The Democrat Thread

[kapkomet]

I can because he's investing in more green technologies and mass transit. For that alone it softens the blow for me.

 

And do I need to fly down there and help you start a business in order for you to stop lurking in the Dem thread?

Yes! Get down here!

 

 

[BigSqwert]

Yes! Get down here!

 

Go back and read my edit

 

you surprised me

 

[kapkomet]

Go back and read my edit

 

you surprised me

 

You see, I'm now in the lowest tax bracket - so I figure everything I make I will get back this year. So, I'm all game.

 

[lostfan]

You cannot sit there with a straight face and say that Obama's spending binge is "better" then GWB's spending binge. Obama's is just beginning.

 

And all these campaign appearances by the Messiah were pretty much the equivalent of the "tea parties". But let's not ruin a good chance to bash right-leaning Americans.

The part of that piece that I liked, and I harp on this all the time, is where he said criticizing government spending is worthless without either an explanation or without saying what exactly needs to be cut. The fact that conservatives immediately started to squirm and shout when Gates announced defense cuts (more accurately, a reorganization and slowdown in spending) let me know they weren't serious.

[Balta1701]

(more accurately, a reorganization and slowdown in spending)

And a 4% increase in the DOD budget...

[kapkomet]

"At a time of war, you cannot gut the military..."

 

But to your points, what if a Republican president asked for the same cuts?

 

And honestly Balta, the 4% increase in the DOD budget is kind of funny because Obama is asking more for Iraq then GWB ever did. WOAH!

 

[Balta1701]

But to your points, what if a Republican president asked for the same cuts

He'd probably get a much, much, much better response, because everyone knows the Democrats hate the military.

 

I'll give you a great example.

He proposed cutting $7 billion from the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which the Reagan White House "oversold" as a fool-proof missile shield. 'S.D.I. is alive and well," he added. ''But like everything else... it's got to fit into a reduced budget.''

 

The purchase of stealth bombers should also be put off, since ''there are a lot of technical problems with it and it is extremely expensive,'' He said at the time. Competing plans for mobile nuclear missiles should be combined, and reduced. 8,000 troops should be cut from the Army; the Navy should drop a carrier battle group; development of a new version of the F-14 jet should be scrapped; a purchase of 500 F-15s should be canceled; old destroyers should be retired; and so on.

That he? Dick Cheney, who oversaw the post-Soviet-detente defense cuts. He didn't get everything he wanted...but he got a lot of it.

[lostfan]

"At a time of war, you cannot gut the military..."

 

But to your points, what if a Republican president asked for the same cuts?

 

And honestly Balta, the 4% increase in the DOD budget is kind of funny because Obama is asking more for Iraq then GWB ever did. WOAH!

He's not cutting spending for the actual war itself (like you just said). He is reorganizing priorities, there is a lot of bureaucracy, dependence, and self-licking ice cream cones within that sector. For evidence just see the uproar at even the mention of cutting a major defense program, they've kind of gotten it into the public's minds that all this stuff doesn't come with such a big price, and that it gets used, even (against what and who, like why is extra carriers a priority in 2009, for example?). The actual dollar amount doesn't even look like it's changing much, so it's pretty irrelevant, and the next-highest defense budget pretty much gets what they wants or steals it anyway. The "cut" is to make better use of the existing funds on things we can use against the enemy we're actually fighting, not a hypothetical war (although we have to be ready for that too).

 

I'd never criticize a Republican president for doing something I wanted him to do.

[lostfan]

He'd probably get a much, much, much better response, because everyone knows the Democrats hate the military.

I don't even know where that comes from, it's such a lame ass stereotype. Other than something I posted about 2 or 3 weeks ago about Obama trying some weak ass budget-cutting measure for charging combat injuries to vets' private health insurance, I can't think of anything Obama's done to give him this "anti-military" image. He mostly does all the same things Bush did for the military, except support the actual war. Anti-war =/= anti-military.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't even know where that comes from, it's such a lame ass stereotype. Other than something I posted about 2 or 3 weeks ago about Obama trying some weak ass budget-cutting measure for charging combat injuries to vets' private health insurance, I can't think of anything Obama's done to give him this "anti-military" image. He mostly does all the same things Bush did for the military, except support the actual war. Anti-war =/= anti-military.

Well said.

 

[Balta1701]

I don't even know where that comes from, it's such a lame ass stereotype. Other than something I posted about 2 or 3 weeks ago about Obama trying some weak ass budget-cutting measure for charging combat injuries to vets' private health insurance, I can't think of anything Obama's done to give him this "anti-military" image. He mostly does all the same things Bush did for the military, except support the actual war. Anti-war =/= anti-military.

It's a lame ass stereotype, but as long as it works, those Vietcong hugging, fake purple heart earning, commie Democrats are weak on defense and are going to surrender to the terrorists/pirates/insert enemy of the week here and everyone knows it.

 

You know where it comes from? It comes from the fact that it works as a selling point. The media buys it, so the other party has every reason to push it.

[StrangeSox]

It comes from Clinton scaling back military spending from Reagan/ Bush, too, right?

