A Little Substance

There's a new Romney ad out. You Tube below. The substance isn't in the ad, but there's this, which is actually old news. Too early, perhaps, but the media is doing little to move this discussion toward one of issues, as opposed to a popularity contest. But issues like military spending, immigration reform, etc, are going to be critical in the next election.

Governor Romney has proposed expanding our armed forces by 100,000 soldiers and committing at least four percent of the gross domestic product to military spending.

I've posted on this topic. What the money is spent on is as important as how much. Will 4% be enough given the radical Islamist threat and charting a prudent course as regards China? It's a worthwhile debate, hopefully we'll get around to having it one day. I doubt the country is watching close enough now. Heck, I'm not even sure they'll get it when we have it given the way the MSM will present it. But have it, we should.

Year  %GDP

1976  5.2
1977  4.9
1978  4.7
1979  4.6
1980  4.9
1981  5.1
1982  5.7
1983  6.1
1984  5.9
1985  6.1
1986  6.2
1987  6.1
1988  5.8
1989  5.6
1990  5.2
1991  4.6
1992  4.8
1993  4.4
1994  4.0
1995  3.7
1996  3.5
1997  3.3
1998  3.1
1999  3.0
2000  3.0
2001  3.0
2002  3.4
2003  3.7

Comments

[Kelvin]

He may be a cult member, but at least he can speak well, unlike that stuttering disaster that you cons call your 'leader'.

[Hard Right]

As you've proven many times by example Kelvin, how well someone speaks doesn't mean they aren't a subhuman POS/mental patient.

[Kelvin]

Thank you for your support, brave con. Best wishes on 'victory' in Iraq.

[supernintendo Chalmers]

yes, yes. Let's spend 100% of our GDP on the military. It's exactly what we need to do in order to wipe out the islamunistomexicommie fascists who hate us for our freedoms.

[Zifnab]

This is begs the question, Dan, where are we getting this money from? I suppose we could do something stupid like disband FEMA and dissolve the Department of Education in hopes that cutting all the "pork" out of our budget will gives us more cash on hand for war monies. Maybe we can abolish the FDA and the CDC while we're at it to save a dime here or there.

But when a country is already dropping 21% of its budget on the military already, another 19% on interest and yet another 21% on Social Security, I just don't know where the hell you're going to get the money for this increase in spending.

and when we consider how much we are outspending every other industrialized nation
http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/images/military/usWorldMilitarySpending.jpg
we have to question whether dropping more dough on tanks and bombs is really the best expenditure of our resources.

[templar knight]

The above from a clown who calls himself supernintendo Chalmers. Brilliant! Another liberal mental retard enters the fray.

[Zifnab]

Hehe. Templar Knight is mocking people for their screen names. This is fantastic.

[templar knight]

And speaking of mental retards, look who chimed in. Right on cue, Ziffy.

[Phoenix]

Dumb chart, Zif. How about a comparison chart for all those countries' GDP to make it realistic. Oh, and another chart to compare Muslim infiltration..... oops... immigration into worthy citizens... for each country. And another chart for donations of aid to UN and WB charities? How about a comparison of economies of the countries on your chart, too. And don't forget personal, private charity, too. Yeah. Show a chart for that.

[Zifnab]

Phoenix, GDP doesn't matter unless these countries are somehow able to make more firepower with less money. If I spend $500 on bullets and you only spend $5, it doesn't matter what our incomes are. I still have more bullets than you.

And if you can find me the immigrant to terrorist ratio of Muslims "infiltrating" into any country, I would love to see it. Evil Muslim terrorists don't exactly wear nametags, and with multiple wars in the Middle East there have been a whole hell of a lot of non-terrorist refugees running everywhere.

Of course, if you want to play the "My Charity Penis is Bigger" game, I'm sure we could talk about that instead of our military expenditures. But what increased military spending has to do with our donations to the WB and the UN still escape me. I'm more worried about money we spend on disaster relief, infrastructure, education, national debt, and tax relief. We've been running nine-digit deficits for the past six years which has done absolutely nothing good for our economic stability. Increasing military spending yet again would not help this. You still need to answer the overarching question - where are we going to get this extra scratch?

[Hard Right]

Hey zif, the reason why certain countries are able to spend less than we do is BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN USING OUR MILITARY TO PROTECT THEM, DUMABSS!

BTW it is a well known fact that China under reports how much of it's GDP goes to military spending. As usual you immediately believe the word of dictators.

As for "economic stability", the only time you leftards care about overspending is when you aren't in charge of making it happen and can bash a Rep president with it. Yeah, deficit spending sure destroyed this country. Funny how the sky is falling and must be fixed immediately and by YOUR WAY ONLY whenever you are pushing your agenda, but the opponent's is exaggerated and should be ignored. Typical leftard.

Lastly, GDP doesn't make any difference? Jeez, you failed econonimcs too?

[jong]

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

[Hard Right]

Having read the transcript of Eisenhower's speech, I'm not real impressed with it. He was an excellent general and a so-so politician which is no surprise as he was a moderate. That means he had liberal leanings that got in the way of using logic.

Here's the entire speech.

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

[Buzzy]

Romney can indeed speak well and his values are indeed conservative both are unlike our current President. Romney is #2 on my "vote for" list for 2008 at this point, yeah I'm a confirmed Fred! supporter.

If the left wants to call Romney a cult member they would do well to remember that Obama spent a good deal on his early life on his knees facing Mecca.

[Phoenix]

Jong plagiarized someone. Where's your hat tip, Jong?

Zif,

My point is that so much goes into figuring the value of..say an increased military....that you can't just put up one chart that shows we spend way more than anyone else. That's all. My charity point was that our economy rocks so that we still manage, through private means, through churches, and through our government to give and give and give. That alone shows that we have plenty of money so that upping military expenditures is no big deal. I don't decry any of the reasons or concerns you mentioned that need fixing domestically, but we are the super-power and we not only owe protection and alliegance to our allies, but we owe our own people superior protection from our enemies. You asked where we'll get the money? Keep taxes down. That's where. Because of low taxes and our rocking economy, we are bringing in so much money that the deficit is going down twice as fast as it was orginally thought. More important - we can't afford not to have a superior military force.

[Dan Riehl]

"This is begs the question, Dan"

Actually, no. And you should understand what a phrase means before you employ it, assuming you do want to sound intelligent one day. ; )

Yer welkum.

[supernintendo Chalmers]

Posted by: templar knight | Wednesday, May 09, 2007 at 05:26 PM

wow, three insults in one post. Mental retard? That's GOLD! I have to remember that one.

And I'd hardly call this a fray from what I've read, and to be fair, I haven't been reading for very long. It seems like the true believers spew whatever wingnut talking points they hear from their masters hannity, limbaugh, and boortz. Any facts used to refute talking points are either dismissed are replied to with insults, such as mental retard.

I love it though. I must admit I enjoy wingnuttia. It's FUN!

[Jeff]

It's a good idea, because where does government spending go? Right back into the GDP. The GDP equation is as such: Y= C+I+G+NX

In other words, GDP is consumer spending, investment spending, government spending, +/- net exports.

However, it just goes to show how meaningless and easy it is to inflate the GDP (growth, not real or nominal GDP), thus it is not a good measure of wealth at all. But using it as a benchmark for government spending is a good step to a balanced budget except for one thing. Transfer payment (ie. welfare, social security, etc) do not count in the GDP because they add nothing to the economy.

It's an argument that cuts both ways for economists. Is government reinvestment as a percentage of GDP effective? Or does it just inflate the nominal GDP and deflate the real GDP after a time.

[seekeronos]

"------------ This is begs the question, Dan, where are we getting this money from? I suppose we could do something stupid like disband FEMA and dissolve the Department of Education in hopes that cutting all the "pork" out of our budget will gives us more cash on hand for war monies. Maybe we can abolish the FDA and the CDC while we're at it to save a dime here or there.

But when a country is already dropping 21% of its budget on the military already, another 19% on interest and yet another 21% on Social Security, I just don't know where the hell you're going to get the money for this increase in spending. ------------"

Dismembering the Dept. of Ed and the FEMA would be a blessed start. As would be partially or entirely privatizing the SSA. We _do_ need the FDA (to better monitor our beef for BSE/Mad Cows so as to improve our beef exports, among other things)
and the CDC...? Probably worth having around, but it wouldn't hurt to put an audit on what they are doing.

As for the WB and the UN, I don't really see much use for either of those two organizations.