Surprise. Obama defense cuts still won’t “cut it”

posted at 3:15 pm on January 7, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

If we’re going to hit the mark set in last year’s budget agreement for $1.3T in cuts over the next decade, a lot of snipping will be going on. The president is already drawing fire for the major cuts he has proposed to the military, including a large shift to the Pacific region and a major reduction in forces. (These cuts could include as many as 500,000 jobs lost in the military and associated civilian support roles.) But at least it’s getting the job done, right? As the Fiscal Times’ Merrill Goozner reports… not so fast there, skippy.

The broad shift in U.S. strategic thinking unveiled Thursday by President Obama and his top military advisers will be accompanied by $489 billion of spending reductions over the coming decade. Under the plan, the military will abandon maintaining sufficient forces to fight two wars simultaneously, while placing greater emphasis on mounting a forward presence in the Asia-Pacific region. China, according to military planners, is emerging as not just a global economic power, but a potential rival for U.S. hegemony in the region.

But the plan doesn’t meet the $650 billion in defense savings that will be part of the $1.3 trillion of federal spending cuts scheduled to start in 2013, under last year’s Budget Control Act.

If defense cuts are limited to $489 billion, the next administration will have to impose major new cuts in domestic programs, to avert the much larger cuts in the Pentagon budget that Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and top military brass say are unacceptable and would jeopardize national security.

That leaves another $160B to come up with, and the White House has already admitted it can’t come out of the military. Obama may be convinced that we’re “turning the page on a decade of war,” but the need for a superpower level military has not been obviated in any way. (Also, the report indicates that these numbers include a baked in assumption that we’ll be out of Afghanistan on the current schedule. Care to place a small wager on that one?)

So where does the rest of the money come from? Entitlement programs? Coming from a Democrat in an election year? Please. Aside from squeezing a few more dollars out of foreign aid, how do they bridge the gap? Say… some of those tax cuts are coming up on their expiration date, aren’t they?

Of course, the most likely scenario is that both Obama and Congress will do what they always do when the going gets tough. They’ll figure out a way to make the mandatory cuts somewhat “less mandatory” and punt.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Surprise!
Unexpectedly

KOOLAID2 on January 7, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Can’t we just ditch this clown and claim he ran away?

bigdicksplace on January 7, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Yet Mr. Romney, GOP savior most electable cannot summon the courage in NH to say “Obama’s policies are really hurting the country and he knows exactly what he is doing.” Do that Romney and make the mofo explain exactly why his policies are helping.

arnold ziffel on January 7, 2012 at 3:24 PM

So not only do these cuts weaken the military, they don’t accomplish the end goal. Why are we doing this again?

Pancho on January 7, 2012 at 3:24 PM

The point is to weaken the military.

vityas on January 7, 2012 at 3:27 PM

“Cut NPR not the Marine Corp!”

aquaviva on January 7, 2012 at 3:28 PM

We keep doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results with military drawdowns. Isn’t that the definition of insanity?

Johnnyreb on January 7, 2012 at 3:28 PM

So not only do these cuts weaken the military, they don’t accomplish the end goal. Why are we doing this again?

Pancho on January 7, 2012 at 3:24 PM

]

Because it was more politically savvy than making brave decisions and taking taking difficult steps to fix our spending problem.

29Victor on January 7, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Yet Mr. Romney, GOP savior most electable cannot summon the courage in NH to say “Obama’s policies are really hurting the country and he knows exactly what he is doing.”

arnold ziffel on January 7, 2012 at 3:24 PM

He would, except for the liberals in Mass.

29Victor on January 7, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Because it was more politically savvy than making brave decisions and taking taking difficult steps to fix our spending problem.

29Victor on January 7, 2012 at 3:29 PM

And this administration probably wonders why the military isn’t big fans…/sarc <– see I remembered it this time :)

Pancho on January 7, 2012 at 3:35 PM

And tonight’s debates are going to be nothing but a spitting contest. Especially, on ABC. I wish they would take their sights off each other and sight in on the one who really needs to take the shots.

I suppose I’ll get banned for this.

Mirimichi on January 7, 2012 at 3:38 PM

2/3 entitlements
1/6 military

Kini on January 7, 2012 at 3:40 PM

The Pubbies should counter that cuts should be made in all of the duplicative government programs already soaking up tax dollars and streamlining the size of government. While there’s plenty to cut in the defense budget it should be targeted at those systems foistered on the Pentagon by politicians wanting to protect jobs in the defense contracting industries in their own states. How much more armaments are we going to keep on building that the DOD has already said they don’t need or want??? Boots on the ground should be about the last place to cut. Does Obama want to increase the unemployment numbers when the military discharges occur??

Bob in VA on January 7, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Liberals won’t acquiesce on entitlement spending

Right-wingers won’t acquiesce on military spending

Inflation and bankruptcy, here we come!!!

antifederalist on January 7, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Given that most allof the time “cuts” in government spending are not cuts at all but are rather lower increases than someone wanted or “projected”, who the hell even knows what these bureaucrats are even talking about.

VorDaj on January 7, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Does Obama want to increase the unemployment numbers when the military discharges occur??

Bob in VA on January 7, 2012 at 3:40 PM

The military (as a whole) won’t vote for him. Why should he care?

Pancho on January 7, 2012 at 3:47 PM

(Also, the report indicates that these numbers include a baked in assumption that we’ll be out of Afghanistan on the current schedule. Care to place a small wager on that one?)

Yes, I would. FF (that’s my wife’s and my name for Zero, stands for f**k face) pulled out of Iraq prematurely and left them to disintegrate into Iranian hegemony. Why would he not do the same in Afghanistan? His ultimate goal is the destruction of America. A premature Afghan pullout fits right in.

NOMOBO on January 7, 2012 at 3:50 PM

It is so hard to believe that someone like Obama is supposed to lead someone like this. Oh, and have your tissues ready.

bloggless on January 7, 2012 at 3:53 PM

kick the can down the road part 8,354

cmsinaz on January 7, 2012 at 3:53 PM

antifederalist on January 7, 2012 at 3:42 PM

“Right-wingers” do support smart cuts to the military like obsolete weapons systems, unneeded military bases, and the acquisition of weapons systems the military doesn’t want but which are forced on it by some member of Congress with a defense contractor in his district.

What we “right-wingers” don’t support is weakening our ability to defend ourselves on multiple fronts simultaneously or cuts that limit our ability to project power.

Unlike the 60% of the budget that is sent unconstitutionally on social programs, atonal defense is an actual constitutional function of government.

The goal of Obama and the Leftists has been to gut our military. It’s been their goal for decades because our military makes us stronger than other nations and the Social-Democrats can’t stand that the US is better than other countries. It violates their perverted sense of equality.

And please define, if you can , “right-winger”. I get sick of seeing that term casually tossed around.

Charlemagne on January 7, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Don’t forget McCain has endorsed Obama for 2012 :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG5u8EbBUcs&feature=player_embedded

burrata on January 7, 2012 at 3:56 PM

I agree we should cut the military. How about we cut the current commander-in-chief?

Rixon on January 7, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Of course, the most likely scenario is that both Obama and Congress will do what they always do when the going gets tough.

Yeah, they’ll cook the books, try to convince the public that it’s not a bunch of lies, and then find somebody (preferably the Republicans) to blame it all on when they get busted.

This is the usual MO, isn’t it?

sage0925 on January 7, 2012 at 4:05 PM

“Right-wingers” do support smart cuts to the military like obsolete weapons systems, unneeded military bases, and the acquisition of weapons systems the military doesn’t want but which are forced on it by some member of Congress with a defense contractor in his district.

Got a list of these cuts that you support? How much of a % of the DoD budget and the overall Federal budget would these cuts amount to?

“What we “right-wingers” don’t support is weakening our ability to defend ourselves on multiple fronts simultaneously or cuts that limit our ability to project power.”

And what does “projecting power” have to do with defense? What military powers out there credibly threaten us? What correlation do you make between total military spending and world wide threats? According to the following site, the US Federal govt accounts for 48% of the world’s total defense expenditures. When is enough enough?

Unlike the 60% of the budget that is sent unconstitutionally on social programs, atonal defense is an actual constitutional function of government.

Not that I disagree with you that a expenditures on social programs are unconstitutional, but what are the chances that grandma is going to give up her SS check or Medicare benefits to help balance the budget? You have to cut where you can cut. For now, the military is a good candidate.

antifederalist on January 7, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Here is the site:

http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/military-spending-worldwide/

antifederalist on January 7, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Can’t we just ditch this clown and claim he ran away?

bigdicksplace on January 7, 2012 at 3:19 PM

He’s more than likely chipped and forged or not, he’s got papers.

DRAT!!We’ll have to come up with something else.

Taco Bob on January 7, 2012 at 4:14 PM

And tonight’s debates are going to be nothing but a spitting contest. Especially, on ABC. I wish they would take their sights off each other and sight in on the one who really needs to take the shots.

My prediction is that Diane Sawyer will ask Rick Santorum
about gay sex,beastiality,birth control pills and condoms. she will NOT ask him any questions about the deficit,defense budget,or taxes

gerrym51 on January 7, 2012 at 4:16 PM

These cuts are pitifully small and already everyone is getting cold feet. Indeed, they aren’t even “cuts” — they are reductions in the rate of increases.

AngusMc on January 7, 2012 at 4:18 PM

We must be able to project american power.

Most important is the navy and aircraft carriers.

gerrym51 on January 7, 2012 at 4:20 PM

I suppose I’ll get banned for this.

Mirimichi on January 7, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Highly unlikely

Jazz Shaw on January 7, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Does Obama want to increase the unemployment numbers when the military discharges occur??

Bob in VA on January 7, 2012 at 3:40 PM

The military (as a whole) won’t vote for him. Why should he care?

Pancho on January 7, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Actually that only applies to Officers; the percentage of enlisted military who are Democrats has greatly increased over the past decade. They’re not a Majority yet, but in another 10 years they will be.

Officers still vote 7:1 for Republicans.

Del Dolemonte on January 7, 2012 at 4:33 PM

“Cut NPR not the Marine Corp!”

aquaviva on January 7, 2012 at 3:28 PM

And the national Endowment for the Arts. There are hundreds of things that could be cut.

Hey.. I have a question… if the world is safer and we don’t need a large military anymore, why are we expanding the TSA? Why the need to shuffle Americans through pat downs and scanners like cattle? Oh wait.. that’s cuz there’s a terrorist threat still going on… but, I guess not though, since we’re downsizing our military, but…..

unless of course, someone thinks Americans are the real enemy.

JellyToast on January 7, 2012 at 4:37 PM

I suppose I’ll get banned for this.

Mirimichi on January 7, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Highly unlikely

Jazz Shaw on January 7, 2012 at 4:22 PM

I think poor Mirimichi has been on some other site before and seen the influence of Lee Fang!

KOOLAID2 on January 7, 2012 at 4:40 PM

My prediction is that Diane Sawyer will ask Rick Santorum
about gay sex,beastiality,birth control pills and condoms. she will NOT ask him any questions about the deficit,defense budget,or taxes

gerrym51 on January 7, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Bingo! You get it.

Highly unlikely

Jazz Shaw on January 7, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Thanks.

Mirimichi on January 7, 2012 at 4:40 PM

It’s kind of silly to assume military budget cuts over 10 years. If, after two years of a downsized military, the sh*t hits the fan and we’re mega-attacked, we’ll have to ramp up again. Then, bye-bye cuts.

joejm65 on January 7, 2012 at 4:45 PM

So not only do these cuts weaken the military, they don’t accomplish the end goal. Why are we doing this again?

Pancho on January 7, 2012 at 3:24 PM

The point is to teach the military an “Obama Lesson.” This is Obama tossing a drink in the Pentagon’s face and laughing about it, saying, “who’s gonna’ do anything about it, huh? Not you, not you, nor you, nor you, hahhaha…”

This is Obama making an Obama Moment to make a point the He-Be-Obama.

Lourdes on January 7, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Pancho on January 7, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Lourdes on January 7, 2012 at 4:47 PM

And his wife and momma-in-law can’t stand the military, so I’m sure they’re making a big noise about it whenever they can, resentments flying, jealousies and denigrations daily over dinner.

No one should be fooled about the wife’s latest ploys about military families and all that pretend-sweet-talk she’s doing. It’s padding so Barack can be busy hacking away at them in the background.

Expect, however, more from the wife about her “concerns” about “military families” and similar. Likely tours of facilities, pictures of her hugging — at a distance, mind you, air-kiss included — the “dear folk in the military”.

Lourdes on January 7, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Lee Fang!

KOOLAID2 on January 7, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Anyone know what happened to Lee? He’s no longer at ThinkProgress; they have a page for him there but they refer to him in the Past Tense.

Del Dolemonte on January 7, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Hey.. I have a question… if the world is safer and we don’t need a large military anymore, why are we expanding the TSA?

