Military Spending

[Texsox]

As I was reading an opinion piece that pointed out, again, that Kerry has voted against any increases in miltary spending, I got a thought.

 

Why not amend the constitution to stop Congress from voting on military spending? With the war on terror and everything else, shouldn't we just give the military everything they think they need? Why subject the military to the idiots in congress that know nothing about running a military. The rest of the money can be used for the other government programs.

[Pale Hose Jon]

The problem is not military spending, it is military waste. There needs to be an audit of all military spending. And giving the military free reign on spending is ludacris. We already spend more on our military then the rest of the world combined.

[Texsox]

They audit the auditors.

 

Listening to the GOP campaigning that Kerry voted no to this and that, voting no must be a bad thing, so let's get rid of it. No more voting.

 

If we want our elected leaders to vote, then voting no should not be in and of itself, a bad thing.

[KipWellsFan]

They audit the auditors.

 

Listening to the GOP campaigning that Kerry voted no to this and that, voting no must be a bad thing, so let's get rid of it. No more voting.

 

If we want our elected leaders to vote, then voting no should not be in and of itself, a bad thing.

Not sure of what you're trying to get at Tex

[Texsox]

Not sure of what you're trying to get at Tex

Kerry has voted against every major weapons program. How many times have we heard this from Bush and his talk radio cheerleaders?

 

The GOP seems to be taking the position that anyone that votes no on military spending is soft on terrorists. That you cannot have a President who wants to cut military spending. If that really is a true statement, then we would have a situation that the military gets whatever the ask for. I am wondering if the rest of America thinks that way.

[Chisoxfn]

Kerry has voted against every major weapons program. How many times have we heard this from Bush and his talk radio cheerleaders?

 

The GOP seems to be taking the position that anyone that votes no on military spending is soft on terrorists. That you cannot have a President who wants to cut military spending. If that really is a true statement, then we would have a situation that the military gets whatever the ask for. I am wondering if the rest of America thinks that way.

Fine, if everyone went along with Kerry's plans, who knows how the cold war would of ended. I know one thing, I wouldn't want to know.

[KipWellsFan]

Fine, if everyone went along with Kerry's plans, who knows how the cold war would of ended.  I know one thing, I wouldn't want to know.

You would have been destroyed at the hands of the great Mikhail Gorbachev!!!

 

Come on! You guys believe everything they tell you?

[Chisoxfn]

You would have been destroyed at the hands of the great Mikhail Gorbachev!!!

 

Come on! You guys believe everything they tell you?

I know the reason we won the cold war is becuase our military was vastly superior to that of communist Russias, but the closeness to a war was their and their is no denying the fact that John Kerry has been on the wrong side of almost every major defense issue.

[KipWellsFan]

I know the reason we won the cold war is becuase our military was vastly superior to that of communist Russias, but the closeness to a war was their and their is no denying the fact that John Kerry has been on the wrong side of almost every major defense issue.

Well it's not like in the late 80s war was about to boil over and I think it would be reasonable to deny that Kerry has been on the wrong side of EVERY defense issue. Jas you believe way too much of the spin.

[Texsox]

I know the reason we won the cold war is becuase our military was vastly superior to that of communist Russias, but the closeness to a war was their and their is no denying the fact that John Kerry has been on the wrong side of almost every major defense issue.

So you would agree that there is no need for congress to vote on defense issues. That even $500,000 less would have kept the Soviets in business?

 

And who says we won the cold war. There is still a lot of nuclear material floating around that we have to buy. Kerry wants to buy it up within 4 years to Bush's 12. Which makes you feel safer? Nuclear bomb making material in our hands or in some decaying, poorly secured from terrorists, Russian site?

[Pale Hose Jon]

Why is cutting military spending a bad thing?

 

I don't get it

[KipWellsFan]

Why is cutting military spending a bad thing?

 

I don't get it

IT'S WEAK AND IT PUTS YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS IN GRAVE DANGER!

[Rex Kickass]

I know the reason we won the cold war is becuase our military was vastly superior to that of communist Russias, but the closeness to a war was their and their is no denying the fact that John Kerry has been on the wrong side of almost every major defense issue.

George H.W. Bush in 1992.

 

After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. … The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office.

 

Vice President Dick Cheney in 1992.

 

Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. … And now we're adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend.

 

Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. … You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s—all great systems … but we have enough of them.

 

Republicans. Wrong on Defense.

[Rex Kickass]

The John Kerry record on defense.

 

Kerry voted against the B-2 bomber between 1989 and 1992. George H.W. Bush halted production of the bomber in 1992. At the time, the plane's purpose was to fly into Soviet airspace and drop nuclear weaponry.

 

Kerry supported amendments to limit but not end Reagan's SDI (Star Wars) initiative.

 

Kerry voted to restrict the MX missile (which Bush ended production of) and to ban the production of Nerve Gas weaponry (the very same weaponry we invaded Iraq to disarm Iraq of).

 

Kerry voted against a 1991 proposal to arbitrarily shave 2% off the defense department budget.

 

Kerry voted against a 1992 proposal to cut Pentagon intelligence programs by 1 billion dollars.

 

Kerry voted against a 1994 proposal to cut 30+ billion dollars from Defense between 94 and 99 to be used for education and public health.

 

In 1996, Kerry fought to keep six F-18's in the defense budget.

 

In 1999, Kerry fought to keep the Trident II missile in the defense budget.

 

The record shows that he'd obviously just give away the whole army.

 

[Gene Honda Civic]

So what does $87Billion look like?

 

http://www.crunchweb.net/87billion/

 

/can't wait until the war on terrorism is over, and there are no more terrrrrists.

[kapkomet]

Defense spending is not the issue.

 

The bigger issue to me is he voted AGAINST the Persian Gulf war, after a REAL coalition was built to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Apparantly, that coalition did not meet the "global test" Kerry has in mind to justify a war.

 

And don't even bring up Bush. It doesn't matter. KERRY did that, let his record show it.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Well, actually the Bush I admin. didn't want to get involved in Gulf War I. April Glaspie (ambassador there) told Iraq that the US had no opinion on the Iraq/Kuwait border dispute -- and that was the opinion of the Bush regime until they saw that an "easy" war against a 3rd world army would boost Bush I approval ratings and also get rid of "Vietnam syndrome"

[Chisoxfn]

No tex, it be foolish to give anyone no spending cap. My problem isn't with the spending its with the stuff he voted against.

 

Any idiot could of seen that in the early 90's military spending was ridiculous high and that it needed some cut backs, especially since their wasn't any major threat (like the Soviet Union was) and anyone that says the Soviet Union wasn't a threat is nuts.

 

Kerry, going against the weapons programs that helped the US win the Cold War. Kerry voting against Desert Storm, a war in which we had as he would say a "true coalition". Hell, Kerry always gives the first Iraq war as an example of a true coalition, yet he's the same guy that voted against the war.

 

Kerry voting for the war and saying things like the world is better off without Saddam and then not voting for the 87 billion to help support the troops even though he said something along the lines that an idiot wouldn't vote against this. Then he did, why, not because he didn't support the bill, but because it was his protest of the way the war was being handled.

 

Yet he goes out and has the ordacity to tell me that he isn't afraid to step in and use force if it is necessary???? The platform this guy is running on is a complete joke, imo. He's saying a lot of good things but his track record is the complete opposite. Its almost like he's doing everything he can to be a conservative democratic (if thats at all possible) and thats the image he's trying to paint cause he knows that could get him elected (and right now its 50/50 who will win).

 

Ok, let me cut this out cause this was supposed to be on military spending and I skirted the issue, lol. But anyway the last thing I want is generals to have a blank check, that would be stupid, just like it would be stupid to mail welfare recipients a blank check and hope they'd put down the right amount they should earn on the check.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

They audit the auditors.

 

Listening to the GOP campaigning that Kerry voted no to this and that, voting no must be a bad thing, so let's get rid of it. No more voting.

 

If we want our elected leaders to vote, then voting no should not be in and of itself, a bad thing.

In of itself no is not a bad thing but when you tend to get yourself into trouble when you vote against every major weapons system proposed in your Senate term including such workhorses as the M-1 tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and the Apache helicopter.

[Texsox]

In of itself no is not a bad thing but when you tend to get yourself into trouble when you vote against every major weapons system proposed in your Senate term including such workhorses as the M-1 tank,  the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and the Apache helicopter.

Do they vote on those items one at a time? How many different votes do they have?

 

Or was it Kerry voted down the entire budget, wanting changes.

 

I know, don't let facts get in the way of a good spin. Do you really believe that each of those line items is voted on individually? Whenever someone votes no for the presidents proposed budget, they have voted no "for every major weapons program".

 

And if you want to play the game of believing every weapons item is voted on one at a time, name some weapons systems that should have been voted down. I'll start with the Osprey which killed 6 soldiers, including several from my area.

 

If the military budgets for 1,000,000 M-1 Tanks is it ok to say that 500,000 is enough? Or should the congress just say YO! to whatever the military wants?

Edited October 23, 2004 by Texsox