Obama picks man with no experience for CIA

[Enigma]

Well, GWB has spend massively on the military, and I'd say that he's weakened national security.

It's not like money is a reliable indicator. Military-industrial complexes are hugely wasteful, as are things like the TSA.

[AntEater]

I know I shouldnt post here as this is basically an american debate, but as someone interested in history.....
1. Military spending is not dependent on administration alone, but rather on the political situation.

- Nixon cut the military drastically, due to the Vietnam war
- Eisenhower was looking for a cheap cold war (nukes and covert action) instead of a WW2 scale full military build up
- Kennedy increased the funding over Eisenhower

So the deciding factor on military spending is not the party affiliation of the president, but rather the world situation.

2. Increased military spending does not automatically mean an increase in military capabilities

Today's pentagon is maybe the least effective military procurement system ever devised by any nation, especially with today's consultant firms and other private enterprise involved.
Its prime purpose is not to provide armed forces with weapons and logistics, but to generate profit for the persons involved.
Maybe the last president to really get some effect out of the military-industrial complex was Reagan, and in many ways the problems started with him.
Also, you don't need to spend so much all the time.
Clinton had the advantage that during his administration, all that Reagan era cold war stuff was brand new and he had lots of it for the now downsized US military.
Now even the youngest cold war equipment is over 20 years old and much of it needs replacing, hence more money has to be spent.

[fatty]

Originally Posted by Aramike

No problem. I'll start broadly.

To start, use the chart and statistics provided on this page: http://truthandpolitics.com/military-relative-size.php

Go from Nixon, to Carter, to Reagan, to Bush I, to Clinton, to Bush II and see if you can tell a difference. And, keep in mind that a percentage point isn't just $100.

...that's just military spending and doesn't even account for intel.

As a percentage of discretionary spending, it increases under Carter's Democrat administration by a few percentage points, and decreases under Nixon and Ford's Republican administrations by a whopping 21%, the outcome of their détente policies which lead to large-scale arms reductions....

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by fatty

As a percentage of discretionary spending, it increases under Carter's Democrat administration by a few percentage points, and decreases under Nixon and Ford's Republican administrations by a whopping 21%, the outcome of their détente policies which lead to large-scale arms reductions....

Are we looking at the same numbers? It DECREASED under Carter's administration.

I'm not going further back than that because modern democrats are not very similar to dems from about 50 years ago.

Well, GWB has spend massively on the military, and I'd say that he's weakened national security.

What, exactly, do you base this statement upon? Many people, myself included, believe that quite the opposite is true using verifiable facts as our reasonings.

Again, though - this is just military spending. Remember how Clinton practically dismantled the CIA? Or Carter's DISASTEROUS moves in the middle east?

[August]

I was in the Army for the last three years of Carter's term and the first 4 years of Reagan's and there was a vast difference in funding, morale, training, equipment... you name it, it got better once Reagan became CiC.

[fatty]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Are we looking at the same numbers? It DECREASED under Carter's administration.

I'm not going further back than that because modern democrats are not very similar to dems from about 50 years ago.

I'm citing whatever page you posted. The second table.

1976 51.2
1977 49.5
1978 47.8
1979 48.7
1980 48.7
1981 51.3
1982 57.0

A dip at the start of his administration but ends [slightly] higher than it began.

[August]

Aren't spending amounts listed actually decided by Congress the year before they are implemented?

Also ,which side controls Congress is important here since they are the ones who determine funding levels, not the Executive.

[fatty]

Originally Posted by August

Also ,which side controls Congress is important here since they are the ones who determine funding levels, not the Executive.

Well, in that case, every house that sat under Reagan had a Democrat majority. So I guess they can claim at least some of credit for the renaissance that you experienced during your service?

[August]

Originally Posted by fatty

Well, in that case, every house that sat under Reagan had a Democrat majority. So I guess they can claim at least some of credit for the renaissance that you experienced during your service?

Sure, then again they are always happy to spend taxpayer money, especially when it land lucrative government building contracts in their districts, but just as or even more important than equipment is the direction from the top. As I said we could feel the difference in attitude between Carter and Reagan was striking.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by fatty

I'm citing whatever page you posted. The second table.

1976 51.2
1977 49.5
1978 47.8
1979 48.7
1980 48.7
1981 51.3
1982 57.0

A dip at the start of his administration but ends [slightly] higher than it began.

Heh, then look at 1982. Bottom line is one must look at the AVERAGE of the term, however. There's no point in just looking at a single year as that is not representative of what the spending actually was throughout the term.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by August

Aren't spending amounts listed actually decided by Congress the year before they are implemented?

Also ,which side controls Congress is important here since they are the ones who determine funding levels, not the Executive.

The federal budget is submitted to Congress by the President. Congress can then review and make changes to the budget, which then goes back to the White House for Presidential approval.

[August]

Originally Posted by Aramike

The federal budget is submitted to Congress by the President. Congress can then review and make changes to the budget, which then goes back to the White House for Presidential approval.

So the spending level in any given year is actually a compromise between the two branches of government and not indicative of the preferences of the executive alone.

[fatty]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Heh, then look at 1982. Bottom line is one must look at the AVERAGE of the term, however. There's no point in just looking at a single year as that is not representative of what the spending actually was throughout the term.

So all that demonstrates is that Reagan's first year in office saw a small jump in the funds spent on defence. I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that the left (whatever that is) is categorically worse for America's security.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by fatty

So all that demonstrates is that Reagan's first year in office saw a small jump in the funds spent on defence. I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that the left (whatever that is) is categorically worse for America's security.

"Small jump"? You're kidding, right?

The average percentage under Carter was 49.13%. Under Reagan it was 61.02%. And, AGAIN, that doesn't include intelligence spending.

Here's a great editorial with FACTS demonstrating why Democrats have been weak on defense: http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...47450843953666

The parts on Carter are awesome reading. Yet, the guy still gives speeches at Democratic conventions.

I mean, this isn't uncommon knowledge. Americans tend to vote Democrat when the key issues are domestic and Republican when the issues are national defense.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by August

So the spending level in any given year is actually a compromise between the two branches of government and not indicative of the preferences of the executive alone.

Technically, yes. However, Congress usually gives the Executive extensive leeway when it comes to budgeting, especially defense spending. This goes both ways regarding the parties.

That's why you typically see higher defense spending with those presidents who make it a priority.