JellyToast on January 7, 2012 at 4:37 PM

I guess it is because there are more infants, toddlers, dying cancer victims, and elderly white grandmothers that need to be molested.

antifederalist on January 7, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Hey.. I have a question… if the world is safer and we don’t need a large military anymore, why are we expanding the TSA?

JellyToast on January 7, 2012 at 4:37 PM

I guess it is because there are more infants, toddlers, dying cancer victims, and elderly white grandmothers that need to be molested.

antifederalist on January 7, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Liberals won’t acquiesce on entitlement spending

Right-wingers won’t acquiesce on military spending

Inflation and bankruptcy, here we come!!!

antifederalist on January 7, 2012 at 3:42 PM

1. Liberals won’t acquiesce on entitlement spending

2. Right-wingers won’t acquiesce on military spending

3. Liberals increase regulations and unionization

4. Liberals refuse to decrease regulations

5. Liberals demand increase in taxes from middle class and up, refuse to tax majority of population…

…and thus…

your conclusion: “Inflation and bankruptcy, here we come!”

I blame the Left, what with the problems creating the bad conclusion being majorly caused by the Left.

Lourdes on January 7, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Because it was more politically savvy than making brave decisions and taking taking difficult steps to fix our spending problem.

29Victor on January 7, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Yeah, spending more than the rest of the world combined on the military has nothing to do with our spending problem.

ReformedDeceptiCon on January 7, 2012 at 4:54 PM

wait…am I missing something? The article seems to be saying that he is not cutting as much as he said he would…. therefore the new strategy is more expensive than originally though due to the refocus on China Asia Pacific, which I think is important.

I mean I would rather see more cuts in the military with a more automated counterterrorism response while having a strong defense (cyber and other home grown attacks) and a strong and health military ready to respond (vs a tired one full of mentally challenged soldiers)

Let me just remind you that we have a deficit that as of today would take 50 years to erase….isn’t that our biggest national security threat? why are we not taking it seriously? I’m fine with a plan that, proportionally to their size in the budget, cuts both.

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on January 7, 2012 at 4:56 PM

It’s kind of silly to assume military budget cuts over 10 years. If, after two years of a downsized military, the sh*t hits the fan and we’re mega-attacked, we’ll have to ramp up again. Then, bye-bye cuts.

joejm65 on January 7, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Who do you project is planning on attacking us? Is it China or Russia? The US is on an unsustainable path as it relates to its spending. Is it worth continuing along this path of unsustainability (which ensures bankruptcy) in order to maintain a massive military force that may not be needed?

antifederalist on January 7, 2012 at 4:59 PM

No one should be fooled about the wife’s latest ploys about military families and all that pretend-sweet-talk she’s doing. It’s padding so Barack can be busy hacking away at them in the background.

Expect, however, more from the wife about her “concerns” about “military families” and similar. Likely tours of facilities, pictures of her hugging — at a distance, mind you, air-kiss included — the “dear folk in the military”.

Lourdes on January 7, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Personally, both as a former officer and a current military wife, I find her interest to be patronizing and highly insulting. Someone who has never handled a deployment has no idea what it’s like, and a two-week community organizing trip does not equal a deployment.

Pancho on January 7, 2012 at 4:59 PM

But, but if he eliminated the EPA, Dept Ed and Dept Energy that would eliminate the debt in the magic 10 years. or something like that so even one dollar that does not go to the DoD is a draconian cut.

tjexcite on January 7, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Someone who has never handled a deployment has no idea what it’s like, and a two-week community organizing trip does not equal a deployment.

Pancho on January 7, 2012 at 4:59 PM

In liberal land it does, at least for them.

Between the wife and I we gave the Navy over 42 years and change here.

Johnnyreb on January 7, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Entitlements are offensive to the human condition.

You are not entitled to jack shit.

hillbillyjim on January 7, 2012 at 5:27 PM

I think it’s unfair that we’re spending more on the military than the next 10 nations spending combined. What the U.S. should do is make its military equal to that of say, Chad or Bolivia, so we are being fair.

Bolt-actions and mismatched uniforms for everyone!

Bishop on January 7, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Any “defense strategy” that 0bama “coordinates” is bound to be a disaster.

Military genius, Zero ain’t.

