Question for Iraq war supporters

[Gunny]

Different witnesses would be called, and Libby could be called again, just different questions would be asked and different charges used to compel his testimony.

It is funny you should say only the crackpots in congress would vote for impeachment. About 5 weeks ago there was a motion on the floor to impeach Cheney - and it was passing. Last I heard (as I was driving) it was something like 205 for, 190 against, WITH 168 OF THE FOR VOTES FROM REPUBLICANS!

It was at the point in the proceedings where all that Pelosi had to do was slap the gavel and it was a done deal. But she would not do so. One has to wonder why... clearly despite the rhetoric she is bought and paid for.

You "heard" huh? I "heard" your unsubstantiated rhetoric ain't worth spit. If you're going to make such an allegation, let's see the evidence. Or is "last I heard" all you got?

 

[Warner]

You "heard" huh? I "heard" your unsubstantiated rhetoric ain't worth spit. If you're going to make such an allegation, let's see the evidence. Or is "last I heard" all you got?

Grrr... I was listening to the debate. I heard it first hand you idiot.

 

[finebead]

Interesting...it went up a total of one half of a percent. Wonder how much inflation went up over the same period? Too lazy yo go look myself.

My story is no different than the other vets who have posted. The reality on the ground was a stark contrast to the propaganda about increased defense spending. I can assure you that when you are supposed to get paid monthly or bi-monthly and it doesn't show up, you are VERY aware of where the money is and why.

If you will re-read my post in #118, which gunnyl posted for me, it says spending went up from 4.7 to 5.2 percent oF GDP. As GDP grows around 3% annually when we are not in a recession, the increase was much greater than 1/2 of a percent.

I have posted my facts in post 118. As I said, the money may have gone to the air force or someplace other than your company, but my post IS NOT PROPAGANDA, those are the hard cold facts. If you think it is propaganda, go do some searches and come back with your facts that substantiate your position, otherwise, don't refer to my post as propaganda. I am the only one with any research to document what really happened, while you are only using tunnel vision of "your actual experience" that is valid for you, but it in no way proves anything about what was happening with Carter's military budget.

But, you said in your post, you are too lazy to go look it up. Why bother to argue if you are too lazy to go find out what the facts are? It doesn't seem you can learn anything this way.

 

[CSM]

But, you said in your post, you are too lazy to go look it up. Why bother to argue if you are too lazy to go find out what the facts are? It doesn't seem you can learn anything this way.

I would assume they took inflation into account when they posted the figures ... if not then they are deceitful at best. As for being too lazy to look it up....I am tired of folks coming here trying to say how great it was to be in the military under some of these Dems ("Defense spending went up! The military was well taken care of under presidnet *.*") when the reality was we had military personnel on food stamps. These 'debates' have occured over and over again on this board. Time and again a poster like yourself tries to assert that a soldier is too stupid to look beyond his own issues to know what is really going on. While the statistics look good on paper, I and many others had to live with those 'facts' and I can tell you it wasn't funny for me or my family.

As for learning, it seems to me that dismissing empirical evidence out of hand rather restricts your ability to learn. I suppose you can't tolerate anything that disputes your preconceived notions; however.

 

[tigerbob]

As I said, the money may have gone to the air force or someplace other than your company, but my post IS NOT PROPAGANDA, those are the hard cold facts. If you think it is propaganda, go do some searches and come back with your facts that substantiate your position, otherwise, don't refer to my post as propaganda. I am the only one with any research to document what really happened, while you are only using tunnel vision of "your actual experience" that is valid for you, but it in no way proves anything about what was happening with Carter's military budget.

I’ve found this exchange of views quite interesting, so I thought I’d have a mooch around and see if I could come up with some figures. This is what I found (please excuse the lousy formatting).

US Military Spending as a % of GDP, 1940 – 2003.

