Mitt Romney - thoughts?

[shutout39]

Not trying to start a political debate, I was just browsing Mitt Romney's website after the debate the other day, and found this little bit regarding his national defense strategy:

Strong Military: American military power is vital to the preservation of our own security and peace around the world. But President Obama has put us on course toward a “hollow” force. He has already cut the projected defense budget by $350 billion over the next twelve years and he has sought further cuts over the same period. He agreed to a budget process that may cut another $600 billion. To reverse this trend, Mitt Romney will:

• Reverse Obama-era defense spending cuts and set a core defense spending floor of 4% of GDP.
• Find efficiencies in the Department of Defense procurement process and non-force staff to reinvest in the force.
• In his first 100 days, put our Navy on the path to increase its shipbuilding rate from nine per year to approximately fifteen per year.
• Modernize and replace the aging inventories of the Air Force, Army, and Marines, and selectively strengthen our force structure.
• In his first 100 days, begin reversing Obama-era cuts to missile defense and commit to a robust multi-layered national ballistic-missile defense system to deter and defend against nuclear attacks on our homeland and our allies.

Wondering what you all think of this man and his national defense strategy, as he may very well be our next president. If he does half of what he says with this strategy, I think brighter days are ahead, especially for those of us just beginning our service. Any thoughts?

 

[Swanee]

• In his first 100 days, begin reversing Obama-era cuts to missile defense and commit to a robust multi-layered national ballistic-missile defense system to deter and defend against nuclear attacks on our homeland and our allies.

This sounds like Cold War era stuff that will get very very expensive- and primarily used as a deterrent. In fact, everything he is talking about is very expensive. Double the ship building capabilities (Cheap, Fast and Well- pick two at best), modernize and replace the aging inventories (Isn't that what we were supposed to do with the F-22 and the F-35...)

It's nice but I can't see it all happening with the state the economy is in. At least not without seriously cutting a lot of spending elsewhere.

 

[Brett327]

Like so many dissapointed Obama disciples found out after the election, the President can very rarely wave a magic wand and institute all of his campaign promises and elements of his party's platform. This is a good thing. Wanna double our Naval vessel production? Great, put it in your next budget and see what it looks like after congress chews on it for a year. The executive branch does have some latitude WRT setting priorities within DoD, but big, substantial changes and acquisition programs are all going to go through the congress. Again, this is a good thing. While it may seem frustrating, this process buffers out extreme change and lends a more predictable course for DoD (and other departments and agencies).

Bottom line, don't pay too much attention to candidate's "claims" as to all the big changes they have in store for us if elected.

Brett

 

[fattestfoot]

Honestly, it just sounds like toeing the party line to me.

 

[eas7888]

Honestly, it just sounds like toeing the party line to me.

I like to party.

 

[Flying Toaster]

It would be nice, but I think he's just trying to compensate for his lack of military service.

In regards to cutting defense spending, I love the way people act like it's some great thing and won't have any negative affect the economy. I'm the last one to do it, but if one wants to make an actual argument for government spending helping the economy, defense spending is just about the only case that makes any sense. It should be the last thing looked at, not the first. It may just be the area I live in, but driving around it's staggering how many businesses are reliant on DOD spending. That's not to mention the affect on local economies due to base closures. We lost quite a few customers when our local base was BRAC'd and we're located in an area with plenty of other business and industry. Unlike all these entitlement programs, it keeps people employed (directly and indirectly), it helps develop new technologies, creates exports, and in many cases we actually get something tangible in return.

 

[Swanee]

It would be nice, but I think he's just trying to compensate for his lack of military service.

In regards to cutting defense spending, I love the way people act like it's some great thing and won't have any negative affect the economy. If one wants to make an actual argument for government spending helping the economy, defense spending is just about the only case that makes any sense. It should be the last thing looked at, not the first. It may just be the area I live in, but driving around it's staggering how many businesses are reliant on DOD spending. That's not to mention the affect on local economies due to base closures. We lost quite a few customers when our local base was BRAC'd and we're located in an area with plenty of other business and industry. Unlike all these entitlement programs, it keeps people employed (directly and indirectly), it helps develop new technologies, creates exports, and in many cases we actually get something tangible in return.

In a way I've thought the same thing. Congress wants to create more jobs but they are cutting the military... We Marines are looking at a reduction of 20,000. That's 20,000 Marines who are, in essence, being laid off (for one reason or another).

 

[Brett327]

Well, military spending has gone way, way up in the last 10 years. War is expensive.

Brett

 

[MasterBates]

War and people. PTS is a force reduction and money saving tool.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

 

[phrogdriver]

His defense stance is a negative in my book. He's got his head in the sand to the fiscal reality and the big picture. Defense spending is a net negative on the economy. Just about anything you spend money on, from energy to R&D to just reducing the debt is better for us as a country than the military. We are following down the path of the British and Romans in terms of over-extending ourselves as an empire. We need to consolidate our priorities internationally as far as the use of force.