Who is John Galt on January 7, 2012 at 5:42 PM

“Cut NPR not the Marine Corp!”

aquaviva on January 7, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Could not be said better

KBird on January 7, 2012 at 5:44 PM

My prediction is that Diane Sawyer will ask Rick Santorum about gay sex, beastiality, birth control pills and condoms. she will NOT ask him any questions about the deficit, defense budget,or taxes.

gerrym51 on January 7, 2012 at 4:16 PM

I suppose I shouldn’t even bother thinking this will ever happen, but at this debate tonight I’d cheer my head off if Santorum or Perry or Gingrich or Huntsman or Romney completely preempted Diane Sawyer and her stupid questions and deliberately directed their answers to the real and serious problems Obama has foisted on us.

I am also humming that Aerosmith song, “Dream On,” as I’m typing.

PatriotGal2257 on January 7, 2012 at 5:56 PM

I think it’s unfair that we’re spending more on the military than the next 10 nations spending combined. What the U.S. should do is make its military equal to that of say, Chad or Bolivia, so we are being fair.

Bolt-actions and mismatched uniforms for everyone!

Bishop on January 7, 2012 at 5:30 PM

I think it is ludicrous that we are spending more on the military than the next 10 nations combined and yet people here fear that if we were to cut military spending to the level of the next 3 nations combined we have opened ourselves up to a foreign invasion. Also, I think it is unwise that we are spending more on the military than the next 10 nations combined considering the deficit, debt, and unfunded liabilities are all well over $100T.

antifederalist on January 7, 2012 at 6:00 PM

I think it is ludicrous that we are spending more on the military than the next 10 nations combined and yet people here fear that if we were to cut military spending to the level of the next 3 nations combined we have opened ourselves up to a foreign invasion. Also, I think it is unwise that we are spending more on the military than the next 10 nations combined considering the deficit, debt, and unfunded liabilities are all well over $100T.

antifederalist on January 7, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Educate yourself on the reality of the geopolitical world in which we live; then make your sweeping announcements of the ludicrousness of our military posture. The fact is that we need to be expanding our military and its capabilities while in fact we are downsizing our future.

Oh, I almost forgot. Eff RP and his blimp.

hillbillyjim on January 7, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Lee Fang!

KOOLAID2 on January 7, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Anyone know what happened to Lee? He’s no longer at ThinkProgress; they have a page for him there but they refer to him in the Past Tense.

Del Dolemonte on January 7, 2012 at 4:51 PM

I don’t know…that’s why I specifically mentioned him.
You can’t die of Bullsh!t…can you?

KOOLAID2 on January 7, 2012 at 6:17 PM

Oh, I almost forgot. Eff RP and his blimp.

hillbillyjim on January 7, 2012 at 6:12 PM

NOT THE BLIMP!

/

BallisticBob on January 7, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Educate yourself on the reality of the geopolitical world in which we live; then make your sweeping announcements of the ludicrousness of our military posture. The fact is that we need to be expanding our military and its capabilities while in fact we are downsizing our future.

Oh, I almost forgot. Eff RP and his blimp.

hillbillyjim on January 7, 2012 at 6:12 PM

You said a lot of words and yet you managed to not say much. Why do we need to expand the Federal government’s military capability?

antifederalist on January 7, 2012 at 6:22 PM

I guess it is because there are more infants, toddlers, dying cancer victims, and elderly white grandmothers that need to be molested.

He’ll cut the military and put those dollars into his national civilian police force, as well funded and as well armed as the military. The TSA is becoming the foundation for it.

TSA means “Transportation Security Administration.” That covers a lot. Everything from airplanes to cars to bicycles to your feet.

If Obama gets elected again.. it’ll only be for one more term. The problem is that term will never end.

JellyToast on January 7, 2012 at 6:32 PM

Why do we need to expand the Federal government’s military capability?

antifederalist on January 7, 2012 at 6:22 PM

As I said earlier, you need to educate yourself about the realities of the post-cold war world.

We are going to need the capability to sustain more than one conflict without jeopardizing our troops unnecessarily.

We have many enemies, and some of them are expanding their military capabilities at an alarming rate.

If the government would get their busy fingers out of our everyday lives domestically and quit interfering with the free market principles which brought us such prosperity, we wouldn’t be scratching and scraping to fund our military.

Think a little bit before you post such drivel.

hillbillyjim on January 7, 2012 at 6:33 PM

As I said earlier, you need to educate yourself about the realities of the post-cold war world.

We are going to need the capability to sustain more than one conflict without jeopardizing our troops unnecessarily.

We have many enemies, and some of them are expanding their military capabilities at an alarming rate.

