Gary Johnson supporters
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
yep. I didn't see the comment, but i have no problem with the idea that there is enormous waste in denfese. the reality is that he would probably never be able to pass such a huge decrease in defense, but looking at it hard is a good idea.
I didn't watch the debate last night and was surprised johnson had made the stage. Did someone call in sick?
Tilted
..
Over what period of time did he indicate he wants to do this?
I used to think military spending was one of the few places spending shouldn't be cut, and I still believe it is the primary area that the federal government should be devoting significant resources too - it's one of the few appropriate functions of the federal government. However, having educated myself about the realities of our budget situation, I realize now that defense spending needs to be cut - significantly, though preferably over a period of time (5 or 10 years) rather than all at once.
For all that is wrong in principle, at least as far as my ideological sensibilities are concerned, with many of the smaller ticket spending programs, the big ticket items - the ones that matter most to the math, even if not the passions - are: Defense spending, Social Security, and Medicare. Our defense spending is too high, especially when we fairly include military pension and veteran's benefits costs (not that I'm advocating not living up to our obligations to veterans). We can't get to a reasonable level of fiscal responsibility going forward without doing something about defense spending or, in the alternative, significantly reducing Social Security and Medicare benefits. There's what you'd like to do and there's what you can afford to do, and at some point we're going to have to start considering the latter more so than the former.
If Gary Johnson is willing to be honest about our budget situation - in specific, about the need to cut defense spending - even though that honesty is probably unpopular with much of the Republican base, that makes me more likely to support him, not less.
I used to think military spending was one of the few places spending shouldn't be cut, and I still believe it is the primary area that the federal government should be devoting significant resources too - it's one of the few appropriate functions of the federal government. However, having educated myself about the realities of our budget situation, I realize now that defense spending needs to be cut - significantly, though preferably over a period of time (5 or 10 years) rather than all at once.
For all that is wrong in principle, at least as far as my ideological sensibilities are concerned, with many of the smaller ticket spending programs, the big ticket items - the ones that matter most to the math, even if not the passions - are: Defense spending, Social Security, and Medicare. Our defense spending is too high, especially when we fairly include military pension and veteran's benefits costs (not that I'm advocating not living up to our obligations to veterans). We can't get to a reasonable level of fiscal responsibility going forward without doing something about defense spending or, in the alternative, significantly reducing Social Security and Medicare benefits. There's what you'd like to do and there's what you can afford to do, and at some point we're going to have to start considering the latter more so than the former.
If Gary Johnson is willing to be honest about our budget situation - in specific, about the need to cut defense spending - even though that honesty is probably unpopular with much of the Republican base, that makes me more likely to support him, not less.
PsyOps
Pixelated
I'd need specifics.
ylexot
Super Genius
Yes. The cuts would be made by shutting down bases overseas. Fine with me.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Is that what he's proposing?
ylexot
Super Genius
Ok, it's a bit more than that:
Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson calls for 43% reduction in defense spending
libertytyranny
Dream Stealer
Me no likey. 
Could some savings be made? Sure. I get him on the nation building and interventions we ought not intervene in, But the premise that we have to cut everything by the same amount is flawed. do we maybe have more "stuff" than we need? maybe. But I would rather have more "stuff" than less "stuff"..if anything streamlining the onerous procurement process would result in savings
If we get out of the business all together of some other Large portions of the budget, I do not believe such a huge cut (to procurements especially) is totally necessary. That's a rather simplistic view, I realize. But I don't like the idea. If anything in the WORLD we should spend money on, it's defense. The cost of ever improving technology and making sure our warfighters have the best is high..and a totally justifiable one, I think. The gov't has made the process costly by regulationg too much..but that's the way it is. cuts already have had a massive negative impact that I have seen, and without changes to gov't processes and regulations..everyone is going to suffer from more cuts.
Could some savings be made? Sure. I get him on the nation building and interventions we ought not intervene in, But the premise that we have to cut everything by the same amount is flawed. do we maybe have more "stuff" than we need? maybe. But I would rather have more "stuff" than less "stuff"..if anything streamlining the onerous procurement process would result in savings
If we get out of the business all together of some other Large portions of the budget, I do not believe such a huge cut (to procurements especially) is totally necessary. That's a rather simplistic view, I realize. But I don't like the idea. If anything in the WORLD we should spend money on, it's defense. The cost of ever improving technology and making sure our warfighters have the best is high..and a totally justifiable one, I think. The gov't has made the process costly by regulationg too much..but that's the way it is. cuts already have had a massive negative impact that I have seen, and without changes to gov't processes and regulations..everyone is going to suffer from more cuts.
E
EmptyTimCup
Guest
Bring Home the Troops, from Japan and Europe ..........
since Some Jung Nutcase is still in charge in NKDPR I'd say some troops are still needed there ........
Last edited by a moderator:
Not that I am or am not a supporter of Gary Johnson, but there are many ways to cut defense spending.
I am a strict constructionist. I believe the Constitution and want the feds to live within it's confines. So:
Military is part of Constitutional authority; one of the few.
But why overseas bases? To protect our allies? Who are our allies? Why do we rent bases and station our troops overseas to support the economies of other nations?
If a country wants our troops in their country, that country should pay us to be there. They should give us the use of the land for free and pay for the buildings and maintenance. They should pay for the transportation of our troops and equipment and all costs involved including salaries and benefits. Otherwise, bring our guys home. Let them live in our towns and spend their money in our stores and support our communities.
I don't know if that would save 43%, but the savings would be substantial. Every base overseas would go from being a money pit to a money pot; an income source.
I'm good with that.
I am a strict constructionist. I believe the Constitution and want the feds to live within it's confines. So:
Military is part of Constitutional authority; one of the few.
But why overseas bases? To protect our allies? Who are our allies? Why do we rent bases and station our troops overseas to support the economies of other nations?
If a country wants our troops in their country, that country should pay us to be there. They should give us the use of the land for free and pay for the buildings and maintenance. They should pay for the transportation of our troops and equipment and all costs involved including salaries and benefits. Otherwise, bring our guys home. Let them live in our towns and spend their money in our stores and support our communities.
I don't know if that would save 43%, but the savings would be substantial. Every base overseas would go from being a money pit to a money pot; an income source.
I'm good with that.
The certain irony in some large defense cuts for procuring large systems(naval shipbuilding and airplanes are two examples) is that the "bang for the gummint buck" in economic terms, particularly employment but also in GDP increase, is the highest there is..vastly higher than the return on any of Pres. Empty Suit's ARRA spending.
The why is easy..those industries are some of the the last bastions of quite nearly "100% Made in USA" from the raw materials through the final product.
So..put a different way: Had Captain Zero spent the entire 787 billion plus ARRA money on naval shipbuilding, the number of jobs created would have been many times what it actually was, and pretty good paying jobs to boot Never happen, of course, but a fact nonetheless.
Those that look at defense cuts solely from the budget standpoint often ignore the employment and underlying national economic value.
But maffs is hard..I know.
The why is easy..those industries are some of the the last bastions of quite nearly "100% Made in USA" from the raw materials through the final product.
So..put a different way: Had Captain Zero spent the entire 787 billion plus ARRA money on naval shipbuilding, the number of jobs created would have been many times what it actually was, and pretty good paying jobs to boot Never happen, of course, but a fact nonetheless.
Those that look at defense cuts solely from the budget standpoint often ignore the employment and underlying national economic value.
But maffs is hard..I know.
Last edited:
Rommey
Well-Known Member
How many bases does the US pay rent for? As I understand it, Japan, Germany, and South Korea all pay the US for having bases within their countries. I would think that Italy falls into the same category.
Unless I am mistaken, we pay for Saudi, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Spain, Greece. Not sure about England, Japan, Germany, and Italy. I think you are right about South Korea. But none of them, to my knowledge, cover the costs of transportation, maintenance, salaries, or benefits for the troops and the support staff.
Plus ships and airplanes need harbors and airports and people to maintain them as well as the ships and planes themselves.
He would have outsourced this to china and then set up a call center in India to explain why this was a good idea.