Obama, McCain & the waning American...

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It's not what Seattle is preaching.

On the world stage, which other country will fight oppressions?

China?

India?

Not the Euros.

So approaching the world through a practice of appeasement as the naive, ignorant Obama preaches will some how temper oppression. How then?

I see Obama's "just make nice to them" approach as woefully naive and stupid.

Saying "I will meet with them" is hardly the equivalent of "I will just make nice to them."

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I don't actually think Iraq is that much of a pull on our resources. Entitlement spending in the 2008 budget is 1.527 trillion (that's 1,000,000,000 x 1527 to look at it another way). Military spending is 626 billion, only 145 of which is the "Global War on Terror."

So the war in terror costs just a shade over 9% of what entitlements costs are. In a budget of roughly 2.9 trillion, the war on terror accounts of half a percent overall, entitlements 52 percent.

What other more pressing military threats are you alluding to? What had we ought to be doing to address them that we are unable to now?

You need to check your source. The $626B requested doesn't include many military spending items that are outside of the DoD funding (such as DoE spending on nuclear weapons, Veterans Affairs spending, etc). I would also be more than interested in seeing what you are considering "entitlement" spending, itemized.

Furthermore, the budget for Iraq and Afghanistan has historically been lowballed in the initial president's budget for each fiscal year, with additional funds coming through "emergency" bills.

As for other threats we are facing, those include, obviously, the large influx of Islamic radicals into Pakistan which is destabilizing that country (a nuclear power), the denigration of stability in Afghanistan, a haven for terrorism, and others.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Am I to understand that the longer we stayed in Vietnam, the greater the prestige for the USA, and those that advocated leaving Vietnam were wrong?

Clearly.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Vietnam to some extent provides a useful precedent but let's not get carried away. Vietnam had a couple of very different dynamics. First, you had the Chinese backing North Vietnam financially, with armament and personnel, and the nuclear threat. The Soviet Union was waiting in the wings as a potential ally of North Vietnam, which was a given everywhere (just as we were pleased to help the roots of Al Qaeda in the Soviet-Afgham war (they hated us then as much as now)). In short, the war was demonstrably unwinnable. In contrast, as you have noted, we're fighting a bunch of goat herders in Iraq. Second, our military then drafted soldiers, now it's all voluntary. Most Americans consciously or subsonsciously see a a moral distinction there. I think that's not irrational.

This just isn't true. Goat herders in Iraq? You seriously underestimate the problem we face.

Chechnyans are training the Afghanis and the Iraqis, particularly in explosives and sniping. They are deadly good at their job. Funding and arms for the Iraqi insurgents comes from Iran (who is already an ally of the insurgency) and many other nations, some have speculated including France and Russia. Meanwhile, you have within Iraq a population that is heterogenous and bent on destroying any group within Iraq that isn't just like them.

We aren't drafting people now, but we can't possibly continue long term without a draft or a substantial influx of new enlistees in the military (which isn't happening). Right now, many people are on their third tour in Iraq/Afghanistan, and those tours have been extended to 15 months (rather than 12) to keep us at sufficient staffing levels. How long can that go on for?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You need to check your source. The $626B requested doesn't include many military spending items that are outside of the DoD funding (such as DoE spending on nuclear weapons, Veterans Affairs spending, etc). I would also be more than interested in seeing what you are considering "entitlement" spending, itemized.

Furthermore, the budget for Iraq and Afghanistan has historically been lowballed in the initial president's budget for each fiscal year, with additional funds coming through "emergency" bills.

As for other threats we are facing, those include, obviously, the large influx of Islamic radicals into Pakistan which is destabilizing that country (a nuclear power), the denigration of stability in Afghanistan, a haven for terrorism, and others.

Well, I used Wiki as my source. Why don't you look it over and tell me what you disagree with. I didn't include Veterans affairs or homeland security as I see those as distinct, though I suppose you create new veterans all the time.

Entitlement spending included Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP and Unemployment/Welfare.

Anyway you slice it, IMO, military spending never even remotely comes into the neighborhood of entitlement spending. We are not serious about reducing spending. If we were, the military would be WAY down the list. That is my primary point here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...l_budget,_2008

PS you are right that the Iraq war is not part of that number. It says so right on that page. I missed it.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Well, I used Wiki as my source. Why don't you look it over and tell me what you disagree with. I didn't include Veterans affairs or homeland security as I see those as distinct, though I suppose you create new veterans all the time.

Entitlement spending included Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP and Unemployment/Welfare.

Anyway you slice it, IMO, military spending never even remotely comes into the neighborhood of entitlement spending. We are not serious about reducing spending. If we were, the military would be WAY down the list. That is my primary point here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...l_budget,_2008

PS you are right that the Iraq war is not part of that number. It says so right on that page. I missed it.

This is true. Military spending, while quite a bit, is still far surpassed by entitlement spending. And we know what happened with the attempt to reform just one portion (Social Security).

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

This is true. Military spending, while quite a bit, is still far surpassed by entitlement spending. And we know what happened with the attempt to reform just one portion (Social Security).

America is in terrible shape when care for the elderly costs more than what we spend on war?

Yikes.

If this is how the GOP thinks, the GOP is dead.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

America is in terrible shape when care for the elderly costs more than what we spend on war?

I don't think even Democrats argue that entitlement spending is out of control; they just disagree on the solution. Are you arguing otherwise?

I'll add parenthetically, it shouldn't be the job of the US government to see that the elderly are "taken care of" in retirement.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't think even Democrats argue that entitlement spending is out of control; they just disagree on the solution. Are you arguing otherwise?

I'll add parenthetically, it shouldn't be the job of the US government to see that the elderly are "taken care of" in retirement.

how much money will be spent on war when Christ reigns?

It's funny that the commanders in Afghanistan are complaining they don't have enough troops to do the job. I wonder why.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Well, I used Wiki as my source. Why don't you look it over and tell me what you disagree with. I didn't include Veterans affairs or homeland security as I see those as distinct, though I suppose you create new veterans all the time.

Entitlement spending included Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP and Unemployment/Welfare.

Anyway you slice it, IMO, military spending never even remotely comes into the neighborhood of entitlement spending. We are not serious about reducing spending. If we were, the military would be WAY down the list. That is my primary point here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...l_budget,_2008

PS you are right that the Iraq war is not part of that number. It says so right on that page. I missed it.

I already detailed quite a few problems with your numbers. The fact that the Iraq war isn't included (or Afghanistan for that matter) makes the numbers almost useless, wouldn't you agree? I don't imagine we are waging those wars for free.

It also depends on what you are using for comparison purposes. SS, while it could be characterized as an "entitlement program" by some, has its own source of revenue. It isn't part of the budget for the use of income tax (which is what the budget is really addressing). The president began incorporating SS into the budget to make military spending appear to be a smaller percentage of the budget during Vietnam. It has stayed that way since.