If the government would get their busy fingers out of our everyday lives domestically and quit interfering with the free market principles which brought us such prosperity, we wouldn’t be scratching and scraping to fund our military.

Think a little bit before you post such drivel.

hillbillyjim on January 7, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Who is planning on attacking us? And since you insist that “we are going to need the capability to sustain more than one conflict without jeopardizing our troops unnecessarily,” which (multiple) countries plan to attack us in the future? Instead of insulting me, why not cobble together a few sentences that buttresses your argument?

antifederalist on January 7, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Educate yourself on the reality of the geopolitical world in which we live; then make your sweeping announcements of the ludicrousness of our military posture. The fact is that we need to be expanding our military and its capabilities while in fact we are downsizing our future.

Oh, I almost forgot. Eff RP and his blimp.

hillbillyjim on January 7, 2012 at 6:12 PM

To a Ronulan everything is static. We spend more money than the next 10 countries combined…blah…blah…blah. What you don’t hear is that China (number 2 spender) has been increasing military spending by 10% every year for the last decade. Nor do you hear any questioning whether the actual numbers reported by China are accurate. Nor do they take anything into account like how much cheaper it is for China to produce weapons or how much less they pay their soldiers.

Nope. All you’ll hear is that we need a few nukes and everything will be ok. Of course I guess they’re willing to destroy human life on the planet when some nation closes down the Panama canal or closes the Persian Gulf, because our only option for a response will be a nuclear one.

ReaganWasRight on January 7, 2012 at 6:38 PM

To a Ronulan everything is static. We spend more money than the next 10 countries combined…blah…blah…blah. What you don’t hear is that China (number 2 spender) has been increasing military spending by 10% every year for the last decade. Nor do you hear any questioning whether the actual numbers reported by China are accurate. Nor do they take anything into account like how much cheaper it is for China to produce weapons or how much less they pay their soldiers.

Nope. All you’ll hear is that we need a few nukes and everything will be ok. Of course I guess they’re willing to destroy human life on the planet when some nation closes down the Panama canal or closes the Persian Gulf, because our only option for a response will be a nuclear one.

ReaganWasRight on January 7, 2012 at 6:38 PM

So China plans on invading? I guess that’s the only way they are going to get back all of the money we owe them.

Old: People’s Liberation Army

New: People’s Repo Man

antifederalist on January 7, 2012 at 6:44 PM

http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/military-spending-worldwide/

antifederalist on January 7, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Sure shows how Europe is getting a free ride.

We really should require that Europe pay it’s fair share.

Instead Obama fights Frances war in Libia to get the French cheaper Oil.

Though this will back fire on France as they will become the first European Islamic State most likely.

Steveangell on January 7, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Cuts? Why are all you so upset about the non-existent cuts to the military? Obama plans to increase military spending – just not as much as politicians previously planned.

Calling this “massive cuts” is being as misleading as liberals were when Republicans proposed to slow the growth of entitlement programs. The White House blog claimed that such proposals would mean “ending Medicare as we know it, slashing Medicaid, and threatening Social Security.”

nazo311 on January 7, 2012 at 6:53 PM

http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/military-spending-worldwide/

antifederalist on January 7, 2012 at 4:09 PM

No most likely China just plans on waiting on us to join a One World Government much more to their liking. They know at that point they can take Japan and any other country near them and incorporate them into China. Russia and China have most likely already determines who gets what in the World. Just wonder where we come in but do not really care. Both China and Russia have no idea God will actually decide by then.

Steveangell on January 7, 2012 at 6:56 PM

So China plans on invading? I guess that’s the only way they are going to get back all of the money we owe them.

Old: People’s Liberation Army

New: People’s Repo Man

antifederalist on January 7, 2012 at 6:44 PM

This isn’t the 1830s. The world is tied together and China doesn’t have to invade the U.S. to hurt the country. They are a competitor for world resources. What happens if someone refuses us access to oil or doesn’t allow our goods in international markets? I guess we always have diplomacy and that works really well when working from a position of weakness. /

Right now we are in a good position. We are their customer. One day China will turn their markets inward and won’t be reliant on us to sustain their economy. Then what?

ReaganWasRight on January 7, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Calling this “massive cuts” is being as misleading as liberals were when Republicans proposed to slow the growth of entitlement programs. The White House blog claimed that such proposals would mean “ending Medicare as we know it, slashing Medicaid, and threatening Social Security.”

nazo311 on January 7, 2012 at 6:53 PM

I consider 500,000 jobs pretty massive, but I do see your point.

ReaganWasRight on January 7, 2012 at 7:06 PM

What happens if someone refuses us access to oil or doesn’t allow our goods in international markets?

I guess you believe that we should either bomb or invade any country that refuses to trade with us. Please correct me if I am wrong. By the way, the only time what you described has happened is when the UN imposes and the US enforces trade sanctions.

Right now we are in a good position. We are their customer. One day China will turn their markets inward and won’t be reliant on us to sustain their economy. Then what?

Even if China someday becomes self-sustaining, that doesn’t mean that war is the next step. Chances are, they still will want to sell us stuff and they will still need to steal (err… I mean forcibly transfer) the technology from US companies. Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think their political/social environment is conducive to innovation.

antifederalist on January 7, 2012 at 7:15 PM

I guess you believe that we should either bomb or invade any country that refuses to trade with us. Please correct me if I am wrong. By the way, the only time what you described has happened is when the UN imposes and the US enforces trade sanctions.

That’s not what I said. I asked what if someone shut down the Persian Gulf? That’s different than a country refusing trade with us.

Even if China someday becomes self-sustaining, that doesn’t mean that war is the next step.

I agree, but then we have that nagging problem that they are growing their military by 10% per year and that when indexed with purchasing power parity, they’ll have a military expenditure equal to ours by 2017 or 2018. Of course RP would say that if we cut our military then they’ll stop growing theirs but that same theory never worked with the USSR.

I’d rather err on the side of caution and keep a strong military just in case. Especially since it takes about 20 years to get a new aircraft into production. We’re too hung up on this problem when the real issue that will bankrupt us is SS, Medicare and Medicaid.

ReaganWasRight on January 7, 2012 at 7:32 PM

The idea that we must be “invaded” in order to need a strong military is laughable on the face of it.

There is no use in wasting my time on someone who cannot fathom the complexity of foreign affairs and the geopolitical realities of the world as it is.

The notion that the RP fanboys have about foreign policy is pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking, if you can call it thinking at all.

Done.

hillbillyjim on January 7, 2012 at 8:21 PM

How about we shut down each federal agency in alphabetical order just to see if anyone notices…

landlines on January 7, 2012 at 11:00 PM

The idea that we must be “invaded” in order to need a strong military is laughable on the face of it.

There is no use in wasting my time on someone who cannot fathom the complexity of foreign affairs and the geopolitical realities of the world as it is.

The notion that the RP fanboys have about foreign policy is pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking, if you can call it thinking at all.

Done.

hillbillyjim on January 7, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Right!!! The greatest threat to our security right now is enemies within our own government…consisting of outright enemies and their enablers, the incompetents.

landlines on January 7, 2012 at 11:04 PM

Impeachment.

rayra on January 7, 2012 at 11:42 PM

So where does the rest of the money come from? Entitlement programs? Coming from a Democrat in an election year?

I wouldn’t think that would happen in any year?

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 7, 2012 at 11:50 PM

If Obama wants to cut the military to this extent, I suggest they do the following:

Restart the draft. Induct a significant number of people each year, run them though basic training and a skill. Basically, give them an MOS. Then release them back into the economy on some sort of inactive reserve status.

In other words, train many more than you actually need at the moment but have a trained pool of civilians who know how to shoot and have some basic technical skills that can be drawn upon in a hurry. It also serves as an asset to the economy by providing a pool of workers who have some training in a technical skill.

This would provide an asset to the general economy of the country as well as providing some security in the case that a large call up is needed on short notice. These people would already know a column left from marching to the right and would need a shorter refresher training cycle to be useful in a combat situation.

crosspatch on January 8, 2012 at 2:39 AM

The goal of Obama and the Leftists has been to gut our military. It’s been their goal for decades because our military makes us stronger than other nations and the Social-Democrats can’t stand that the US is better than other countries. It violates their perverted sense of equality.

And please define, if you can , “right-winger”. I get sick of seeing that term casually tossed around.

Charlemagne on January 7, 2012

Well said, Carolingian. We have something in common.
Anno Domini 800.

‘Tis indeed a sad day when America can’t fight two small-scale wars without Reserves and National Guard troops. If cut further, re-instate conscription. Maybe someone in the Romney family will be forced to serve our country. None have ever volunteered.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 9, 2012 at 8:30 AM