Romney - Don't Shrink Military

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by citizenzen, May 29, 2012.

  1. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #1
    There you have it.

    A massive military ... or social programs.

    The choice could not have been made more clear. What do you choose?

    And does Europe really rely on the strength of the U.S. to protect them?
     
  2. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #2
    Brainstorm: Let's eradicate the Middle Class to pay for a military larger than the next 20 countries combined!!
     
  3. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #3
    I saw Romney speak in Birmingham a couple of months ago. He sounded very hawkish at the time. I was quite disappointed.

    No, unless you consider UN interventions to be "Europe."
     
  4. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #4
    We managed to defend ourselves fairly well before 1945.........

    To put things into perspective for Romney..... Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and the Space Shuttle cost the nation roughly $300 billion. That doesn't even count Hubble, ISS, probes, and rovers. Over 50 years, NASA hasn't even cost us the amount of money we spend on our defense budget in one year. And looking at the results, which of the two have given us more bang for the buck?
     
  5. steviem macrumors 68020

    steviem

    Joined:
    May 26, 2006
    Location:
    New York, Baby!
    #5
    That 2nd paragraph makes me sad. However, NASA got a big kickstart from military minds (mostly those from Germany though).

    I couldn't imagine where we'd be if NASA was funded with $300 billion per year!
     
  6. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #6
    True, but Von Braun did want to do manned exploration missions with rockets. At the time, the only way to come close to that dream was work with the military.....

    And I forgot to include some things in the cost. Including development of the Space Shuttle( I only did it per launch), NASA over 50 years has cost us $374 billion. Still not anywhere as close as our defense budget...... ISS from 1998-2015 will cost us $72.4 billion.
     
  7. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #7
    There is one way to make Romney's vision work for the American people. If what he said is true and we've been protecting Europe from the dangers that lurk in this world, then you guys owe us protection money.

    The U.S. may not be able to fund social programs, but a few hundred billion a year from Europe could go a ways to ensuring that protection is there when you need it and help provide social programs for the American people.

    [gangster voice]

    You got a really nice continent over there. It would be a shame if anything bad were to happen to it.

    [/gangstervoice]
     
  8. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #8
    Well now I hate him even more. What I'd like to know is even among the military, why would this be popular? Beyond what is needed to ensure the safety of troops in foreign countries, how does it benefit them?
     
  9. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #9
    I find it ironic that the people so desperate to shrink the size of government, and to cut out government waste, do everything in their power to protect the largest governmental programs that have the most waste.
     
  10. 184550 Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #10
    I didn't get that 'either or' sense.

    NATO War in Libya Shows U.S. Was Vital to Toppling Qaddafi

    Keep in mind this wasn't even a full blown conflict, let alone an actual war.
     
  11. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #11
    That lets us off the hook, then.

    ----------

    We've still got plenty of bows and arrows. We just didn't feel the need to call them in.
     
  12. Dr McKay macrumors 68040

    Dr McKay

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Location:
    Kirkland
    #12
    No, we don't. Sounds as reliable as the sources in America that state that we hate having socialized medicine.
     
  13. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #13
    Money spent on humongous wasteful projections of military power has to be good, but when it comes to class warfare, money spent on social programs is always bad...

    Part of the big lie bandied about in the U.S. daily by political s... heads of a certain party...
     
  14. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #14
    I wasn't talking about the US protecting Europe or anything. Just the fact that the US defended themselves fairly well without having a massive standing military before 1945......
     
  15. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #15
    No Europe does not. Big time when some of the countries cut some of their military spending because they figured the US would cover it. Screw that. It is not US tax payers job to be other countries militaries
     
  16. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #16
    Really?

    Please look again at Romney's statement ...

    I do see now that I didn't include the second part of that quote. Perhaps that's why you didn't read it as an either/or.
     
  17. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #17
    Let me preface this by saying that the 50's and early 60's were no utopia. I'm not looking at the past through rose colored glasses. (We are still under a threat of nuclear holocaust. But, at least we aren't being reminded of it every single minute.)

    However, curiously, back in the 50's, the U.S. had a much more massive military, a broader safety net, the G.I. bill was sending millions to college and helping them get started with their families at the same time, and, continued to pay down the massive post-WWII debt. Amazing. How did they do it? Well, there were a lot of differences between then and now (for one thing, women worked for peanuts). But, at the Federal level, the big difference was that the graduated income tax, at that time, was *very* progressive. Rich people got taxed inordinately on money they spent. The watchword was "If you can spend it, you have to pay taxes on it." So, it really worked like a graduated spending tax-- if you didn't want to lose your money to taxes, don't spend your money, make long-term investments.

    In retrospect, this aspect was working very, very well.

    So, I have to ask-- is Romney asking to return to the previous (pre-Reagan) tax system and rates? (Also known in some circles as "coercive"?)

    (That is a rhetorical question for the irony-impaired.)
     
  18. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #18
    Well considering that China has the 3rd most power military should speak volumes right there
     
  19. 184550 Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #19
    I still don't get the sense that Romney said we have to choose between the two; defense or social programs.

    From what Romney said, I get the sense that he believes the expansion of social programs shouldn't come from military/ national defense spending- it should come from somewhere else in the budget.
     
  20. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #20
    Rawmoney speaks from a traditional business point of view. Apart from the "foreign threat" aspect, the military also carries an economic threat. I count at least 7 major military bases within 60 miles of where I live, closing or significantly reducing them could do serious short term harm to the local economy. I think if they closed the large army base near here, the second largest city in the state would almost collapse.

    Cutting back the military is a desirable thing, yes, but it must be done with due consideration. Either the government would have to provide prophylactic and remedial aid to affected communities, or the economy itself would have to undergo structural adaptation as part of the process.
     
  21. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #21
    Romney has surrounded himself with the Bush Neo-Con warhawks.

    http://www.thenation.com/article/167683/mitt-romneys-neocon-war-cabinet


    He has embraced Paul Ryan's budget which guts all but military spending.
     
  22. 184550 Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #22
  23. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #23
    This was the same argument used to support the bailouts of various auto companies. In some areas, they provide a large percentage of employment, and letting them fail would bring down a large sector of the economy. But that was deemed socialist and communist and whateverist by certain groups of people.
     
  24. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #24
    While true, Qaddafi wasn't in any way a threat to Europe.

    I don't think Europe as a whole for its own defence really relies on the US.

    Other than Gulf I what was the last actual war that the US, with its humungous defence budget, actually won?
     
  25. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #25

Share This Page