• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate says 'no' to federal debt commission Obama endorsed

Redress said:
You are making the assumption that military spending was the reason the Soviet Union fell, which is at best highly debatable. As a (believe it or not) capitalist, I think that the Soviets where doomed not by our military spending, but by the weaknesses inherent in their own system.
Click to expand...

And Reagan believed that too, which is why he exploited those weaknesses.

Furthermore, no one is suggesting that some level of military spending is necessary, but to say that any level, no matter how high is ok(because it's spending we like) is patently false. I joined the navy in 1987, when Reagan was president, and waste, abuse and fraud in the military was at unreal. I remember seeing the orders for 250 dollar wrenches that where seriously inferior to ones you can get from Sears(in fact, we would have gotten alot of our own tools from Sears if allowed, at our own expense).
Click to expand...

Look at it this way: we are deciding whether or not to go to war. In the process, do we calculate what the dollar cost of doing so would be, to help us decide? No, because - I have stated this about a hundred times now - fiscal concerns are not present when making national defense decisions, nor should they be.

Waste and inefficiency are obviously bad, but it would be unreasonable to solely blame Reagan for them.

And this is the problem with what you are doing. You are separating out the spending you support from the spending you like, and saying "hey look at only this part".
Click to expand...

See above. Also realize that fiscal conservatism has basically nothing to do with defense spending for the reasons stated; in fact, most fiscal conservatives are strong national defense types. It has more to do with the 80% or so of the budget that isn't about defense spending.

Everybody who came before contributed to the conditions that allowed for a balanced budget. Bush the elder, who started the "peace dividend" concept probably contributed as much or more than Reagan himself, as did Clinton, and importantly, as did the congresses under all 3 of those presidents.
Click to expand...

Okay, but that doesn't change the fact that if 1. the Cold War had not ended and allowed for huge decreases in military spending, or 2. Bush I and Clinton had spent as much as they still did without Reagan having ever cut domestic spending, then the surpluses would never have existed.
 
Dav said:
Military spending - I have brought this up several times, but it apparently hasn't been enough - has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility. Nobody who is sane has ever argued that reducing the deficit is even remotely as important as national security; defense policy is therefore formed solely formed based on the maximalization of security, with no regard for fiscal concerns.
Click to expand...


:dohWOW!!! You couldn't be more wrong.:doh Military Spending does have to do with Fiscal Responsibility. ALL MONIES ARE..If we pay interest every year on debt form monies spent on Military then its Fiscal. :doh
 
pugetsoundwa said:
:dohWOW!!! You couldn't be more wrong.:doh Military Spending does have to do with Fiscal Responsibility. ALL MONIES ARE..If we pay interest every year on debt form monies spent on Military then its Fiscal. :doh
Click to expand...

So please point me to a major military decision that was made based on fiscal concerns. As far as I am aware, there are pretty much none in history.
 
Dav said:
So please point me to a major military decision that was made based on fiscal concerns. As far as I am aware, there are pretty much none in history.
Click to expand...

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_Closure_and_Realignment_Commission]Base Realignment and Closure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Dav said:
So please point me to a major military decision that was made based on fiscal concerns. As far as I am aware, there are pretty much none in history.
Click to expand...

Hope you aren't trying to spin from Military spending as a whole to military decession in the middle of a war or battle as thats dishonest if you are. You said Military Spending.....I know the Apache program got axed mainly because of the cost...
 
Redress said:
Base Realignment and Closure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Okay, but that illustrates my point, which is that military spending is based on what's perceived as being necessary. Note that the bases were closed starting in 1989 and 1991 - right after the Cold War had ended. They were no longer seen as serving a purpose.


But that is not the kind of thing that Reagan spent on:
Significantly, the Reagan military budget was increasingly "weapons- driven," meaning that it devoted a larger and larger share of budget authority to "investment" (weapons procurement, research and development, military construction, warhead production), as opposed to "consumption" (operations and maintenance, personnel, and other miscellaneous) functions.
Click to expand...

Military and Social Spending

Note that the article (written in 1986) is actually critical of Reagan. It also states that:

After securing congressional acquiescence in early 1981 to modest cuts in that program, it moved in May of that year to "reform" social security drastically. If enacted, its proposals-which included immediate 40 percent benefit reductions for early retirees, a roughly one-third reduction in disability benefits, and a variety of caps and changes in the calculation and adjustment of benefit levels-would have amounted to a 20 percent cut in the overall program, or about $200 billion over the 1982-90 period. But the proposals generated a storm of resistance (reflected in a 96-0 vote against them in the Senate), and the Administration backed away, with Reagan promising to hold off on any further suggestions until he received the report of the bipartisan National Com- mission on Social Security Reform due at the end of 1982. Nevertheless, in May 1982 the Administration endorsed a Senate proposal for $4o billion in benefits cuts over FY 1983-85. This too was beaten back.
Click to expand...

Overall, the Administration sought 60 percent cuts in the discretionary grant programs closely associated with the Great Society, and roughly 30 percent cuts in low-income assistance payments. With most of the action taking place in 1981, Congress provided it with three-quarters of what was sought on the first group of programs and about a third of what was sought on the second.
Click to expand...

In other words, Reagan did not get the spending cuts that he wanted.
 
Dav said:
Okay, but that illustrates my point, which is that military spending is based on what's perceived as being necessary. Note that the bases were closed starting in 1989 and 1991 - right after the Cold War had ended. They were no longer seen as serving a purpose.


But that is not the kind of thing that Reagan spent on:


Military and Social Spending

Note that the article (written in 1986) is actually critical of Reagan. It also states that:





In other words, Reagan did not get the spending cuts that he wanted.
Click to expand...

What you are not understanding is that war is largely economic. It's about a limited supply of men and machines and fuel. Further, to find examples of economics driving war, look at for example WW2, where resource rich ares where subject to invasion.

Another thing to realize is that the base closure commission and the bases closed did not reduce readiness by any significant amount, while providing for significant savings. It is important to realize that if you throw money at the military, it will spend it, frequently without improving ability. We used to fly heavy the last week of each month as we tried to use our fuel allowance, because if you did not use it, it was subject to going down. "Cross country" flights where common and encouraged of our pilots to burn fuel, with out pilots using them to visit places they wanted to go for a weekend. Hell, when bad weather made it unlikely we would use all our fuel allowance, pilots where encouraged to vent fuel before landing. I firmly believe we could trim the DoD budget by 10 % without a significant loss in readiness. The pentagon and DoD would throw a fit, then scramble and figure out how to make it work, and they have some incredibly bright people there.
 
Redress said:
What you are not understanding is that war is largely economic. It's about a limited supply of men and machines and fuel. Further, to find examples of economics driving war, look at for example WW2, where resource rich ares where subject to invasion.
Click to expand...

Except that such concerns have absolutely nothing to do with deficits, and are instead about fighting at maximum capability.

OT, but this is like the 5th time I've seen you use "where" instead of "were".

Another thing to realize is that the base closure commission and the bases closed did not reduce readiness by any significant amount, while providing for significant savings. It is important to realize that if you throw money at the military, it will spend it, frequently without improving ability. We used to fly heavy the last week of each month as we tried to use our fuel allowance, because if you did not use it, it was subject to going down. "Cross country" flights where common and encouraged of our pilots to burn fuel, with out pilots using them to visit places they wanted to go for a weekend. Hell, when bad weather made it unlikely we would use all our fuel allowance, pilots where encouraged to vent fuel before landing. I firmly believe we could trim the DoD budget by 10 % without a significant loss in readiness. The pentagon and DoD would throw a fit, then scramble and figure out how to make it work, and they have some incredibly bright people there.
Click to expand...

Okay, and I'm not going to ignore that Reagan, along with every other president in recent history, did not improve that. But as I already pointed out, most of the military spending increases under Reagan were on weaponry rather than the things you are mentioning.
 
RyrineaHaruno said:
I too, I find it interesting that more democrats vote yes for this bill then republicans.
Click to expand...
Because hating the debt is only a political tool to the tax and spenders.
 
Dav said:
Okay, and I'm not going to ignore that Reagan, along with every other president in recent history, did not improve that. But as I already pointed out, most of the military spending increases under Reagan were on weaponry rather than the things you are mentioning.
Click to expand...

Actually, it has improved. Things like the base closure commission improved the military. Obama is, instead of building new ships, retrofitting older ships bringing them up to modern standards at a large savings, and so on. Reagan threw money at the military, presidents since, following Bush the elders lead, have went more for efficiency and a better overall force.
 
American said:
Because hating the debt is only a political tool to the tax and spenders.
Click to expand...

It seems more like fiscal conservatism is only a slogan, not a real belief among those on the right.
 
Redress said:
It seems more like fiscal conservatism is only a slogan, not a real belief among those on the right.
Click to expand...
Well obvious people believe it's our core value since we get punished for not following it. But you guys aren't expected to save the taxpayer one red cent, so tax and spend is expected.
 
Redress said:
Actually, it has improved. Things like the base closure commission improved the military. Obama is, instead of building new ships, retrofitting older ships bringing them up to modern standards at a large savings, and so on. Reagan threw money at the military, presidents since, following Bush the elders lead, have went more for efficiency and a better overall force.
Click to expand...

Okay, and that's great for the guys who came after him. But as I already said, the actual increase in military spending under Reagan was not just "throwing money" at stuff. Here's the quote again:

Significantly, the Reagan military budget was increasingly "weapons- driven," meaning that it devoted a larger and larger share of budget authority to "investment" (weapons procurement, research and development, military construction, warhead production), as opposed to "consumption" (operations and maintenance, personnel, and other miscellaneous) functions.
Click to expand...

It seems to me like much of the waste you were talking about falls in the latter, bolded category.
 
Dav said:
Okay, and that's great for the guys who came after him. But as I already said, the actual increase in military spending under Reagan was not just "throwing money" at stuff. Here's the quote again:



It seems to me like much of the waste you were talking about falls in the latter, bolded category.
Click to expand...

