Should we vote for a Presidital Candiate who does not advocate cutting despense speading in half?

[keep_it_real]

Cutting defense spending in half is long over due.

[anonymous171]

1. Yes. Massive cuts would be incredibly unpopular and would generate a huge backlash

I would instead reccomend they start by eliminating wasteful contracts and expenses in the defense department. We can call it "Defense Reform" and it will be geared towards forcing those corporate welfare mothers off of the government teat.

[Thothmes]

18. along with huge unemployment.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

2. First, check your spelling, it's not too late to edit. Second, yes we should, if

they are the better candidate.

50 percent is an arbitrary figure, care to enumerate how you arrived at that number?

[sarge43]

5. What areas of the military budget would be cut? n/t

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

23. If you read my post carefully I was saying we SHOULD vote for a candidate who does NOT

insist on a 50 percent defense cut, if they are the best candidate.

I don't believe in the suggested litmus test, and it comes off as a troll to me.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

24. Especially considering how the post is a complete drive by, as well as other things.

OP has not been back to even discuss said 50 percent cut. It's a joke.

[sarge43]

28. I did read it carefully.

I misplaced my post. I agree. Single or radical issue candidates are always suspect.

[tularetom]

3. I think we should vote for one who uses spell check

But yes I agree with you, it is long overdue.

Not sure it'll happen as long as weapons are basically America's ONLY export.

[Kahuna]

4. LOL! Americans love defense spending. It makes them feel virile.

Dems will never ever make that part of their platform.

[rcrush]

6. Terrorists and brown people will invade us if we do

[SharonAnn]

7. Consider your framing. i consider it "military" spending, not "defense" spending.

That's because much of the military spending is not really related to defense.

But when the term is "defense" then most people think we need to spend for it because it protects us.

When you use the term "military" than people have a more reasoned response and can actually think about some of the spending as legitimate and other parts of the spending as being perhaps suspect.

Just saying that we want to use words that are neutral whenever possible.

[Yurovsky]

9. I find most military spending to be offensive...

literally and figuratively. How much is enough, for Pete's sake? And I don't see how a ballistic missile submarine with the capacity to destroy all life on the planet is a "defensive" weapon. It's all crazy talk to me, but I'd give anything to see a President stand up to the military-industrial complex. No one has had the courage since Ike (a Republican war hero, no less ... something we'll never see again after McCain retires as they're all Chickenhawks nowadays...)

[marginlized]

8. I'd vote for that! n/t

[salguine]

10. Actually, having a good team of independent investigative accountants go over the whole

defense budget/procurement/etc. process with a fine tooth comb and cut out all the staggering fraud and waste that goes on would probably allow us to get the same bang for our buck for half the money, effectively halving the defense budget and still getting the same stuff.

[FLDCVADem]

11. Absolutely!

There is a tremendous amount of waste in the DoD, starting with they way money is allocated year to year...if an organizatioin doesn't spend everything they budgeted for, their budget is cut the next year. So, it gets spent on unnecessary items.

We should be encouraging orgs to come in under budget, not punishing them if they do.

As for defense contractors, until the government reforms the hiring process, defense contractors will always be needed. It takes too long to fill government positions, and the antiquated process is incredibly intimidating to those that aren't familiar with government ways.

[salguine]

14. That's just the LEGAL stuff. If you factor in the obscene overbilling that goes on, and

seems to continue even after it's exposed...like the time a contractor charged the Pentagon $540 apiece for a bolt that sold for 80¢ in any hardware store. Or the $700 hammer that was $16.50 in any hardware store. Or the time the Air Force was charged over $3,000 each for a toilet seat for the AWACS plane. If anyone on the real civilian world pulled this shit, on this massive scale, they'd go to prison for life. It's insane that we know it's happening, and do absolutely nothing about it. I guess nothing happens because, if the Senators whose committees are supposed to look into this stuff actually DID look into it, they might miss their tee-off time with the CEOs of those same defense contractors...

[Thothmes]

19. Mil Spec.

an elephant is a mouse built to MilSpec.

[Foo Fighter]

26. Yeah, but if they came in under budget, they'd get a HUGE bonus for

doing so and, in the end, it would all even out. That's just how it works when you're talking about the DoD. No expense to great.

OTOH, spending for social programs, well that's a whole 'nother story...

[MineralMan]

12. What is despense speading?

If you cut it in half does it ooze stuff?

[Hippo_Tron]

13. McGovern got about 40% of the vote or so when he proposed massively cutting defense spending

Yes cutting defense spending (at least by a quarter maybe in half) is a sensible policy. It's not a politically tenable policy at this point, however. People believe the generals and admirals who go on television and say that our security will be jeopardized because we cut weapons system x or y or whatever. It's simply not going to happen until we go broke.

[spanone]

15. i hate that despense spreading in half

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. I don't know about "we" but I won't.

[Bluebear]

17. Bartender, gimme another one of them Presidital Candiate despense speading

[Boojatta]

20. I thought it was an inkblot OP.

You could take it as being about cutting prescription dispensing fees or as being about cutting defense spending. It's in the eye of the beholder.

[Bluebear]

29. FTW!

[Warren Stupidity]

21. WTF? despense spending?

Is everyone intoxicated or what?

[Quantess]

22. Presidital? despense speading?

And "Candiate"?
:rofl:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

25. This almost comes across as a "tried too hard" troll, where not only is the premise

a major strawman but going out of their way to misspell almost every word so they can point to their buddies and say "see what radicals those DUers are, and can't spell either" LOL.

[Quantess]

27. Oh. I figured the OP is wasted drunk.

It's Saturday night, after all.

[jpak]

30. CUT DESPENSE SPEADING IN HALF RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!111

:rofl: