A sincere question to Bush supporters...
- Thread starter LordOpie
- Start date
Funny Bush gets crap for it all the time......"well he should have known....
" "why the hell didn't we know Mr Bush.....You knew and did nothing Mr Bush....."Fact is, Clinton didn't face something on the scale of 9/11 (thank god he didn't have to...I wouldn't want anyone to) so he didn't have to deal with it. These are drastically different times. So comparing them in many respects is impossible if you ignore signifigant events.
Clinton had it easy, compared to Bush now. Am I wrong? Did the world decide to get pissed at the U.S.A only after Bush took office? Hardley.
Tha same guy everyone complains about spending to much on defense? So Clinton was just doing what Bush did, benefited from the results and when our military was running on fumes and he was just about out of office....he infuses it with $$$ and looks like a hero. He is a genious, I will give him that.
I can go roll with you there...
It is a big guess to say Clinton wouldn't have as big a defecit..... If I give you it might be smaller....will you give me it wouldn't be much smaller?
Clinton would still be rolling with some expensive cigars and pretty "aids" if he was still in office.....
Thats fo'shore (OK how the heck can I spell that any better with an accent? )
If it was flat it would probably need to be more like 30-40%
With all the money Bush is spending
Reaganomics were responsible for the mild recession that kept Bush Sr from re-election. Hamstrung to poor fella... you can make a valid argument that Clinton's terms were more well-timed than well-managed, but it's total BS to claim it was Ronnie's doing.
I'm also a huge fan of the article posted at the beginning of this thread, comaplining that republicans are spending too much, but it's the democrats fault for not keeping them in check. And then they claim "personal responsibility" is a conservative value...
Please. It's been a free-for-all ever since Bush let it be known that he's down with (****, he;s addicted to) deficit spending, as both sides clamor to secure favors for their respective districts. Once you break the seal, all sense of moderation goes out the window.
And no, deficit spending is not a new concept... and it's a fine practice for very short term solutions. It should NEVER be a long term policy. The credit card analogy is, as always, near perfect. It's fine to skip a monthly payment everyonce in a while to smooth over the dips, but you should bounce right back to balance. Once you let yourself carry a negative balance, just so you can enjoy some luxuries, you're asking for trouble. This is not rocket science. Hell, this is barely Macro-Econ 101...
I challenge you to even begin to describe why... in your own words and with FACTual support. At what point does your own partisanship start to sound idiotic to you?
No you're not wrong, but Clinton also didn't benefit from the overwhelming global goodwill we had immediately after 9-11. That is now gone. For those of us who value such things (and I saythat because not everyone does), one could say Bush had THAT easy.
When you get a raise, do your expenses go up? Do you start enjoying a higher standard of living? And that's fine as long as you continue to stay within your means. If you then got laid off, would you continue to live the same lifestyle? If course not! You'd buckle down and cut back. You may use the credit card or some friends' goodwill to float a month or two, but you wouldn't go on spending like you still had the fancy job.
They were dealt different hands, yes, (oh boo hoo, it's not fair, boo hoo) but there are smart ways to deal with your situation and there are dumb ones. On a grand scale, this is no more complex than household budgeting. But I guess if you've never had to do any household budgeting...
We had their condolences...but action wasn't atop their list of things to help with.
But, yes we had the global good tidings(officially...cause what ar they going to say?)
Would the country be OK with Bush doing nothing? I don't think so....the world would, but the US no.
Oh I like that last part....good one.
But to give Clinton a gold star for surviving in his tour of duty....and to think he would have faired much better now is really reaching for the impossible? IMO He would have preasure to act without the resources, just like Bush. He would have had the same problems with the economy...etc.I wouldn't give Bush an A for his term but I don't think many a man could earn an A now given the same path.
Oh-HIGH-O has spoken..
I have never busted Bush on this. It was a complete paradigm shift that no one saw coming. In the end it was a miscalculation by Osama and his clan similar to the one made by the Japanese. Would have any US president reacted any differently. Doubtful. In the end the action made the reaction very very easy to make. Once you pin it on Osama and Afghanistan doesn't hop to at 100 mph, its all over.Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Funny Bush gets crap for it all the time......"well he should have known....
However, in 1996 Clinton pushed hard for $1.1 billion in funding for anti-terrorism efforts including $429 million in airline security enhancements. Orrin Hatch and the vast majority of Republican Senators and Representatives called it a phony issue.
Clinton certainly didn't have a 9-11 to deal with. He did have to deal with several other smaller terrorist attacks but those pale in comparison. The world was not near as pissed with the US during Clinton's adminstration nor was it up until the day Bush started pushing about Iraq. (not saying it was wrong but the timing might have been better). Bush pissed every bit of good will plus that was built in the aftermath of 9-11.
The beauty of this is that I can say pretty much that it would have been much less under Clinton because he NEVER would have cut taxes to the extent Bush as especially when it comes to those paying the bulk of the bills.
The exact same one. And even now those increases in defense spending are being aimed at big weapons systems that have absolutely no use in the types of conflicts that the US is going to find itself in. As N8 posted, most of those weapons systems are replacements for systems that currently and in the future would have no equal.
Depends on what you term just about out of office. Again in 1996 Clinton propsed budget included increases in military spending of 25 billion a year for 5 years. This didn't include the additional spending that he approved that same year that Congress added in at the tune of $7billion for that year alone.
The funny part about all of Reaganomics was that Bush Sr. was the one that saw the problems with it and was the one that took the initial steps to fix it.
Bush did two things that laid the ground work for Clinton and the economic recovery that occurred. First he backed out of his promise for no new taxes. He realized that the budget deficit and current spending requirements were too screwed not to raise taxes. He saw it and did what needed to be done. Second, he started the reduction in the size of the military at Cheney's behest. That reduction did allow the budget defict to start to shrink and become manageble which is what Clinton did. Second that reduction put a lot of talented folks into the work force that helped fuel the economic recovery of the Clinton years.
But his own party was so quick to abandon him that it cost him re-election and saddled them with Bill Clinton for 8 years. Got what they deserved in my opinion.
no, it should be 10%! (it already is 30-40% for most of us) the government needs to learn to live within it's mean... just like the rest of us red-blooded Americans!Originally posted by RhinofromWA
If it was flat it would probably need to be more like 30-40%
With all the money Bush is spending
and if all politicians would take salary cuts to put themselves back into the real world... that would help too.
bad as I said earlier... it doesnt' matter who's in office... until these fundamental issues get addressed and dealt with, our defecit will continue to grow.
Ppl keep saying that the Dems have no balls to stop GWBs crazy shopping spree, and this may be true to an extent. But what is also true is that up untill the presidential campaign started anyone who spoke against GWBs crazy spending and constitution raping was accused of being a traitor and their political carrear was ruined.
My very good friend Lt. John Merrill has told me time and time again that he likes the idea of a "lean and mean" military. He was enlisted and was a Sf.Sgt before he became an officer so he has been in the Air Force for a total of 10 years give or take.
The cuts he experienced personally were minimal and he was always vigilent about being cost effective in his job.
The idea that cuts in military spending have a relationship with troop readiness is a joke to him.
I should have him join up so he argue about this budget stuff from his perspective.
Burly.
Did you suffer undue hardship while Clinton was signing the budgets?
The cuts he experienced personally were minimal and he was always vigilent about being cost effective in his job.
The idea that cuts in military spending have a relationship with troop readiness is a joke to him.
I should have him join up so he argue about this budget stuff from his perspective.
Burly.
Did you suffer undue hardship while Clinton was signing the budgets?
I read a quote from Dick Cheney that stated something to the effect that the current administration has to work with the previous administrations military to accomplish whatever may arise. He stated there is little someone can do in 4 years to make any signifigant changes. He also stated that when they finished Gulf War 1 the first thing he did was phone Reagan and thank him for leaving him in such a good situation. I wonder if he phoned Clinton and thanked him for the boys who kicked ass in Afganistan and Iraq.
The cuts in spending don't ever effect the zoomies and the fancy techy stuff. The Army and Marines almost always bears the brunt of spending cuts especially in training resources. Its all perspective. The Cuts in military spending under Bush started when I was still in the Army. My infantry platoon's training budgets were slashed. All the while the Navy is getting billions and billions to build a submarine that had no real use. The Air Force was getting money for bombers that it had no real use for.
All the while I could barely piece together enough budget to make sure my soldiers were shooting a 200 rounds of 5.56 a week. (That ain't a lot).
More ass could have been kicked.
If we have no use for bombers, why did we bomb the crap out of Iraq and Afganistan before we ever set foot in either place. More bombers means less grunts and less casualties. "Lean and Mean" means lots of very capable weaponry manned by fewer ppl, not leaner meaner grunts. These useless bombers made it so when the troops rolled in the enemy was already beaten into submission.
Although the situation in Iraq is getting pretty lean and mean
That's interesting actually. I suppose the different branches do get tretated differently.
My friend was a food inspector while in fulltime, work airelport (sp?) while in the reseveres during college and now is in facilities (my friend who was a Marine says he has a fake job in the fake branch of the military..)
He has always had the resources to do what he needed to do.
Originally posted by DHRacer
"no real use"? uh... yeah, okay.
all you want but facts are facts. No real use is exactly what it was. The US Navy has somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 Los Angles Class submarines, which are the most deadly anti-submarine weapon ever put in the ocean. Of all the things (along with the Trident) that eventually ran the USSR out of business this submarine did it. The Soviets didn't have submarines that could compare.
BUT the US government still piled billions of dollars into the Seawolf class submarine even after the USSR was belly up and no one else was building submarines. NO REAL USE.
Originally posted by DRB
The US Navy has somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 Los Angles Class submarines, which are the most deadly anti-submarine weapon ever put in the ocean. Of all the things (along with the Trident) that eventually ran the USSR out of business this submarine did it. The Soviets didn't have submarines that could compare.
BUT the US government still piled billions of dollars into the Seawolf class submarine even after the USSR was belly up and no one else was building submarines. NO REAL USE.
who's the bitterest one in the neighborhood?... the bitterest one in the neighborhood?....
HOWDY NEIGHBOR!
More bombers means no such thing. More ground attack aircraft mean that. Aircraft like the F/A-18, F-15E, F-117 and F-16 are the ones that grunts on the ground want on their side. Those are the aircraft systems that make a big difference in ground operations.
And to clarify what I said. I said they were getting money for bombers they had no real use for.... NOT that bombers were a waste of money. Fleets of B-2s, which is specifically the bomber I was talking about, were going to be a waste of money. Fortunately they caught on to that and capped that. Now N8 might have different thoughts on this area but I believe that US can bomb the ever living daylights out of most enemies on this earth with the existing fleet of B-52s with relative impunity.
Nice comeback. I'm sure you were captain of your high school debate team. I'm guessing the short bus was fun to take to school. :devil:
I'm sure this is the nature of most organizations in regards to budget cuts. Feast and famine.
hey man... don't be doggin' the short bus!
When you get right down to it, arguing on the internet is about as pointless as a beachball.
I'm not going to change the way you think and vice a versa.
you have to admit, that from an outsiders viewpoint, being that you're from a branch of the military that saw some of these cuts when the AF and Navy didn't, you can understand how one would think you're opinon would be somewhat of the "slightly jaded" nature?
that's not to say that you're right or wrong. everythign is subject to opinion. what might be deemed as important to one person(s) may not be "as" important to another.
I'm not saying that our government doesn't have some serious issues it needs to work out... it most certainly does.
However, you can't pin the blame on one person. these problems didn't happen over night, or within a 4 year term of any given President. all parties involved are to blame.
What I think is absolutely asinine about politics in general is the damn finger pointing and blaming. they're all a bunch of self righteous SOB's that can't see beyond their own dicks (and that goes for Hillary too!).
to say that Bush is the reason we're in such bad shape is crap... so say that Clinton is the reason is crap... everyone from probably the last two decades (and probably even farther back than that, to some degree), is to blame.
Just because bombers dont go in at your side and give you direct support dosent mean theyre useless. Bombers are used to attack the infrastructure of the country you invade, before you ever get there, therefore they help you.
Im under the assumption that whatever branch of the military you served under convinced you that it was the only brach that actually accomplishes anything. Despite the fact that you guys hate and bash eachother you do work together and help one another.
I was in the military during Ronald Regan's massive build thru Clinton. During Clinton's administration I took a job working for the Dept of Defense where I deal daily with projects dealing with base infrastructure. Yes, the military suffered greatly during Clinton's reign. It is all part of the 'smoke & mirrors' routine Clinton sold to the American Public where he claimed that the "deficit" was erased. It was not erased it, was merely shifted to the out years. The cuts in military spending could not be continued for long without severely damaging our ability to protect our nation and it's interests. These are the bills that have come due NOW.
A lot of my fellow conservatives, are concerned and the Democrats are attempting to make political hay outta, the fact that the deficit is back. I say so what. All it will take is a general up-tick in the economy and everythings good.
A lot of my fellow conservatives, are concerned and the Democrats are attempting to make political hay outta, the fact that the deficit is back. I say so what. All it will take is a general up-tick in the economy and everythings good.
There isn't any rational person who can claim that I'm afraid. Shall we do the "Good News the Dem's Don't want You to Know" numbers again..???
Right but with stand off weapons, cruise missles, B-52s and B-1s that requirement was more than filled. Again focus on the fact that I was commenting on one specific bomber system, not the bomber fleet in general.
Your assumption is wrong. The Army cannot accomplish much without support from the Air Force and Navy. The times I found myself in harm's way the thought of having Air Force firepower on the other end of the radio was a comforting thought. I also have more than a basic understanding of the combined arms strategic theory. But it does not change my opinion in regards to a that particular bomber system.
The next heavy bomber for the USAF is scheduled for the year 2037.
From www.stratgeypage.com
WARPLANES: New American Heavy Bomber
January 29, 2004: The U.S. Air Force plans to start testing a new heavy bomber in 2037. There are several interesting things to note about that. First, there's the obvious fact that the air force is planning that far ahead. Second, 2037 will be the 100th anniversary of the acceptance of the B-17 "Flying Fortress," the first modern heavy bomber, by the U.S. Army Air Corps. The third item of note is that the air force is going so long without having a heavy bomber in development. Over a sixty year period, from the early 1930s to the early 1990s, there were fifteen heavy bombers developed. Only 13 of them actually entered service (B-17 in 1939, B-24 in 1942, B-29 in 1944, B-32 in 1945, B-50 in 1947, B-45 in 1948, B-36 in 1948, B-49 "Flying Wing" cancelled in 1952, B-47 in 1952, B-52 in 1955, B-58 in 1960, FB-111 in 1969, B-70 development halted in 1966, B-1 in 1985 and B-2 in 1992.)
Finally, the design of the new bomber is unclear. Anything goes. The current fleet of B-1, B-2 and B-52 aircraft is aging faster than expected because of heavy combat use. The success of JDAM smart bombs dropped from heavy bomber circling overhead for hours, means that the existing heavy bombers will probably be used more, and wear out faster, than expected. So the current defense budget provides $45 million to begin design work on a new heavy bomber. This is liable to be a contentious issue, with the growing popularity of UAVs and suggestions that a modified commercial aircraft might be more cost-effective as a heavy bomber
From www.stratgeypage.com
WARPLANES: New American Heavy Bomber
January 29, 2004: The U.S. Air Force plans to start testing a new heavy bomber in 2037. There are several interesting things to note about that. First, there's the obvious fact that the air force is planning that far ahead. Second, 2037 will be the 100th anniversary of the acceptance of the B-17 "Flying Fortress," the first modern heavy bomber, by the U.S. Army Air Corps. The third item of note is that the air force is going so long without having a heavy bomber in development. Over a sixty year period, from the early 1930s to the early 1990s, there were fifteen heavy bombers developed. Only 13 of them actually entered service (B-17 in 1939, B-24 in 1942, B-29 in 1944, B-32 in 1945, B-50 in 1947, B-45 in 1948, B-36 in 1948, B-49 "Flying Wing" cancelled in 1952, B-47 in 1952, B-52 in 1955, B-58 in 1960, FB-111 in 1969, B-70 development halted in 1966, B-1 in 1985 and B-2 in 1992.)
Finally, the design of the new bomber is unclear. Anything goes. The current fleet of B-1, B-2 and B-52 aircraft is aging faster than expected because of heavy combat use. The success of JDAM smart bombs dropped from heavy bomber circling overhead for hours, means that the existing heavy bombers will probably be used more, and wear out faster, than expected. So the current defense budget provides $45 million to begin design work on a new heavy bomber. This is liable to be a contentious issue, with the growing popularity of UAVs and suggestions that a modified commercial aircraft might be more cost-effective as a heavy bomber
No, but the B1 and B2 are essentially bombers without a mission(at least at the moment). The best heavy bomber platform the USAF has is the B-52 which is over 40 years old. With upgraded electronic packages and the advent of 'stand-off' weapons systems (read as cruise missles) combined with JDAMS, the aged BUFF is without a doubt the most versitile weapons system the USAF has in current inventory.
From www.strategypage.comOriginally posted by DRB
The US Navy has somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 Los Angles Class submarines, which are the most deadly anti-submarine weapon ever put in the ocean. Of all the things (along with the Trident) that eventually ran the USSR out of business this submarine did it. The Soviets didn't have submarines that could compare.
BUT the US government still piled billions of dollars into the Seawolf class submarine even after the USSR was belly up and no one else was building submarines. NO REAL USE.
SUBMARINES: Nuclear Subs Looking for Work
January 29, 2004: U.S. Navy submarine admirals are energetically making their case for subs as intelligence gathering systems. The submarines jumped onto the intelligence gathering tasks in the 1990s. Actually, subs had been used for espionage, as a secondary mission, since the first modern subs appeared a century ago. During the Cold War, subs were used frequently for all manner of intel missions. Sometimes it was just to sit outside a Russian port or shipping route and use passive sensors (very sensitive underwater microphones) to count and identify (via a computerized "library" of ship sounds) passing ships. U.S. nuclear subs sometimes used divers and special equipment to tap into underwater communications cables. Once the Cold War ended, and the mighty Soviet fleet pretty much instantly disappeared, submariners quickly realized they'd better get a new job, or their expensive subs would be retired. In 1991, the navy said it could get by with 80 SSNs. That number quickly shrunk and today 54 remain in service. Nearly half the work these subs do has to do with intelligence collecting. This is causing some strain within the Department of Defense. The other services point out that a lot of that intelligence work could be done just as well, and a lot cheaper, using satellites, UAVs, aircraft and spies. There's a lot of truth to that, but the submariners were there first and will not give up without a fight. You won't hear much about this one in the media, because so many of the details involve highly classified intelligence work. But it's a real battle, and if you see an announcement that one or two dozen nuclear attack subs are suddenly being retired, you'll know who lost.
hmm, its like winning the special olympics. u might win, but it
doesnt change the fact u are a retard against other retards.
i dont remember where i read that, but it such a cool quote.
Are you related to Lobo?
who's lobo???
i used to post in the political forum, but kinda realized the futility of debate for its own sake. specially over the internet.
anyway, its early and i'll go out and jog for a while rather than argue over the internet with other guys who know as little as i know about any given topic, and for what our little argument in this corner of the net wont affect.