Some but not all. The thing again though is you are responsible for the waste, even if you don't increase it. Bush took real steps to create a more efficient military, Reagan did not.

Now, we are getting pretty well off topic here, but it's an interesting conversation. Realize as well that I am not saying Reagan did not make real, and important improvements to the military, which was not in great shape when he came into office. The problem is that, to my mind, he went to far with military spending and inflated the budget and deficit as a result.
 
Redress said:
Some but not all. The thing again though is you are responsible for the waste, even if you don't increase it. Bush took real steps to create a more efficient military, Reagan did not.

Now, we are getting pretty well off topic here, but it's an interesting conversation. Realize as well that I am not saying Reagan did not make real, and important improvements to the military, which was not in great shape when he came into office. The problem is that, to my mind, he went to far with military spending and inflated the budget and deficit as a result.
Click to expand...
Reagan didn't have Army Transformation, he was fighting a cold war. It's totally different.
 
it's a sign of the president's increasing ineffectiveness that, with 60 democrats in the senate and 17 republicans on board, obama can not win this thru

but then what self respecting parliament would ever allow the executive to appoint 6 of its commission's 18 members with authority to force up or down votes?

a solid economic opportunity squandered by the president's political power grab

and, of course, characteristically, he didn't get squat

he always ends up having to bear all the political pain (health care, cap and trade, moving ksm) for no tangible gain

what a loser

the most incompetent politician at the national level america has ever produced
 
The Prof said:
it's a sign of the president's increasing ineffectiveness that, with 60 democrats in the senate and 17 republicans on board, obama can not win this thru

but then what self respecting parliament would ever allow the executive to appoint 6 of its commission's 18 members with authority to force up or down votes?

a solid economic opportunity squandered by the president's political power grab

and, of course, characteristically, he didn't get squat

he always ends up having to bear all the political pain (health care, cap and trade, moving ksm) for no tangible gain

what a loser

the most incompetent politician at the national level america has ever produced
Click to expand...
But he knows how to give a speech at least.
 
yeah, he's got style

and the bobbysoxers swoon

but his entire agenda is out of reach

and his pivot is phony

what happened to all the populist talk?

it, typically, lasted mere days
 
You can't convince the unconvicnable.

The Republican party has made it very clear that no matter how good a proposal might be or how often they get some conscensus on some issues they view as important, they'll still vote against just about every piece of legistlation that comes their way. On this debt commission, for example (and I apologize if this has already been mentioned), here's an article from PolitiFact.com where clearly up to 7 Republicans were for such a commission as far back as February/May 2009 yet when it came down to a vote, they all voted against the measure.

Earlier this year, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was gung-ho behind an amendment intended to improve federal fiscal health.

The proposal -- a "Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action" -- was co-sponsored by the top Democrat and the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Judd Gregg, R-N.H. It would establish an 18-member bipartisan commission to study the current and future fiscal condition of the federal government and make recommendations about how revenues and expenses can be brought into line. Those recommendations would be fast-tracked to the House and Senate floors under a special procedure.

In a May 12, 2009, Senate floor session to discuss the Medicare Trustees' Report, McConnell said, "We must address the issue of entitlement spending now before it is too late. As I have said many times before, the best way to address the crisis is the Conrad-Gregg proposal, which would provide an expedited pathway for fixing these profound long-term challenges. This plan would force us to get debt and spending under control. It deserves support from both sides of the aisle. The administration has expressed a desire to take up entitlement reform, and given the debt that its budget would run up, the need for reform has never been greater. So I urge the administration, once again, to support the Conrad-Gregg proposal. This proposal is our best hope for addressing the out-of-control spending and debt levels that are threatening our nation’s fiscal future."

That's a pretty clear endorsement of a bill, even though McConnell was not a co-sponsor.

......

But then, on Jan. 26, 2010, when the Conrad-Gregg bill, originally introduced as S. 2853, came for a vote in the Senate, it fell seven votes shy of the Senate's 60-vote threshold for passage, garnering 53 yeas and 46 nays, with one senator not voting.

The measure would have passed with 60 votes if only seven additional Republicans who had co-sponsored S. 2853 had voted for it. Instead, those seven -- Robert Bennett of Utah, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Mike Crapo of Idaho, John Ensign of Nevada, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, James Inhofe of Oklahoma and John McCain of Arizona -- withdrew their co-sponsorship in the days before the vote and then voted against it on the floor.
Click to expand...

The argument, of course, will be "they must've had legitimate reason to pull their vote." Okay, why? If you're so much for being fiscally responsible and you continue to decree that the deficit and spending are out of control, why would you vote down a control measure such as this in the final seconds BEFORE the vote AFTER first having supported it?

You can read the entire article here.

Now, to be fair had 6 more Dems and only 1 Rep had voted in favor of the bill this wouldn't have been an issue at all. But even without looking at the voting record for this bill, I wouldn't be surprised if the vote was more along party-lines w/more Dems voting for rather than against this measure and most if not all Reps voting "nay".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom