things for which none have ever been able to show a direct authority of the government to do.
 
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
54,200
Reaction score
7,042
Points
1,860
Location
United States
The problem is that we don't have a defense budget. We have an empire budget.
The problem is that Dumbocrats gut the defense budget and hang our sacrificing military men and women out to dry. But the people who do nothing but mooch off of this country - they sure get cadillac benefits in exchange for their Dumbocrat votes.
 

Conservative65

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
26,127
Reaction score
2,205
Points
265
The problem is that we don't have a defense budget. We have an empire budget.
No, it's a defense budget. That you don't like the amount spent doesn't make it what you call it.

Are you stupid enough to argue that the Constitution doesn't give the federal government authority to raise a military? I hope not. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, the assumption is you simply don't like the amount. That comes under the heading of tough shit.
 

TheOldSchool

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
62,631
Reaction score
10,068
Points
2,070
Location
last stop for sanity before reaching the south
The problem is that we don't have a defense budget. We have an empire budget.
The problem is that Dumbocrats gut the defense budget and hang our sacrificing military men and women out to dry. But the people who do nothing but mooch off of this country - they sure get cadillac benefits in exchange for their Dumbocrat votes.
Don't talk out of your ass Rotty. It doesn't suit you.
 

TheOldSchool

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
62,631
Reaction score
10,068
Points
2,070
Location
last stop for sanity before reaching the south
The problem is that we don't have a defense budget. We have an empire budget.
No, it's a defense budget. That you don't like the amount spent doesn't make it what you call it.

Are you stupid enough to argue that the Constitution doesn't give the federal government authority to raise a military? I hope not. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, the assumption is you simply don't like the amount. That comes under the heading of tough shit.
Where in the constitution does it say the government should build and maintain a million military bases all over the planet so that we can interfere in foreign affairs as much as possible?
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
23,263
Reaction score
5,314
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
Marine Corps mechanics have had to scavenge F-18 parts from museums to keep their planes flying. Even with the scavenging, only 30% of those F-18s are ready to fly today. Unfortunately, similar serious challenges face all the military services.
That has nothing to do with the military budget. It has to do with the marines planning poorly, putting all their eggs in the F-35 basket. They let their F-18s decay because they thought they wouldn't need them.

The 2016 Index of U.S. Military Strength looked at the size, capabilities, and readiness of each part of the military and concluded that as a package the military is only “marginal” in its ability to protect America.
A conservative think tank? You're trying to pass that off as non-partisan?

Tell you what. Why don't you tell us what nation could successfully invade the USA. Just what part of America is under dire threat?

The Army, which just became the smallest since before World War II, fell even lower to a “weak” rating due to the dramatic cuts in its size and readiness.
Excellent. That's just common sense. If you don't have an empire, you don't need the army of an empire.

So, you're basically blaming liberals for figments of your imagination. Any other nutty stories about liberals you'd like to make up?
 
Last edited:
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
54,200
Reaction score
7,042
Points
1,860
Location
United States
The problem is that we don't have a defense budget. We have an empire budget.
No, it's a defense budget. That you don't like the amount spent doesn't make it what you call it.

Are you stupid enough to argue that the Constitution doesn't give the federal government authority to raise a military? I hope not. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, the assumption is you simply don't like the amount. That comes under the heading of tough shit.
Where in the constitution does it say the government should build and maintain a million military bases all over the planet so that we can interfere in foreign affairs as much as possible?
The part where it makes the federal government responsible for defense and the leaders in the federal government (the president, the secretary of defense, the joint chiefs of staff, the general, the national security advisor, etc.) deem it necessary for the security of America to have bases all over the world.

Does that answer your question? Sad that you need that explained to you.
 

Conservative65

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
26,127
Reaction score
2,205
Points
265
The problem is that we don't have a defense budget. We have an empire budget.
No, it's a defense budget. That you don't like the amount spent doesn't make it what you call it.

Are you stupid enough to argue that the Constitution doesn't give the federal government authority to raise a military? I hope not. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, the assumption is you simply don't like the amount. That comes under the heading of tough shit.
Where in the constitution does it say the government should build and maintain a million military bases all over the planet so that we can interfere in foreign affairs as much as possible?
The Constitution doesn't deal in specific like that but it doesn't have to. All you need to know and understand is that the government has the authority to raise and support a military. Like I said, your whining comes under the head of tough shit.

Where in the Constitution does it say anything about the government having a handout system where those unwilling to work should be supported. Your argument against the military stems around not liking the amount of something for which the government has authority. My argument stems around the government not having the authority. Big difference that a entitlement minded freeloader like you can't grasp.
 
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
54,200
Reaction score
7,042
Points
1,860
Location
United States
The problem is that we don't have a defense budget. We have an empire budget.
The problem is that Dumbocrats gut the defense budget and hang our sacrificing military men and women out to dry. But the people who do nothing but mooch off of this country - they sure get cadillac benefits in exchange for their Dumbocrat votes.
Don't talk out of your ass Rotty. It doesn't suit you.
You're right - it doesn't. Which is why I never do that. Everything I said is 100% fact. If you can dispute it with something intelligent - do so. I welcome it.
 

Conservative65

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
26,127
Reaction score
2,205
Points
265
The problem is that we don't have a defense budget. We have an empire budget.
No, it's a defense budget. That you don't like the amount spent doesn't make it what you call it.

Are you stupid enough to argue that the Constitution doesn't give the federal government authority to raise a military? I hope not. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, the assumption is you simply don't like the amount. That comes under the heading of tough shit.
Where in the constitution does it say the government should build and maintain a million military bases all over the planet so that we can interfere in foreign affairs as much as possible?
The part where it makes the federal government responsible for defense and the leaders in the federal government (the president, the secretary of defense, the joint chiefs of staff, the general, the national security advisor, etc.) deem it necessary for the security of America to have bases all over the world.

Does that answer your question? Sad that you need that explained to you.
He either wouldn't understand it or doesn't want to understand it. Maybe a combination of both. His entire argument stems around a dislike of the amount. Even he's not stupid enough to challenge the authority of the government to fund a military.
 
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
54,200
Reaction score
7,042
Points
1,860
Location
United States
The problem is that we don't have a defense budget. We have an empire budget.
No, it's a defense budget. That you don't like the amount spent doesn't make it what you call it.

Are you stupid enough to argue that the Constitution doesn't give the federal government authority to raise a military? I hope not. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, the assumption is you simply don't like the amount. That comes under the heading of tough shit.
Where in the constitution does it say the government should build and maintain a million military bases all over the planet so that we can interfere in foreign affairs as much as possible?
The part where it makes the federal government responsible for defense and the leaders in the federal government (the president, the secretary of defense, the joint chiefs of staff, the general, the national security advisor, etc.) deem it necessary for the security of America to have bases all over the world.

Does that answer your question? Sad that you need that explained to you.
He either wouldn't understand it or doesn't want to understand it. Maybe a combination of both. His entire argument stems around a dislike of the amount. Even he's not stupid enough to challenge the authority of the government to fund a military.
The Constitution makes defense the responsibility of the federal government. If they deem that bases around the world are necessary for our security - so be it. If TOS vehemently disagrees with that strategy, then he should make his case to the American people (including his background in national security making him an expert on this subject) and convince them to vote for candidates that would close those bases. One of those was Ron Paul who ran for president in 2012. But something tells me TOS mocked and ridiculed Ron Paul.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top