We don't need the military structure we have now to fight guys with IEDs and RPGs. As much as some think we need to be ready to fight the Chicoms and the North Koreans simultaneously, the Chinese will take us over by buying all our shit before they militarily face us. The NKs....well, if we can't beat some dudes that have lived on 750 calories a day for 10 years, we've got problems. If we want to continue to outspend the rest of the world combined on our military, we can yell,"America! Fuck yeah!" all the way to the poorhouse.

The Marine Corps was delusional if it thought we'd stay at 202K for more than a heartbeat. The Navy is so out of the mix it actually antes up IAs as a way to stay relevant.

Our success in this century will be based on whether we succeed economically, not militarily. Face facts. We're living in a house that's about to be condemned for poor upkeep (economy, infrastructure, etc), and we're talking about buying the super-duper ADT security system with sharks and laser beams.

I wish Huntsman and Johnson were competitive. They aren't, so I guess I'll take Romney, since he's not braindead or crazy like his nearest rivals.

 

[Flying Toaster]

Well, military spending has gone way, way up in the last 10 years. .

The data really doesn't back that up. In terms of "dollars," yes it's gone up, but so has everything else. As a percentage of the GDP defense spending really hasn't gone "way, way up." It's just made a slight correction from the gutting of the Clinton era (the lowest level since WWII), but the overall trend is still down. I think a better question is how much are we, or more importantly aren't we getting for our current level of spending. For the money currently being spent, we're at the lowest level of personnel, tanks, planes, ships, etc., in the past 60 years, not to mention the age and level of wear what little equipment is left.

Yes the debt is a huge problem and a threat to "national security," but I'm just sick of certain factions acting like defense and "these wars" are what's exclusively responsible for the bloated level of government spending. Since it's politically expedient, they'll let us bear the brunt of cuts, while totally ignoring the actual problems. They can look like a hero's cutting defense because they'll be long gone when it bites us in the ass.

Decline in total AD personnel. This doesn't even account for the increase in population-

These two graphs are really the most relevant in showing what the actual problem is-

vs.

 

[phrogdriver]

Agreed that defense isn't the lion's share of our national overspending problem. That doesn't matter. "Your shit is more fucked up than mine" doesn't absolve the fact that one's shit is jacked up. We spend way more on defense than our NEEDS require. We also spend more on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security than we NEED, as well. All of it needs to be on the table. Thinking we need more defense spending is still irrational.

The objective of national defense is national security, not the other way around. Our national security, in the long run, is better served by having our fiscal and economic house in order than by an extra couple CVBGs.

You don't automatically buy a car that has a payment of X% of your take-home pay, especially if you're delinquent on your credit cards already. You buy the one that fits your realistic requirements, while at the same time looking at the rest of your household budget. The argument that we need to spend a certain percentage of GDP on defense makes no sense. You buy the defense you need, not an arbitrary number.

 

[Brett327]

The data really doesn't back that up. In terms of "dollars," yes it's gone up, but so has everything else. As a percentage of the GDP defense spending really hasn't gone "way, way up." It's just made a slight correction from the gutting of the Clinton era (the lowest level since WWII), but the overall trend is still down. I think a better question is how much are we, or more importantly aren't we getting for our current level of spending. For the money currently being spent, we're at the lowest level of personnel, tanks, planes, ships, etc., in the past 60 years, not to mention the age and level of wear what little equipment is left.

As always, the devil is in the details. These wars, in fact GWOT in general haven't been funded out of the regular DoD budget. Since the beginning, there have been six continuing resolutions passed amounting to nearly 1.3 trillion dollars for military operations. If you break it down, this amounts to nearly a 20% increase over the regular DoD budget using FY2010 DoD outlays of $685B. THAT is way, way up.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

Brett

 

[statesman]

It would be nice, but I think he's just trying to compensate for his lack of military service.

In regards to cutting defense spending, I love the way people act like it's some great thing and won't have any negative affect the economy. I'm the last one to do it, but if one wants to make an actual argument for government spending helping the economy, defense spending is just about the only case that makes any sense. It should be the last thing looked at, not the first. It may just be the area I live in, but driving around it's staggering how many businesses are reliant on DOD spending. That's not to mention the affect on local economies due to base closures. We lost quite a few customers when our local base was BRAC'd and we're located in an area with plenty of other business and industry. Unlike all these entitlement programs, it keeps people employed (directly and indirectly), it helps develop new technologies, creates exports, and in many cases we actually get something tangible in return.

You do realize that defense / military spending is proven over and over again to be an economic depressant right? The fallacy of some magic economic force that uses defense to drive a healthy economy is ridiculous... Just like the home ownership driven economy.

Youre looking at some very specific examples of where base closures and military contract really help the local economy, and in that sense you're right. Many areas are very dependent on government demand for products and services which they provide, but over all at the national level defense is a depressant.

Thats not to say that I dont think we should spend money on defense, but using it as a stimulus plan is fucking retarded. Defense does add a level of stability to the economic environment so there are some intangibles that make it worth while.

 

[KBayDog]

We spend way more on defense than our NEEDS require.

Best quote from an Osprey driver. EVER.