LATimes.com: Romney's plan for the military may be indefensible

The Romborg's Fuzzy Math

"Here's an issue that hasn't been debated much in the presidential campaign but ought to be: How much should we spend on defense?

President Obama has proposed keeping the Pentagon budget essentially flat for the next 10 years. Mitt Romney, by contrast, wants to increase defense spending massively — by more than 50% over current levels, according to one estimate. That could mean almost $2 trillion in additional military spending over 10 years."


Romeny wants to spend 4 per cent of the nation's GDP on defense, an increase form 3.2 per cent. Mittens sees the US an an international policeman. Of course, that mission really belongs to the UN.

Romney recently stated in San Diego:

A strong America is the best deterrent to war that has ever been invented. 


Romney's approach would cause an increase to the national debt and could only be paid for by cut backs to social programs like food stamps, unemployment compensation, Medicare and Medicaid.

See Doyle McManus: Romney's plan for the military may be indefensible - latimes.com

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA




Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.

Another chart that identifies the big spending party

Democrats have been more fiscally conservative than Republicans when it comes to Federal spending.

Why is this?

Perhaps it is the big amygdalas that conservatives have that make them fearful.

Republicans have never met a new defense system it didn't like and ramp up defense spending.

The GOP congress broke an agreement with Obama on spending.

The Ryan plan also increases national defense spending to $554 billion in 2013, an increase of $8 billion over the $546 billion that was agreed to under the Budget Control Act.

Six congressional committees to come up with reductions which means that food stamps and other social safety net programs are likely to face cuts to offset the increase in defense spending. 

If elected, Mitt Romney has already said he will increase defense spending and he will consider Russia the number one threat. 

Colin Powell scratched his head on the Russia threat. 

Does the US need to increase defense spending, particularly after the Us has pulled out of Iraq?
  Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA
Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.

The Republican alternative for 2012

According to Wikipedia, the US spends 4.8 per cent of its GDP on Defense. China spends 2 per cent on defense.

The US spends 2 per cent of the GDP on infrastructure while the Chinese spend 9 per cent of their GDP on infrastructure.

History will remember one country as builders and the other as war monkeys.

Who is the corporate elite? That would be the defense industry.

It is even more profitable than the Wall Street Banks and hedge funds. 

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA

Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.

Super Committee Republicans starting to have defense spending withdrawal

Republicans are addicted to defense spending

John Kyl (R-AZ) became alarmed and said this on  "Meet the Press."

I can't imagine that knowing of the importance of national defense that both Republicans and Democrats wouldn't find a way to work through that process so that we still get the $1.2 trillion in cuts but it doesn’t all fall on defense as [Defense] Secretary [Leon] Panetta pointed out.


I think there is a way to avoid that if there is good will on both sides. And again I think when the reality sets in even those Democrat friends who would like to see more defense cuts ... will find ways to work around that.


What Kyl is not saying is that the reason the national debt increased during the Bush administration is because of defense spending that increased 40 per cent. That increase did not even include the cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars which has already reached $ one trillion.

Paul Krugman said this in a recent NY Times editorial about the Super Committee: Failure is Good!

Why was the Super Committee doomed to fail? Mainly because the gulf between our two major political parties is so wide. Republicans and Democrats don’t just have different priorities; they live in different intellectual and moral universes.

Rightardia hopes that DoD takes the lion's share of the cuts. US Defense spending needs to reined in. We spend more than twice as much of our GDP on  defense (4.5 per cent ) as we do on the US infrastructure (2 per cent).

China spends 9 per cent of it GDP on infrastructure. This is why the Chinese have the biggest dam in the world as well as the fastest train systems.

Defense spending is like crack to the GOP. The Republicans need to get into rehab before they drive the  US into insolvency.  

graphic source: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Breaking-America-s-Addicti-by-Marcy-Winograd-100222-316.html

Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/UFPYA  




Rightardia by Rightard Whitey of Rightardia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at rightardia@gmail.com.