[kapkomet]

I think the reason it's so stereotyped is John Kerry (our troops are raping in the middle of the night), John Murtha (our troops kill people for no reason), Harry Reid (the war is lost). I think that's enough.

 

That's really "supporting the troops".

 

To make this clear, Obama NEVER said these things - but his party did.

[Balta1701]

I think the reason it's so stereotyped is John Kerry (our troops are raping in the middle of the night), John Murtha (our troops kill people for no reason), Harry Reid (the war is lost). I think that's enough.

 

That's really "supporting the troops".

 

To make this clear, Obama NEVER said these things - but his party did.

So if I go back and find the Republican quotes about how we need to depart from Somalia while those brave Democrats wanted to stay the course, does that make them equally weak on defense?

[Rex Kickass]

So if I go back and find the Republican quotes about how we need to depart from Somalia while those brave Democrats wanted to stay the course, does that make them equally weak on defense?

Of course not, that doesn't fit the existing narrative.

[Rex Kickass]

It comes from Clinton scaling back military spending from Reagan/ Bush, too, right?

 

Actually almost all of the military budget cuts were done by the Bush administration following the end of the Cold War.

[NorthSideSox72]

So if I go back and find the Republican quotes about how we need to depart from Somalia while those brave Democrats wanted to stay the course, does that make them equally weak on defense?

Somalia was done really badly though, and I don't think the Dems were being "tough" by staying - they were creating the illusion of tough while accomplishing nothing and jeopardizing the lives of soldiers.

 

Kind of like Bush/GOP (and some Dems) and Iraq, but on a smaller scale.

 

[Balta1701]

Somalia was done really badly though, and I don't think the Dems were being "tough" by staying - they were creating the illusion of tough while accomplishing nothing and jeopardizing the lives of soldiers.

 

Kind of like Bush/GOP (and some Dems) and Iraq, but on a smaller scale.

So...the Dems tell us that the Bush disaster is a disaster and we should be figuring a way out of it, and that makes them weak on defense. The Republicans tell us the Somalia disaster is a disaster and we need to figure a way out of it, and that makes them strong on defense.

[Balta1701]

Actually almost all of the military budget cuts were done by the Bush administration following the end of the Cold War.

I would have said this before you but I actually checked and the numbers just don't agree with you. Relative to every other standard of spending (compared to the GDP, compared to discretionary spending, etc.) the share going to the military slowly decreased year over year during the Clinton administration. I'm sure it went up in total dollars, but relative to inflation I doubt it did. It started going back up in 2001.

[NorthSideSox72]

I would have said this before you but I actually checked and the numbers just don't agree with you. Relative to every other standard of spending (compared to the GDP, compared to discretionary spending, etc.) the share going to the military slowly decreased year over year during the Clinton administration. I'm sure it went up in total dollars, but relative to inflation I doubt it did. It started going back up in 2001.

The plans for doing so were taking shape under Bush I, as I recall, but went into overdrive under Clinton.

 

[Rex Kickass]

Except much of the hike in defense spending that took place beginning in 2001 came from a Bill Clinton initiative from 1999 that started getting funding in 2001.

 

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/s...entagon.budget/

[kapkomet]

So if I go back and find the Republican quotes about how we need to depart from Somalia while those brave Democrats wanted to stay the course, does that make them equally weak on defense?

I know, I know, Republicans are assholes, no matter what way you want to cut it.

[Balta1701]

I know, I know, Republicans are assholes, no matter what way you want to cut it.

This is of course, not the point of the discussion at all, and it adds absolutely nothing to it.

[kapkomet]

This is of course, not the point of the discussion at all, and it adds absolutely nothing to it.

Balta, it is. Look at what you post. If Obama and the Democrats say it, it's ok, it must be true. If a Republican says it, we must dig, find 600 blog posts about how they MUST be wrong - and of course, they are, in some form or fashion, just like Democrats on the other side. It gets tiresome, just as tiresome as my stupid drivel.

 

I think it's fair to say that you can come down on any side of an arguement, no matter the point of view, and be "right". For me, though, some things are absolutes. Kerry, Murtha, Reid, that s*** is blatent disrespect of our military. But it must be ok, if Republicans trash them too, right? I just get sick of it.

[Balta1701]

I think it's fair to say that you can come down on any side of an arguement, no matter the point of view, and be "right". For me, though, some things are absolutes. Kerry, Murtha, Reid, that s*** is blatent disrespect of our military. But it must be ok, if Republicans trash them too, right? I just get sick of it.

In this case, the specific discussion topic is why exactly the "Democrats are weak on the military" meme is so solid. The point you made was that you feel their statements are blatant disrespect of the military. Therefore, I contend if we're doing a comparison of statements, having Republicans in 1993 saying ""It's Vietnam all over again" (Fritz Hollings) is 100% germane to the discussion. Either it's on you to explain to me why the statements by the Democrats (I may grant you Murtha given how the investigation turned out) are significantly worse than those of the Republicans under similar circumstances, or I have defeated your point and it's time to look for another reason why the idea has taken hold.

 

How a discussion does not work is...you prevent an opinion with evidence backing it, you're presented with counter-evidence from the other side, you throw up your hands and say "I'm sick of it". It really doesn't get us anywhere and it doesn't provide me with any edification about the issue.