• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Romney would increase military spending by $2.1 trillion

BenBurch said:
Neither.

Fiscally suicidal.

And politically suicidal.

If I compute the tax increase needed correctly, all income tax rates would need to more than double just to break even.
Click to expand...

Instead he plans tax cuts though.

And claims he's for smaller deficits.

ETA: I don't think that income taxes would have to double, but the money has to come from somewhere.
 
Last edited:
If we are going to actually take over the world that might not be enough.
 
We need to drastically reduce the size of and amount of money spent on our military.
 
Budgeting just to fit an arbitrary, higher GDP percentage seems silly. I don't see the logic.
 
Puppycow said:
over the next decade.

Is this necessary or fiscally responsible?
Click to expand...
Maybe an additional question to ask is if it is morally responsible. When Iran drops its Fat Man on Israel and blows it to smithereens, it would be nice to know the USA is fully prepared with a well-equipped and fully funded military, no matter what the cost.
 
Last edited:
It appears the budget hawks on the right have approved 5 billion we don't have for a missile system that doesn't work for a military that doesn't want it to counter a threat that doesn't exist.

linky

This is the kind of crap we need to cut out. This is government spending out of control.
 
Biscuit said:
It appears the budget hawks on the right have approved 5 billion we don't have for a missile system that doesn't work for a military that doesn't want it to counter a threat that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

How can anyone take the Republicans crap about cutting the budget seriously?

I honestly want to know? How stupid do you have to be to fall for this crap?
 
BenBurch said:
If I compute the tax increase needed correctly, all income tax rates would need to more than double just to break even.
Click to expand...

I don't think you computed that correctly. Romney wants a total of 4% GDP spending on the military, and individual income tax revenues have averaged around 8% of GDP since 1950. Our income tax revenues are already much higher than his proposed total military spending, not to mention the increase (since it's not going to be 0% under anyone's plan), so a doubling would clearly be unnecessary. So I don't see how you reached your conclusion, unless you mistook the decade cost for an annual cost.
 
Things to do when you're a Republican, item 1: make wild spending promises about the military. You can be seen as fiscally conservative and promise the military tons of money, doesn't matter, promise them the sky surrounded by tanks, they'll eat it up
 
BenBurch said:
And fall for it again, and again. Every single Republican president in my adult life has presided over a huge increase in both debt and deficit.
Click to expand...

FTFY. Don't forget that Congress has a lot to do with spending too. If you want to go by historical precedent in regards to party affiliation, then you should vote for a Democratic president but a Republican house and senate, because that's the only combination which has had a budget surplus, and our worst performance by far has been with a Democratic president, house, and senate at the same time.

Big_Spending_Dems-04c.jpg
 
But....America must remain "the strongest nation on the face of the Earth" as Romney is saying in his stump speeches... Upon which I've commented before.

The fact that we are already the strongest nation by a long shot, and spend more on our military and defense than all of our potential foes combined appears to mean nothing to Romney.
A cynical person might draw the conclusion that the Republicans in general are so deeply in bed with the "military/industrial complex" as to make any semblance of logic fly out the window.
"What, close a military base? Not in MY district...."
 
Ziggurat said:
I don't think you computed that correctly. Romney wants a total of 4% GDP spending on the military, and individual income tax revenues have averaged around 8% of GDP since 1950. Our income tax revenues are already much higher than his proposed total military spending, not to mention the increase (since it's not going to be 0% under anyone's plan), so a doubling would clearly be unnecessary. So I don't see how you reached your conclusion, unless you mistook the decade cost for an annual cost.
Click to expand...

I did make that very error.

Still damned irresponsible.
 
Biscuit said:
It appears the budget hawks on the right have approved 5 billion we don't have for a missile system that doesn't work for a military that doesn't want it to counter a threat that doesn't exist.

linky

This is the kind of crap we need to cut out. This is government spending out of control.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the GOP to me.
 
In 2010 the U.S. spent $889 billion on the Department of Defense, more than was spent on any other U.S. federal government department or agency, and which amounted to 21% of all the money spent by the U.S. federal government in that fiscal year.

One of out every five dollars spent going to the Department of Defense isn't enough? (A fraction which would surely increase if Defense spending is increased and expenditures on other departments and agencies curtailed.)
 
What exactly are we going to spend all that money on? Are we so worried about that one Chinese aircraft carrier that we think the twelve we have on hand are not enough and we totally need a flying one like in The Avengers?
 
Travis said:
What exactly are we going to spend all that money on? Are we so worried about that one Chinese aircraft carrier that we think the twelve we have on hand are not enough and we totally need a flying one like in The Avengers?
Click to expand...

Oh lord you don't suppose Romney is planning to spend that money on contracts with Stark Industries?:jaw-dropp
 
Why?

OTB said:
source Of the twenty countries on the planet that spend the most on defense each year, virtually all of them are strong allies of the United States. Yes, China is 2nd and Russia is 5th. But France, the UK, Germany, Italy, Canada, Spain, Turkey, the Netherlands, and Greece are all NATO allies. The Aussies can be counted on to join just about every fight on our side. Japan, India, and Brazil are quite friendly.

The more useful point than “the United States spends more than the next X number of nations combined,” then, is that we and our allies absolutely dwarf any potential foe in military power.
Click to expand...
Can someone explain it to me? Why do we spend so much?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom