(POL) Official Super Tuesday Thread

[Fighter of Foo]

How is military spending NOT wealth redistribution, just like any other government program? It's exactly the same thing. Money is going from taxpayers to private companies/contractors and their stockholders/employees. Just because there are middlemen and the recipients differ doesn't make it any different.

[Warhammer]

Couple of things:

You worded your first point incorrectly previously, the military is not 1/2 the budget or 1/2 of the tax income of the government, it is nearly 1/2 of the discretionary spending of the goverment.

That is a big distinction because 53% of the federal budget is mandatory spending (entitlements, etc.).

The article that you mention is kind of funny. Many people are complaining about stretching our forces too thin. If we allowed more funding for the military, that would pay for more troops (if we so desired). If we had more troops, we would not be stretched so thin.

Military spending is an investment that you hope you never have to use. However, the ramifications of not spending are enormous. Look at the period between WWI and WWII. The democracies of the world scaled back their military spending. When Hitler came to power, their militaries were ill-equipped to combat him. Equipment was antiquated. Military theory stagnated to a large extent.

The result was the single most damaging war in the history of man. Over 20 million people perished during 1939-45. It all could have been averted if at any point prior to September 1, 1939, France and England had stood up to Germany. Had the Allies resisted the reoccupation of the Rhineland, there was the distinct probably Hitler would have been ousted from power.

Our current levels of military investment are minute compared to our historical expenditures there. They are also minute compared to what nations have spent on their militaries going back hundreds of years. The Military Reolution Debate edited by Clifford Rogers has a number of articles dedicated to the subject and the impact on the growth and evolution of goverment.

Should we spend 20% of our GDP on the military? Probably not. But spending 6-8% on our military is not ridiculous. When you think of the technologies that came out of military or space exploration needs you will see the positive impact that spending here has on the population. Velcro, dehydrated foods, computers, and lightweight materials are all developments from different lines of research in the military and space departments.

Do we get this type of return from any other government activity? Outside of the department of transportation, I do not know.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

How is military spending NOT wealth redistribution, just like any other government program? It's exactly the same thing. Money is going from taxpayers to private companies/contractors and their stockholders/employees. Just because there are middlemen and the recipients differ doesn't make it any different.

Simple. Military spending buys a tangible product. Social Security and most other entitlement programs do not provide anything. They just move wealth around.

When the military buys a jet, they pay General Dynamics, Grumman, McDonnell Douglas, etc., (ok, these may have been bought in the last few years) a ton of money for that jet. Those companies turn around and subcontract to various suppliers for the necessary materials and parts to produce the aircraft. Ultimately, this spending produces jobs for a large number of people.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I believe that military spending is also much more valuable to the country than other types of spending. Education, transportation, and commerce are all investments into our future. Military is more of a here and now form of spending and it results in money going into the private sector.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather we had more money going towards "investments into our future" than propping up failing 20th-century industries.

While we've been spending billions on a massive, bloated military infrastructure (which was so inefficient it couldn't provide adequate equipment to soldiers until several years into the Iraq War), we've lost ground in the overall education levels of our children, the quality of our infrastructure, and our lead in technology and innovation.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Couple of things:
Military spending is an investment that you hope you never have to use. However, the ramifications of not spending are enormous. Look at the period between WWI and WWII. The democracies of the world scaled back their military spending. When Hitler came to power, their militaries were ill-equipped to combat him. Equipment was antiquated. Military theory stagnated to a large extent.

I don't think you can equate the inter-war period to the threats and responses that exist today. As both the Persian Gulf War and the Iraq Invasion have shown, there is no conventional force that can mount anything but a cursory defense against American military technology and force. Even were we to scale back military spending, we still have such a technological lead that we need never fear another "Germany-type" encroachment or invasion. It's simply no longer a credible threat.

The types of threats we're going to continue to encounter are insurgencies, and to be successful here we need a very different type of force than we've had. All the stealth bombers haven't helped us in Iraq, for instance, and arguably the carrier groups aren't a big help either.

Of course, if you're arguing that we should vastly expand the number of soldiers we have so as to wage "preventative war" all over the globe in the hopes of nation-building, then you're welcome to that idea and yes, it will probably require even more money (see the bills for Iraq & Afghanistan).

But if you're arguing for the original goal of the army as set out in the Constitution then I'd say we can probably slash our military budget in half and still fulfill the stated goal of protecting the homeland.

Do we get this type of return from any other government activity? Outside of the department of transportation, I do not know.

Grants to innovative technology, biotech and pharma companies, as well as joint government-corporate research has provided quite a lot of return itself, and return that can be capitalized at a much higher dollar value than things like velcro.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Ultimately, this spending produces jobs for a large number of people.

And therein lies the problem.

Jobs = people who aren't beholden to the government for everything ... and that cannot be tolerated.

[Fighter of Foo]

Thanks for correcting me.

The place where I get my panties in a wad is that we're stretched too thin because we don't spend enough. We're stretched too thin because we're everywhere. And wherever we go, we tend to fuck things up.

I know you've seen the chart that shows how we spend roughly the equivalent as the rest of the world on military expenditures. If we didn't spend stupidly, like the Slate article describes, we wouldn't need as much either. 6-8% seems like a reasonable number. 20-25%, or more, is not.

You make a really good point on the return on investment for military and infrastructure spending. At least with the military they are producing something. It's still wealth redistribution though. The difference is companies and their employees/stockholders are the beneficiaries instead of individuals who fit 'X' criteria.

In either case, no one with a chance to become President is going to change much of this.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I don't know about you, but I'd rather we had more money going towards "investments into our future" than propping up failing 20th-century industries.

While we've been spending billions on a massive, bloated military infrastructure (which was so inefficient it couldn't provide adequate equipment to soldiers until several years into the Iraq War), we've lost ground in the overall education levels of our children, the quality of our infrastructure, and our lead in technology and innovation.

I phrased that wrong. I have no problems with spending in education, transportation, and commerce.

Much of what needs to be done in the education level of our children is a focus on education. I would argue that most suburban children would test favorably with children across the world. Our higher education centers are respected around the world. The problem is that we have large portions of our population that does not push education and the value of an education. Will extra dollars translate to a better educated work force? I'm not sure. Finally, aren't the majority of these dollars to come out of the local and state tax coffers, not the Federal coffers?

Regarding infrastructure, what infrastructure are you referring to? If you are talking about roads, I have no problem putting more money into the budget there. However, we do have a problem with the way that funding is allocated. Rather than keep up the roads we have, our politicians make more hay by building new ones.

Again, you want to argue these points, I will agree in principle with most of them.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I don't think you can equate the inter-war period to the threats and responses that exist today. As both the Persian Gulf War and the Iraq Invasion have shown, there is no conventional force that can mount anything but a cursory defense against American military technology and force. Even were we to scale back military spending, we still have such a technological lead that we need never fear another "Germany-type" encroachment or invasion. It's simply no longer a credible threat.

I'm not too sure about that. China is a growing threat. They also have a great first strike capability...against our satellites. That severely handicap the ability of our forces. What we saw in the Persian Gulf War and the Iraq War is that we have a military that can kick the ass of any banana republic. We have not been measured against the first class militaries of the world.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The types of threats we're going to continue to encounter are insurgencies, and to be successful here we need a very different type of force than we've had. All the stealth bombers haven't helped us in Iraq, for instance, and arguably the carrier groups aren't a big help either.

Of course, if you're arguing that we should vastly expand the number of soldiers we have so as to wage "preventative war" all over the globe in the hopes of nation-building, then you're welcome to that idea and yes, it will probably require even more money (see the bills for Iraq & Afghanistan).

First, the way to defeat insurgencies is a high force to area ratio. We do not have that capability right now. You can have all the high tech weapons you want, but unless you have the troops on the ground, you cannot fight or will have great difficulty in waging an anti-insurgent campaign.

I am not arguing that we need to increase the military to wage a preventative war anywhere. But, if the nation deems it necessary, we need to have the forces necessary to wage that war.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

But if you're arguing for the original goal of the army as set out in the Constitution then I'd say we can probably slash our military budget in half and still fulfill the stated goal of protecting the homeland.

Yes, I am, but not entirely. We have decided that we must be a part of several defensive alliances as a matter of national security. As a result, we must have an army that is willing and able to carry out those tasks.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Grants to innovative technology, biotech and pharma companies, as well as joint government-corporate research has provided quite a lot of return itself, and return that can be capitalized at a much higher dollar value than things like velcro.

You are exactly right. Many of these joint research contracts have been due to the military. Many innovative technologies have spun off the military-industrial complex is my point. Why has our civilization come up with many of our metallurgical advances? The military. Why was margarine developed as a butter substitute? The military. I can go on and on.

My point is that the military gives us far greater return than our entitlement programs. You want to argue education, transportation, and commerce? I'll probably agree with you on those matters. But, many of the issues that we face in those areas are not a matter of funding.

Finally, the issue is not an either or equation. We are not cutting spending on transportation to put money into the military. Nor are we cutting spending in education to put money into the military. My contention is that we should cut entitlement spending and put that into other areas or pay off the debt.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

You make a really good point on the return on investment for military and infrastructure spending. At least with the military they are producing something. It's still wealth redistribution though. The difference is companies and their employees/stockholders are the beneficiaries instead of individuals who fit 'X' criteria.

This is probably the difference between us. I have no problem with someone who produces something as being the beneficiary of anything. Where I have issues is where someone gets something just because he fits 'X'. I have no problem helping the less fortunate out on my own free will. I have a huge problem being told that I am supposed to help these people out because they are there.

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

In either case, no one with a chance to become President is going to change much of this.

I agree with you here.

[path12]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Jobs = people who aren't beholden to the government for everything ... and that cannot be tolerated.

But defense contractor jobs are substantially beholden to the government by definition, aren't they?

[Buccaneer]

I guess this could go into either thread - from my favorite columnist (Roland Martin)

Listening to the irrational and hysterical response of conservatives to the presidential candidacy of Sen. John McCain would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.
Roland S. Martin says some conservatives are opposed to Sen. John McCain's run to the presidency.





During a debate Tuesday on CNN's "The Situation Room," conservative radio talk show host Glenn Beck said that the Republican Party has lost its soul, and McCain is indicative of that problem. He even said that if Sen. Hillary Clinton is the nominee, he will ignore McCain and cast a ballot for her.

Now, how silly is that?

Looking at the exit polls from Super Tuesday, McCain did well in some states with conservative voters, but he continues to run strong among moderates and independents. He clearly has a lot of work to do to shore up this important constituent in the party.

Let's be clear -- conservatives don't like McCain. But with conservatives one seat away from having a majority on the Supreme Court and the next president having the power to name up to three justices, do you actually think the folks who've fought two generations to re-take the Court actually want to see three Clinton jurists?


This, folks, is bordering on the irrational.

It all revolves around this desperate desire to find the new Ronald Reagan. He is the conservative icon. However as conservative Bill Bennett told me Tuesday night during one of our breaks in Super Tuesday coverage, Ronald Reagan wasn't always Ronald Reagan. His positions on taxes and gays evolved.

But don't tell that to conservative radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, who have vowed to destroy McCain because he doesn't carry their water on every issue. Most issues? Yes. But they require their politicians to assume a fetal position, not to have a backbone and stand up to them when needed.

McCain is a guy who is fiercely pro-life. That's a pretty important issue for the conservatives. He is strong on the military and being a former Vietnam prisoner of war sure doesn't hurt. When Republicans got weak-kneed over the surge in Iraq, McCain stood tall and proclaimed that it will work.

The guy is a fiscal conservative who abhors the spending that has taken place during the presidency of George W. Bush and the Congress under Republican rule. Yes, he voted against the first two Bush tax cuts. But as he said, when you don't have spending limits with tax cuts, you blow up the federal deficit, and we are a weaker nation today because Republicans acted like a teenager with Mom and Dad's credit card.

What you will hear from conservatives is that he has co-sponsored legislation with several Democrats, including former Democrat-turned-independent Sen. Joe Lieberman. Of course, I crack up laughing because conservative talkers have a love affair with Lieberman yet they rip McCain apart for trying to actually accomplish something in a bipartisan manner.

What they seem to be most angry about is that McCain teamed up with Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold to move through a law that severely restricted the dollars in federal elections. This angered conservatives because they viewed the issue as a First Amendment cause. In fact, they really were upset about the GOP losing a major advantage over the Democrats when it came to fundraising. With that window narrowed by the law, they didn't want to see that advantage disappear. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down some parts of the law, but that still hasn't satisfied the money vultures on the right.

Lastly, there's the immigration debate.

In an effort to exercise leadership on a volatile issue, McCain chose not to be a demagogue and work out a compromise bill that would curtail the nation's unsecured borders, while figuring out a way to deal with the 12 million illegal immigrants already here. If you talk to the rabid conservative talk show hosts and their wild and angry listeners, their only option is to throw these immigrants out of the country. In former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, they have a very sympathetic ear.

But we all know the truth. That will never happen. Never.

So instead of drooling at such prospects, McCain worked with Democrats and some Republicans to offer a solution, which included making illegal immigrants learn English, pay a fine, force them to get in line for citizenship while targeting businesses that hire them.

Yet, the anger in America was too great. Whites, blacks, some Hispanics, conservatives, and even liberals couldn't stomach doing this first and not securing the borders.

Folks, McCain is a pragmatic leader trying to solve a difficult situation.
Conservatives will do anything to stop him, with some even suggesting -- especially evangelicals -- that they might run a third-party candidate.
Word to the wise: Shut up, suck it up and deal with it.

If McCain wins the nomination, he is the best option the GOP has to stopping the candidacies of Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

I know what I wrote this morning was too hurried and not thought through but one thing still sticks in my craw is that there must be one issue for some of the conservative's hatred of McCain? Is it immigration?

[st.cronin]

I think actually the thing that turned off the GOP was McCain working with Clinton on foreign policy in Kosovo. The rest of the party was freaking out, and McCain was saying "no, this is a good idea. It can work."

Or, it's just irrational. But I don't understand what anybody sees in Romney.

[Buccaneer]

As a libertarian and a believer in Christ, my views expand beyond the one-dimensional reb/blue spectrum. Some of my views are to the right of Jon, some are deemed moderate (mainly because they really are not the important) and some would be considered left-leaning. I would look at it as a true independent voter and I would take exception to those staking a claim on an extreme saying that such a voter lacks principles. It simply cannot be listed in a series of talking points that the media and those in opposition like to tear down. That's why I have always taken great exception to the label 'religious right' or 'evangelical right' as if they are all a homogeneous group of voters (or any bloc of voters for that matter). Some are as exactly as you would stereotype (Bubba comes to mind) but you would be surprised at some having very different set of views, including those that are libertarians.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think actually the thing that turned off the GOP was McCain working with Clinton on foreign policy in Kosovo. The rest of the party was freaking out, and McCain was saying "no, this is a good idea. It can work."

Or, it's just irrational. But I don't understand what anybody sees in Romney.

He was a Senator on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was he not? Was he have supposed to be in lock-stop opposition to everything like most are?

I believe in constant opposition to expanding the powers of the federal govt (as in not piling onto existing bills and not introducing new entitlements that costs way more than the marginal benefits). But realistically in this inter-connected world we live in, one chooses the battles and look at opportunities where the benefits can outweigh the costs (whether in foreign policy, security, domestic aid, standardization, etc.).

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

He was a Senator on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was he not? Was he have supposed to be in lock-stop opposition to everything like most are?

I believe in constant opposition to expanding the powers of the federal govt (as in not piling onto existing bills and not introducing new entitlements that costs way more than the marginal benefits). But realistically in this inter-connected world we live in, one chooses the battles and look at opportunities where the benefits can outweigh the costs (whether in foreign policy, security, domestic aid, standardization, etc.).

I'm not saying I understand it or agree with it. I'm just pointing out the first time I remember hearing about friction between McCain and the GOP.

I don't think the issue can be immigration; he basically has the same views on immigration as Dubya, which were widely known and understood by the party before his first nomination. I think it is not a philosophical difference between McCain and "conservatives", but an objection to something stylistic or aesthetic. Like he doesn't use the right code words or something. I honestly don't know, because I think he's actually the most conservative of the three candidates left.

[Buccaneer]

The "right code words"? Seriously? Maybe it's federal spendings but that would be hypocritical, wouldn't it?

[st.cronin]

I don't actually know, I'm just guessing.

[JPhillips]

The things I've seen mentioned are:

The Gang of 14 deal
Immigration
Possible opposition to Alito
Flirting with becoming a Democrat
Campaign finance
Opposition to waterboarding
Closing Guantanamo
Belief in global warming
Desire to work with Democrats
Calling out religious leaders
Opposition to Bush's tax cuts

They may or may not be rational arguments, but there are a lot of specifics mentioned by hard conservatives.

[Buccaneer]

I do disagree with him on Campaign Finance Reform, but that's just one of a million things that Congress have passed that was unconstitutional.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The things I've seen mentioned are:

The Gang of 14 deal
Immigration
Possible opposition to Alito
Flirting with becoming a Democrat
Campaign finance
Opposition to waterboarding
Closing Guantanamo
Belief in global warming
Desire to work with Democrats
Calling out religious leaders
Opposition to Bush's tax cuts

They may or may not be rational arguments, but there are a lot of specifics mentioned by hard conservatives.

I keep hearing Romney talking about how he's different from McCain on Guantanamo, but I haven't seen anything on their respective websites, or heard anything from the horse's mouth about *how* they differ.

May I take this to mean that McCain supports closing it, and Romney supports keeping it open?

[st.cronin]

Romney has said he would "double" Guantanamo.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Romney has said he would "double" Guantanamo.

And McCain wants to close it? Or leave it as is?

[mrsimperless]

I am not up at all on McCain's policies, but the one thing I saw that stuck in my mind was a scuffle between he and Paul regarding who had the support of the troops in the military. Paul supporters presented some solid evidence of fundraising totals from troops that well surpassed McCain's. When presented with this McCain basically said that he was right and was the Republican choice of the troops regardless of anything else presented to the contrary. I've basically stopped listening to the guy since I saw that.

I've had enough idiocy, deceitfulness and arrogance from my chief exec to last me the rest of my lifetime. I will NOT be voting for someone else who looks to be from that same mold regardless of party affiliation.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

And McCain wants to close it? Or leave it as is?

I believe he wants to close it, but I admit I'm not sure.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

And McCain wants to close it? Or leave it as is?

Depends upon when you ask him apparently.

If you Google "McCain and Guantanamo" you get a variety of things over a year's time (give or take). From talking about closing it to wanting more Congressional oversight of it to what appeared to be granting due process rights to those interred to Lordonlyknowswhatelse (after just a brief spel, even skimming the various articles got tedious for me)

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by mrsimperless

I've had enough idiocy, deceitfulness and arrogance from my chief exec to last me the rest of my lifetime.

How far back would one have to go to not have such characteristics in the chief exec? Ike? Coolidge?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Depends upon when you ask him apparently.

If you Google "McCain and Guantanamo" you get a variety of things over a year's time (give or take). From talking about closing it to wanting more Congressional oversight of it to what appeared to be granting due process rights to those interred to Lordonlyknowswhatelse (after just a brief spel, even skimming the various articles got tedious for me)

And what is your view?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I believe he wants to close it, but I admit I'm not sure.

That might actually be the first positive sign I've seen out of him. The idea that we need to completely deny human rights to anybody we think might be involved in a terroristic plot against us, even if it turns out "oops, wrong guy," has never sat well with me. We can fight the terror war without being fascists about it.

Probably not enough for me to vote for him in November, but it's nice to see there's something substantial I can agree with him on, if that's how he feels.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

And what is your view?

Of what I think McCain thinks about Guantanamo?
Or what I think about Guantanamo?

(I'm not shooting for obtuse here, I'm braintired & genuinely don't know which one you're asking about)

[Buccaneer]

What you think about Gitmo.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Depends upon when you ask him apparently.

If you Google "McCain and Guantanamo" you get a variety of things over a year's time (give or take). From talking about closing it to wanting more Congressional oversight of it to what appeared to be granting due process rights to those interred to Lordonlyknowswhatelse (after just a brief spel, even skimming the various articles got tedious for me)

And I know we'll disagree here, Jon, but I actually think that's a good thing.

My thought is, if they're that dangerous, they aren't going to be carrying out terror plots while locked away. I don't have a problem with locking folks up, but there should be protections for the innocent so that we aren't taking away ten years of a man's life just because Joe Schmoe with the Feds is angling for a promotion.

Closing it? Might be a little drastic. Congressional oversight? Due process? Those are good things, not bad things. Doesn't mean you need to get silly and start throwing cases out on a technicality because somebody didn't get read their Miranda rights, but if the government stacks the deck against everybody who's in there, how are the innocent supposed to defend themselves?

Somebody who believes in "if you're in there you must have done something wrong" over "innocent until proven guilty" is not a man (or woman) I want running the country in the first place.

[mrsimperless]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

How far back would one have to go to not have such characteristics in the chief exec? Ike? Coolidge?

That is a good question. My 31 years hasn't seen it before, but perhaps going back it's more common than I'd like to think.

Have we ever seen such abuse to this extreme though?

[Buccaneer]

Josh, remember that McCain probably had some experience on confinement and torture, you think?

[SackAttack]

Yeah, Bucc, I do remember that.

Haven't really heard him speak out on Guantanamo, but if the things being attributed to him in the last page or so on that topic are true, I don't have a problem with it.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by mrsimperless

That is a good question. My 31 years hasn't seen it before, but perhaps going back it's more common than I'd like to think.

Have we ever seen such abuse to this extreme though?

Seen? No, but our history is full of it. Just look at the Alien and Sedition Act of the late 1790s, as well as the American Civil War and Jim Crow, not to mention countless abuse of immigrants, natives and those of different religious persuasions. What had happened in the past makes today's "extreme" abuse look very tame by comparison. But then again, most people don't anything happened before 1980.

[JPhillips]

I've mentioned it before, but it really is shameful that for many on the right support for torture and indefinite detention have become litmus tests.

(And I use torture because I've seen it used over the past several days on a number of prominent conservative blogs/web pages.)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

What you think about Gitmo.

I have to imagine that you could accurately predict my general take on it.

Probably the biggest problem I've got with it is that anybody outside a need-to-know basis is even aware of it. In these non-traditional circumstances (as well as some of the traditional too I suppose) I'm rather fond of having bad guys simply disappear without a trace. Might as well sow a little confusion as well as removing an enemy asset, more bang for the buck that way. I'm still downright bewildered that we have so little control or common sense that this is such a public situation.

As for closing it, that's fine by me ... as long as it's replaced with something more efficient and infinitely more discreet.

edit to add: To bring this back to McCain, I believe you raise a very relevant point about his background with the subject. I believe he's simply too close to it to be able to make a decision that's in the best interest of the nation and I trust his judgement probably at little as anyone in the potential sphere of influence. Basically, I have too much concern that he's suffering from something akin to Stockholm Syndrome.

[Buccaneer]

Thank you Jon. I am still trying to come to grasp with a certain segment of conservative voters favoring Clinton over McCain, unless it truly is a scare tactic.

[Buccaneer]

It's too bad almost no one here was old enough to remember the Vietnam War era. McCain did make news back then, being an Admiral's son and all. I just read a travelogue on Vietnam and it struck me what a change that country has become (for the better). One can visit Hanoi Hilton (which McCain did in 2000 but I don't know any details).

[st.cronin]

Unbelievably the votes are still not counted, but it looks like New Mexico is going to barely be Clinton's, meaning I was wrong. There are, however, some reports of some crazy shit going on all over the state, like Bernalillo County (which went heavy for Obama) running out of ballots at 3 pm. Also Arriba County (which went heavy for Clinton), their votes were apparently reported in a very irregular way.

Also every national site keeps calling New Mexico a primary state, but its actually a caucus. I'm not sure why they are getting it wrong.

[path12]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Unbelievably the votes are still not counted, but it looks like New Mexico is going to barely be Clinton's, meaning I was wrong. There are, however, some reports of some crazy shit going on all over the state, like Bernalillo County (which went heavy for Obama) running out of ballots at 3 pm. Also Arriba County (which went heavy for Clinton), their votes were apparently reported in a very irregular way.

Also every national site keeps calling New Mexico a primary state, but its actually a caucus. I'm not sure why they are getting it wrong.

If it was a caucus state there wouldn't be ballots though, right? We're a caucus state and there are no ballots involved.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

You worded your first point incorrectly previously, the military is not 1/2 the budget or 1/2 of the tax income of the government, it is nearly 1/2 of the discretionary spending of the goverment.

Although there is some validity to points that you have made, I have to correct the numbers.

HHS budget figure you cited earlier was almost exclusively mandatory spending -- Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP. Proposed HHS discretionary spending was only $71 billion. Non-defense discretionary spending has been set at about $480 billion for the current fiscal year. The DoD bill was for about $460 billion, but that didn't include full operational finding for Iraq or Afghanistan. Congress already appropriated another $31.5 billion for that, and Bush just asked for another $110 billion. If you are scoring at home, that comes out to about $600 billion for DoD and $480 for non-defense discretionary funding, functionally every other department and agency in the government.

You made the mistake of linking the argument to the President's budget proposal. It is a phony document. He does not include money for the wars in that part of it. He hides it in a table at the end.

You've been moving back and forth with bringing mandatory spending into and out of the argument. For those not familiar with the difference between mandatory and discretionary spending, mandatory spending programs are those that, under the law, if an individual qualifies for benefits, they get them. Think Social Security. Discretionary programs are those that are subject to appropriations, like the FBI, who have to wait for Congress to approve their budget each year.

Long-winded explanations aside, the President likes to divide his budget into security funding and non-security funding, essentially lumping in homeland security with defense. He doesn't include the war funding to this, which I think is disingenuous. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to include security funding + war funding. In this fiscal year, that adds up to $750 billion if the President's most recent war funding request is approved. Projected outlays (spending) for this fiscal year are $2.9 trillion (mandatory+discretionary). So, that comes out to a little more than 1/4th of the budget being spent on defense and security.

I really take issue with your contention that military spending is better for the economy than investing in domestic infrastructure. Military spending provides 1 short term shot in the arm with no return on investment in the long-term. In fact, most defense assets have a short shelf life requiring replacement and almost invarialbly, once used, are completely gone and, again, require equal or greater expenditure to replace. The only reason to spend on the military is because you must to ensure safety. Economically, it is of limited value.

Conversely, investments in transportation and education provide short term boosts through employment and procurement, just like defense, but leave you with a long-term asset (a road or educated person) that continues to produce and facilitates economic activity. There's really no reasonable comparison is the economic value of either.

[SirFozzie]

Just saw a report on CNN.com that it looks like Romney is pretty much deciding to suspend his campaign

[Logan]

What exactly does that mean? Euphemism for dropping out?

[SirFozzie]

In otherwords, he's going to stop spending all his money, and hope that there's a groundswell of support that pushes him back in.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Unbelievably the votes are still not counted, but it looks like New Mexico is going to barely be Clinton's, meaning I was wrong. There are, however, some reports of some crazy shit going on all over the state, like Bernalillo County (which went heavy for Obama) running out of ballots at 3 pm. Also Arriba County (which went heavy for Clinton), their votes were apparently reported in a very irregular way.

Also every national site keeps calling New Mexico a primary state, but its actually a caucus. I'm not sure why they are getting it wrong.

Heh. Tuesday night I was talkin' to a friend, and I told 'em "New Mexico is the baby Florida. It's just that Florida screws up so spectacularly every election that nobody notices."

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Logan

What exactly does that mean? Euphemism for dropping out?

It's a dropping out, for now. He basically is saying he could restart it at any time if he wants, but he's done campaigning for now.

Edwards also "suspended" his campaign rather than ending it.

[SirFozzie]

On The Dem's side, Edwards suspending instead of dropping out means he holds on to his delegates until such time as he formally drops out (to throw support behind one or the other)

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

Although there is some validity to points that you have made, I have to correct the numbers.

HHS budget figure you cited earlier was almost exclusively mandatory spending -- Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP. Proposed HHS discretionary spending was only $71 billion. Non-defense discretionary spending has been set at about $480 billion for the current fiscal year. The DoD bill was for about $460 billion, but that didn't include full operational finding for Iraq or Afghanistan. Congress already appropriated another $31.5 billion for that, and Bush just asked for another $110 billion. If you are scoring at home, that comes out to about $600 billion for DoD and $480 for non-defense discretionary funding, functionally every other department and agency in the government.

You made the mistake of linking the argument to the President's budget proposal. It is a phony document. He does not include money for the wars in that part of it. He hides it in a table at the end.

You've been moving back and forth with bringing mandatory spending into and out of the argument. For those not familiar with the difference between mandatory and discretionary spending, mandatory spending programs are those that, under the law, if an individual qualifies for benefits, they get them. Think Social Security. Discretionary programs are those that are subject to appropriations, like the FBI, who have to wait for Congress to approve their budget each year.

Long-winded explanations aside, the President likes to divide his budget into security funding and non-security funding, essentially lumping in homeland security with defense. He doesn't include the war funding to this, which I think is disingenuous. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to include security funding + war funding. In this fiscal year, that adds up to $750 billion if the President's most recent war funding request is approved. Projected outlays (spending) for this fiscal year are $2.9 trillion (mandatory+discretionary). So, that comes out to a little more than 1/4th of the budget being spent on defense and security.

I really take issue with your contention that military spending is better for the economy than investing in domestic infrastructure. Military spending provides 1 short term shot in the arm with no return on investment in the long-term. In fact, most defense assets have a short shelf life requiring replacement and almost invarialbly, once used, are completely gone and, again, require equal or greater expenditure to replace. The only reason to spend on the military is because you must to ensure safety. Economically, it is of limited value.

Conversely, investments in transportation and education provide short term boosts through employment and procurement, just like defense, but leave you with a long-term asset (a road or educated person) that continues to produce and facilitates economic activity. There's really no reasonable comparison is the economic value of either.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE! Sorry for shouting but too many people have missed that point. Transportation, education and commerce are all parts of the budget that I agree with. I may argue with you about the amounts of that spending, but I have no problem with any of it. We could double the amount we are spending there and I wouldn't have too much of an issue with it.

The economics of the military depends on what you look at. Would there have been a big push to shrink the size of computers if not for the military and space programs? Look at the computers that we had in the 40s and 50s. Heck, even the computers in the 40s were developed for what? Solving military problems. ENIAC was designed to calculate artillery firing tables. If not for the military pushing things, would computers have advanced to what they are today? The space program required many pieces of equipment to be reduced in size and power consumption. I can go on and on.

You're going to argue that it has a negligible effect on the economy. I disagree because the immediate effects are slight (I agree with you on that), the long term effects are huge. There is a lot of things that are originally developed for the military that wind up being used in the civilian sector. Some of the new scanner techologies that we are seeing were originally being designed for the military. That technology that was designed to find chemical weapons and nuclear weapons is being used in mining operations, airports, etc., to detect other types of materials. So again, sure we might only use the F-15 for 30-40 years, but the technologies that went into developing that aircraft spread into other industries and benefit us all. Also, the reason why we have the best military in the world is because we invest the amount of money we do in it. Imagine the casualties we would have had in Iraq if our military was not of the quality it is.

The fact that the numbers might be slightly off does not defeat the main point of my argument. My primary point was that our military is not more than 50% of our government's spending, or even close to that. Entitlements alone require spending of more than $100 billion over the military budget. Compared to our GDP, we are at historic lows for the amount of money that we are spending on our military. However, the amount that we are spending on entitlements is near all-time highs and will get worse when national health care gets installed.

The fact that one is mandatory spending and the other is discretionary spending is irrelevant. Our Congress deemed that entitlements will rise by X% each year and the government must pay that amount out. That is what makes it an entitlement. The other significant portion of mandatory spending is debt service. Depending on the graph you look at, discretionary spending is less than half of the overall government budget. What is a correct statement is that the largest chunk of our discretionary spending is the military, you'd be dead nuts on.

The question though is how do we spend our money? Should we just put tons more money in transportation? We can all agree on that. But, we already have roads and bridges to nowhere. Just throwing money at the department is not going to mean we are spending the money wisely (essentially the same arguement flere(?) made about the military). Now, if we put extra money in the department with the express purpose of resurfacing roads and improving existing highways, I would be all for it. But that is where the system breaks down.

What Congressman or Senator comes back and says, "I've improved the condition of our roads!" None. They want to say, "I built a road to X and made it easier for them to reap the benefits of Y." There's no glamour in putting more money into inspection of bridges and existing roads. We had all sorts of people saying that we need to increase spending so we can inspect bridges and do work on failing ones, but where is the outcry now? We won't hear about it until we have another major failure somewhere. The Tombigbee Waterway was a huge deal down here. Yet, how many barges really make use of it? Not many. Sure there is some traffic on it, but has the traffic on the waterway offset the cost of constructing it? I would be extremely surprised if it had.

We can throw money at education. But what is that money going to get us? Is that money going to mean that we get better teachers at failing inner-city schools? We educated my generation and most of the people here with 30 kids per classroom. Now most classrooms are at 15-20 kids per teacher. Has the quality of our education gone up? Again, I have no problem with increasing funding, provided that we know what we are getting for it.

We can all agree on what we need to spend money on, but the fundemental question that separates many of us is what the actual breakdown of the spending and how we monitor it.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by path12

If it was a caucus state there wouldn't be ballots though, right? We're a caucus state and there are no ballots involved.

I don't know, but the local Democratic party calls it a caucus. I suppose its possible, even likely, that they got that wrong.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Heh. Tuesday night I was talkin' to a friend, and I told 'em "New Mexico is the baby Florida. It's just that Florida screws up so spectacularly every election that nobody notices."

You're not kidding. During the last congressional election, it also took days and days to count the votes, and every time they got close to calling it for one candidate, somebody "found" a bunch of votes for the other candidate that had been lost on a truck or something.

[ISiddiqui]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2.../index.html?hp

“This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose,” Mr. Romney said. “If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror,” he said during the conference. Members of the audience shouted, “No!” as Mr. Romney spoke.

What a dickhead. I'm glad he's out.