1940.......41.......42.......43.......44.......45.......46.......47.......48.......49
1.7.........5.6.......17.8.....37.0....37.8....37.5.....19.2......5.5.......3.5......4.8

1950.......51.......52.......53.......54.......55.......56.......57.......58.......59
5.0..........7.4......13.2.....14.2.....13.1....10.8.....10.0.....10.1.....10.2.....10.0

1960.......61.......62.......63.......64.......65.......66.......67.......68.......69
9.3.........9.4.......9.2......8.9.......8.5......7.4.......7.7......8.8.......9.4......8.7

1970.......71.......72.......73.......74.......75.......76.......77.......78.......79
8.1..........7.3......6.7.......5.8......5.5.......5.5......5.2.......4.9......4.7.......4.6

1980.......81.......82.......83.......84.......85.......86.......87.......88.......89
4.9..........5.1......5.7.......6.1......5.9.......6.1......6.2.......6.1......5.8.......5.6

1990.......91.......92.......93.......94.......95.......96.......97.......98.......99
5.2..........4.6......4.8.......4.4......4.0.......3.7......3.5.......3.3......3.1.......3.0

2000.......01.......02.......03
3.0..........3.0......3.4.......3.7

There’s also an interesting chart on military spending as a % of discretionary outlay from 1962 – 2003. I can’t be bothered copying that out as well, but it appears to show the percentage lowering slightly during the Carter administration, increasing from the high 40s to the low 60’s during RR and GHB, then reducing back to the high 40’s at the end of the 2 Clinton terms. This continues for the first couple years under GWB, but in the last year available there is a small spike which is presumably the beginning of the “War on Terror”.

I’m not going to get involved in whose argument this appears to support, but I’ve posted the link so whoever disagrees can I’m sure find a way to rubbish the numbers. I just always prefer raw numbers to those used in an article which are usually selected to support a point.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php

 

[finebead]

I would assume they took inflation into account when they posted the figures ... if not then they are deceitful at best. As for being too lazy to look it up....I am tired of folks coming here trying to say how great it was to be in the military under some of these Dems ("Defense spending went up! The military was well taken care of under presidnet *.*") when the reality was we had military personnel on food stamps. These 'debates' have occured over and over again on this board. Time and again a poster like yourself tries to assert that a soldier is too stupid to look beyond his own issues to know what is really going on. While the statistics look good on paper, I and many others had to live with those 'facts' and I can tell you it wasn't funny for me or my family.

As for learning, it seems to me that dismissing empirical evidence out of hand rather restricts your ability to learn. I suppose you can't tolerate anything that disputes your preconceived notions; however.

I never stated it was great to be in the military under any president. Don't put words in my mouth.

MasterChief stated Carter cut defense spending. I went and looked up info on it, and I found the statement was not true, because Carter raised defense spending from 4.7 to 5.2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). That's the fact, and MC was wrong. That's what I said.

As far as your personal experience, if you want to say that under Carter, adequate funds didn't make it to your rifle company, I would not dispute that, as I have no personal knowledge of it. But you cannot say that because funds didn't make it to your company that Carter must have cut defense spending. That conclusion does not follow from the facts you have presented.

I just think we should be precise, and if we're going to discuss issues, we should base the discussion on the facts and logical conclusions that can be drawn from the facts. But you can't state a fact and then draw any conclusion from it that you'd like to. And if you are wrong, or one of your buddies is wrong, you should have the decency to admit it.

 

[Annie]

I never stated it was great to be in the military under any president. Don't put words in my mouth.

MasterChief stated Carter cut defense spending. I went and looked up info on it, and I found the statement was not true, because Carter raised defense spending from 4.7 to 5.2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). That's the fact, and MC was wrong. That's what I said.

As far as your personal experience, if you want to say that under Carter, adequate funds didn't make it to your rifle company, I would not dispute that, as I have no personal knowledge of it. But you cannot say that because funds didn't make it to your company that Carter must have cut defense spending. That conclusion does not follow from the facts you have presented.

I just think we should be precise, and if we're going to discuss issues, we should base the discussion on the facts and logical conclusions that can be drawn from the facts. But you can't state a fact and then draw any conclusion from it that you'd like to. And if you are wrong, or one of your buddies is wrong, you should have the decency to admit it.

Considering this,

The annual inflation rate rose from 4.8% in 1976 to 6.8% in 1977, 9% in 1978, 11% in 1979, and hovered around 12% at the time of the 1980 election campaign. Although Carter had pledged to eliminate federal deficits, the deficit for the fiscal year 1979 totaled $27.7 billion, and that for 1980 was nearly $59 billion. With approximately 8 million people out of work, the unemployment rate had leveled off to a nationwide average of about 7.7% by the time of the election campaign, but it was considerably higher in some industrial states.

in fact that increase was a cut.

 

[finebead]

in fact that increase was a cut.

From the information you posted, you cannot make that statement. My post, which stated that Carter increased defense spending from 4.7 to 5.2% of GDP, is largely corroborrated by TigerBob's post, if you consider when the pres. was inaugurated, and when the fiscal year starts and who prepared the defense budget.

Kathianne, your post cites inflation rates, but is silent on what the GDP growth was. So, you cannot state that "if fact that increase was a cut". Generally, during inflationary times, it tends to overstate GDP growth, since production has not gone up, but prices have gone up.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Defense spendng, FY, in billions
1977:...$97.5.....4.9% GDP
1978:...$104.7...4.7%
1979:...$116.8...4.7%
1980:...$134.6...4.9%
1981:...$158.0...5.2%
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

GDP:...$actual..Y2000$, in billions
1977:..2030.9..4750.5
1978:..2294.7..5015.0
1979:..2563.3..5173.4
1980:..2789.5..5161.7
1981:..3128.4..5291.7

GDP growth over previous year
...........actual$...constant $
1978:...+13.0%....+5.6%
1979:...+11.7%....+3.2%
1980:...+8.8%.....-0.2%
1981:...+12.2%....+2.5%

http://www.bea.gov/National/Index.htm

Without going too deep, it appears that any 'increases' were due to inflation.

 

[tigerbob]

Defense spendng, FY, in billions
1977:...$97.5.....4.9% GDP
1978:...$104.7...4.7%
1979:...$116.8...4.7%
1980:...$134.6...4.9%
1981:...$158.0...5.2%
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

The % of GDP figures I posted pretty much agree year by year with Shooter's, the only differences being in rounding
1977 - 4.9%
1978 - 4.7%
1979 - 4.6%
1980 - 4.9%
1981 - 5.1%.

Looking at the military spending as a % of discretionary spending (discretionary spending is defined by source as "under the jurisdiction of the two appropriations committees and constitutes about one-third of the unified federal budget" - see my earlier link), this declined from 51.2% in 1976 as follows:

1977 - 49.5%
1978 - 47.8%
1979 - 48.7%
1980 - 48.7%
1981 - 51.3%
1982 - 57.0%

Unless anyone can come up with a different view, from that info it's hard to conclude that military spending increased in real terms under Carter.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Unless anyone can come up with a different view, from that info it's hard to conclude that military spending increased in real terms under Carter.

The GDP% spent are based on raw GDP dollars.
The raw dollars went up much more than the real dollars.
I havent done this, but I think if you allow for that, you'll see no real increase.

 

[maineman]

The GDP% spent are based on raw GDP dollars.
The raw dollars went up much more than the real dollars.
I havent done this, but I think if you allow for that, you'll see no real increase.

and no real decrease either.... and, as I can recall, we were just winding down from a rather costly war in Vietnam and a leveling of military spending was not an unwise move

 

[Warner]

I’ve found this exchange of views quite interesting, so I thought I’d have a mooch around and see if I could come up with some figures. This is what I found (please excuse the lousy formatting).

US Military Spending as a % of GDP, 1940 – 2003.

...

1990.......91.......92.......93.......94.......95.......96.......97.......98.......99
5.2..........4.6......4.8.......4.4......4.0.......3.7......3.5.......3.3......3.1.......3.0

2000.......01.......02.......03
3.0..........3.0......3.4.......3.7

There’s also an interesting chart on military spending as a % of discretionary outlay from 1962 – 2003. I can’t be bothered copying that out as well, but it appears to show the percentage lowering slightly during the Carter administration, increasing from the high 40s to the low 60’s during RR and GHB, then reducing back to the high 40’s at the end of the 2 Clinton terms. This continues for the first couple years under GWB, but in the last year available there is a small spike which is presumably the beginning of the “War on Terror”.

I’m not going to get involved in whose argument this appears to support, but I’ve posted the link so whoever disagrees can I’m sure find a way to rubbish the numbers. I just always prefer raw numbers to those used in an article which are usually selected to support a point.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php

Umm....

(Billions of 2007 dollars)
2007: $626, 2006: $571, 2005: $554, 2004: $534, 2003: $500,
2002: $382, 2001: $348, 2000: $323, 1999: $310 1998: $289

The figures you've given do not included the "Supplemental Spending" to support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is not considered part of the military budget. Money spent on maintenance of the nuclear arsenal is also not included, nor is foreign military financing and training, mandatory contributions to military retirement and healthcare and a host of other items. These items are included in the figures above through 2006 (but not for 2007 - that figure will probably be in $700 billion range when all is said and done).

So the real figure for 2003 would be around 4.8 to 5% (not including future obligations or debt service).

Also there is a rather large chunk of change that goes to support "Black" projects which is not included as part of the budget and for which we get no numbers (since it's "black") but which appears to be in the neighborhood of $40-50 Billion.

The total cost of all past US wars (including "police actions" and foreign aid) is about $265 billion (in $2007 dollars). The Iraq/Afghan war has cost us well over $700 billion so far and there is no end in sight!

And the real figure is actually closer to 1.2 trillion thus far (if we ended the war today) since we will have long term obligations extending at least 50 years into the future.

 

[CSM]

.... And if you are wrong, or one of your buddies is wrong, you should have the decency to admit it.

so now that the figures show you are wrong (Carter did not "increase funding") are you going to admit it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The total cost of all past US wars (including "police actions" and foreign aid) is about $265 billion (in $2007 dollars). The Iraq/Afghan war has cost us well over $700 billion so far and there is no end in sight!

The US spent $288B (in 1940 dollars) on WW2.
In 2005 dollars, that is $4,032B

The figures you've given do not included the "Supplemental Spending" to support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is not considered part of the military budget.

Total DOD spending, including supplemental spending bills, by FY in $B
2002: 349.0
2003: 405.0
2004: 454.1
2005: 493.6
2006: 520.0
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

Money spent on maintenance of the nuclear arsenal is also not included

By FY, in $B
2002: 27.2
2003: 27.7
2004: 28.3
2005: 28.9
2006: 29.5

nor is foreign military financing and training

Total international aid, by FY in $B
2002: 26.2
2003: 27.9
2004: 33.8
2005: 39.0
2006: 36.1
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

mandatory contributions to military retirement and healthcare and a host of other items

Total non-socsec/medicare retirement benefits, by FY in $B
2002: 124.9
2003: 129.4
2004: 135.0
2005: 147.6
2006: 149.4
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

Presuming for the moment that EVERY dollar in the above categories went to defense-related spending, you come up with these numbers:
By FY in $B
2002: 527.3 = 5.1% GDP
2003: 590.0 = 5.5%
2004: 651.2 = 5.6%
2005: 709.1 = 5.8%
2006: 735.0 = 5.6%

So, the real figure for 2003 Is NOT around 4.8 to 5%.

 

[finebead]

so now that the figures show you are wrong (Carter did not "increase funding") are you going to admit it?

Absolutely not. MasterChief said Carter cut military spending. That's all. He did not say Carter cut military spending "in real terms" or "after adjusting for inflation". In normal conversation, when you say "he cut spending" people will interpret that to mean, it went down. If you want to say "he cut spending in real terms" then you need to say that.

In mid argument, Kattieanne introduced a new constraint, which was the effect of inflation. I don't object to that, because it is part of the real world. But it changed the argument.

As it started, MasterChief was wrong when he said Carter cut the defense budget; he did not. I was correct when I factually reported that under Carter the defense budget was increased from 4.7 to 5.2% of GDP, which GDP was growing. This has not been disputed.

If in mid argument, a contraint is added and now we decide we want to talk about the defense budget in real inflation adjusted dollars, that's a reasonable thing to do, but it is not the original position that was stated. Given that the whole decade of the 70's was characterized by stagflation (stagnant economy and significant inflation), I am not sure, but it is quite conceiveable that inflation caused a real decrease in military spending, to the extent I would not go through the research to attempt to disprove it, as I don't feel that it is likely to be provable, so I have no problem with the statement that under Carter defense spending declined in real inflation adjusted dollars.

I consider this to have been a good discussion. We have argued, changed the parameters of the argument, I learned something about the defense budget in the late 70's, I think everyone learned precisely how to state what that military budget situation was. It's the way I am. As a computer programmer, precision is everything. Thanks to all for a good one!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Absolutely not. MasterChief said Carter cut military spending. That's all. He did not say Carter cut military spending "in real terms" or "after adjusting for inflation". In normal conversation, when you say "he cut spending" people will interpret that to mean, it went down. If you want to say "he cut spending in real terms" then you need to say that.

In mid argument, Kattieanne introduced a new constraint, which was the effect of inflation. I don't object to that, because it is part of the real world. But it changed the argument.

As it started, MasterChief was wrong when he said Carter cut the defense budget; he did not. I was correct when I factually reported that under Carter the defense budget was increased from 4.7 to 5.2% of GDP, which GDP was growing. This has not been disputed.

If in mid argument, a contraint is added and now we decide we want to talk about the defense budget in real inflation adjusted dollars, that's a reasonable thing to do, but it is not the original position that was stated. Given that the whole decade of the 70's was characterized by stagflation (stagnant economy and significant inflation), I am not sure, but it is quite conceiveable that inflation caused a real decrease in military spending, to the extent I would not go through the research to attempt to disprove it, as I don't feel that it is likely to be provable, so I have no problem with the statement that under Carter defense spending declined in real inflation adjusted dollars.

I consider this to have been a good discussion. We have argued, changed the parameters of the argument, I learned something about the defense budget in the late 70's, I think everyone learned precisely how to state what that military budget situation was. It's the way I am. As a computer programmer, precision is everything. Thanks to all for a good one!

Remind Jillian and the other libs on this board of your complaint they set the bar for this with their claims that steady continious growth year in and year out of the VA was some how a cut by Bush.

 

[maineman]

Remind Jillian and the other libs on this board of your complaint they set the bar for this with their claims that steady continious growth year in and year out of the VA was some how a cut by Bush.

so... are you admitting that Bush HAS cut VA benefits?

or are you admitting that Carter did NOT cut defense spending?

take YOUR pick

 

[finebead]

Remind Jillian and the other libs on this board of your complaint they set the bar for this with their claims that steady continious growth year in and year out of the VA was some how a cut by Bush.

I had no complaint. MC said Carter cut defense spending, I said he did not, and I showed a post indicating that he did not cut defense spending. Kathianne changed the argument by introducing a new constrain, inflation, which is fine. But what I said originally, in the original context of the argument, was correct.

I have not discussed the details of nominal vs. 'real' (inflation adjusted) spending, yet. But if is say 'spending', my assumption is 'nominal spending' and if I want to say 'real spending' I'll say 'real spending' or 'inflation adjusted spending'.

I thought it was a good discussion, and I have no complaint.

 

[DeadCanDance]

so... are you admitting that Bush HAS cut VA benefits?

or are you admitting that Carter did NOT cut defense spending?

take YOUR pick

LOL