PDA

View Full Version : More Gross Republican Hypocrisy



Gayle in MD
10-09-2010, 08:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Establishment conservatives love to talk about the need to cut government spending, but they always seem to find an excuse whenever there is a serious effort to actually do it. Last year, for example, they opposed cutting Medicare as part of health care reform. Now they are banding together to stop cuts in defense spending, which is a fifth of the federal budget, even as they also insist that the deficit is our most critical problem.

This hypocrisy was on full display on Oct. 4, as American Enterprise Institute president Arthur Brooks, Heritage Foundation president Ed Feulner, and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol penned a joint op-ed for the right-wing Wall Street Journal editorial page on why the defense budget should be totally off limits to budget cutters.

First, they claim the military is not the “true source of our fiscal woes.” No one is saying the defense budget is the sole source of the deficit, but the fact is that it has risen from 3 percent of the gross domestic product in fiscal year 2001 to 4.7 percent this year. That additional 1.7 percent of GDP amounts to $250 billion in spending — almost 20 percent of this year’s budget deficit. And according to a recent Congressional Research Service report, the cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan alone accounted for 23 percent of the combined budget deficits between fiscal years 2003 and 2010.

Brooks, Feulner and Kristol then claim that “terrorism and piracy in sea lanes around the world,” potential future threats from a “nuclear Iran” or a China “that can deny access to U.S. ships or aircraft in the Asian-Pacific region” justify a defense budget only slightly smaller as a share of GDP than at the height of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear missiles targeted directly at the United States.

Tufts University foreign policy expert Daniel Drezner was underwhelmed by the argument. “Terrorism and piracy are certainly security concerns — but they don’t compare to the Cold War,” he said. “A nuclear Iran is a major regional headache, but it’s not the Cold War. A generation from now, maybe China poses as serious threat as the Cold War Soviet Union. Maybe. That’s a generation away, however.”

American University defense expert Gordon Adams was equally unimpressed by the trio’s rationalization:

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>It is little more than a façade to justify growing defense budgets as far as the eye can see, affordable or not. First, we are leaving Iraq as we speak and will be drawing down in Afghanistan starting next year… [which] frees up a considerable amount of military personnel. Second, <span style='font-size: 26pt'>anyone who thinks terrorists and pirates justify a $700 billion defense budget and a 2-million-person force (actives and reserves) has clearly drunk way too much Kool-Aid. </span> These missions are important, but they do not drive anywhere near that number of forces. Third, …The U.S. has ample sea and air power to cope for decades with a rising China, whose economic pursuits pose a much more significant problem for the U.S. than their military pursuits. </span>
</div></div>

Continues:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Issues/Bud...fense-Cuts.aspx (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Issues/Budget-Impact/2010/10/08/Neocons-Talk-Deficit-but-Wont-Budge-on-Defense-Cuts.aspx)

cushioncrawler
10-09-2010, 05:38 PM
Not kool aid -- swamp water.
mac.

sack316
10-09-2010, 05:40 PM
And if republicans chose to cut military spending, then we'd have a post about how republicans don't care about our military. This topic is lose-lose for both parties (as are so many) depending on who wants to spin what and how.

Sack

cushioncrawler
10-09-2010, 05:52 PM
A win-win for both partys iz allmost certainly a looz-looz for theusofa.
The system iz fukked.
mac.

LWW
10-10-2010, 04:54 AM
I actually agree with much of the article.

It's high time for the USA to bring the troops home from Japan and Eurabia. They are financially fully capable of defending their borders.

And, FWIW, I would give the Euros ten years macx before they were in yet another major shooting war between each other.

LWW

Gayle in MD
10-10-2010, 07:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And if republicans chose to cut military spending, then we'd have a post about how republicans don't care about our military. This topic is lose-lose for both parties (as are so many) depending on who wants to spin what and how.

Sack </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And if republicans chose to cut military spending, then we'd have a post about how republicans don't care about our military. </div></div>

Not from me, and I think it's unfair of you to suggest I would launch such a POV, because I have consistantly written my disapproval of the Military Industrial Complex. Just as I have written about my disgust with the Neocon war mongers.

I might add, I have also written that I do not approve of spending ANY more money, for wars, in the Middle East, never did, and have always been on the side of using more drones, bootpolice intelligence, diplomacy, not boots on the ground, including this Administration, even though, if Bush had done the right thing, Afghanistan wouldn't even be on our radar right now.

Now if you wish to discuss the disgusting way our soldiers, and Veterans, were treated by Bush and the Republican Majority, then that is a different subject, isn't it.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This topic is lose-lose for both parties (as are so many) depending on who wants to spin what and how.

</div></div>

It is? Yet you are accusing ME of being a spinner of facts.... Sack, for partisan purposes, when we both know that it wasn't a Demoratic President, nor a Democratic majority, that pushed us into Iraq, and F-ed up in Afghanistan, it was Bush, and the Repiglicans. The American Enterprise Institute, Dems and Obama, inherited the F-ups, they weren't running the show when Bush made what five former Secretaries of State, from both sides of the isle, called THE WORST FOREIGN POLICY DECISIONS IN TE HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY.

So, I'd suggest you watch whom you accuse of "Spinning."

Money flowing to the Military Industrial Complex, always goes through the roof, under Republicans, and Republicans are always on the payrolls of the Military Industrial Complex, as soon as they leave office, far more so than Democratics.

Bush made two messes in the M.E., and walked away from both, and while I'm against solving our problems, with boots on the ground, I have enough sense to realize that we couldn't just pack up and leave, immediately, when we finally got rid of Bush. We have to work our way out of both of his FAILED occupations, one of which he lied us into, and which has made everything far worse, including aiding all of our enemies, while putting our own country into a debt pit.

Republicans didn't pay for a damn thing, when they were in there, and in fact, they broke the earmark record, no veto throughout, from Bush, and Bush borrowed more money than all previous Administrations, combined, going all the way back to George Washington.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Bush, Rice, Cheney, all lied to the world, AND the CONGRESS, about Saddam's supposed MUSHROOM CLOUDS, THAT IS A PROVEN FACT. THAT IS TREASON. AND THAT WAS THE TURNING POINT, WHICH LED TO A COUNTRY SO FAR IN DEBT, THAT TI COULDN'T BEGIN TO HANDLE A FINANCIAL COLLAPSE, WITHOUT GOING INTO DEBT TO PREVENT THE BUSH DEPRESSION.</span>

Those are the facts. He left the worst legacy of any previous president, and he said himself, before he left, that we were facing a decade long DEPRESSION.

All of these FACTS, irritate the right, naturally, becaused they voted twice, for Bush, and still refuse to own the vast damages from their votes, in 2000 and 2004, which led to our current no win problems, left by the Bush/Cheney Unconstitutional FIASCO, and, I might add, at least two of our most prolific Obama bashers, on this forum, didn't even bother to vote in 2008, and hence, really ought to shut up with the sarcasm, and bashing.

If one doesn't even bother to go to the polls, then they should shut up when they don't like the results.

G.

pooltchr
10-10-2010, 08:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Bush made what five former Secretaries of State, from both sides of the isle, called THE WORST FOREIGN POLICY DECISIONS IN TE HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY.


</div></div>

Only with the support of a Democrat controlled congress, including then Senators Obama and Clinton, among others.

Steve

sack316
10-10-2010, 01:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
So, I'd suggest you watch whom you accuse of "Spinning."

</div></div>

I didn't... it was a general comment in regards to media and applicable to both sides.

Sack

eg8r
10-10-2010, 07:29 PM
LOL, her guilt forced her to post that response. She felt convicted and it was eating her up. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
10-11-2010, 08:18 AM
Sorry Sack, I'm used to being the main target on here, and my response was inappropriate.



G.

sack316
10-11-2010, 02:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry Sack, I'm used to being the main target on here, and my response was inappropriate.



G. </div></div>

No apology necessary, I know how easily intent and tone of posts can be muddied up and misread on here, I've done so myself several times /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack