Previous 11 - 20 Next
No, we don't spend 6 times more than China on the military. Not even close. CHinas military budget is 160 bn to 250 bn per year, without even accounting for GDP. Our military budget is 645 bn in FY2012, just 2.5 times more than China's. Not even close to being 6 times more than China's budget. (Borowski is lying in order to further her deep-defense-cuts agenda.) China has a lot more capacity to build than we do. Its defense industry its larger, as is its population and workforce.
No, the troops have not donated more to Ron Paul than to all other candidates combined. The vast majority of them have not donated to anyone. Moreover, donations are not the same thing as votes for a POLICY, and the troops are not supposed to determine America's foreign policy; they are to execute it. Setting US policy is a matter for senior, experienced officials and general officers. Furthermore, isolationism would only make America dramatically LESS safe. But even if we retrenched behind oceans, that would still not allow for a deep cut in the defense budget, because protecting America itself, with its huge territory, population, and long coasts, not to mention the need to deter Russian and Chinese nuclear forces, requires a large defens
No, the troops have not donated more to Ron Paul than to all other candidates combined. The vast majority of them have not donated to anyone. Moreover, donations are not the same thing as votes for a POLICY, and the troops are not supposed to determine America's foreign policy; they are to execute it. Setting US policy is a matter for senior, experienced officials and general officers. Furthermore, isolationism would only make America dramatically LESS safe. But even if we retrenched behind oceans, that would still not allow for a deep cut in the defense budget, because protecting America itself, with its huge territory, population, and long coasts, not to mention the need to deter Russian and Chinese nuclear forces, requires a large defens
Military spending currently stands at 4.22% of GDP. This is the lowest level of military spending since FY1948, if you exclude the late 1990s and the early 2000s.
No, it mustn't, and it doesn't have to, as proven by the budget plans of Chairman Ryan, the Rep. Study Cmte., and Sens. Toomey, Lee, and Paul, all of which would balance the budget within a decade without further deep defense cuts. Moreover, the DOD has already contributed 920 bn to deficit reduction efforts, while all other government agencies have contributed NOTHING meaningful so far. Time to draw a FIRM red line and say "No more defense cuts. Period."
No, we're not defending half of the Earth. We have obligations to defend only ca. 40 countries, most of whom are strategically important allies. Dumping them, bringing the troops home, and closing foreign bases would leave America dramatically less safe, AND it wouldn't save a penny because you'd have to build bases and housing for these troops in the US. Allies' security is our security as well. We have common enemies. The idea that we can hide behind oceans and the crocodile won't come to eat us is a fantasy without any basis in reality. But even if we were to defend ONLY ourselves, we would still need a defense budget of the same size as we have today. America cannot be defended on the cheap. That is a fact.
WRONG. The US military is, in terms of combat capabilities, much weaker than during the Cold War, even the 1970s. The USAF's fleet is currently the smallest AND the oldest, and its planes are rusting out of the sky. The Navy's ship fleet is the smallest since 1915, and one ship can only be in ONE place at any given time. Borowski is 100% wrong - she's lying on all counts - and an isolationist foreign policy would make America dramatically less safe.
WRONG. The US military is, in terms of combat capabilities, much weaker than during the Cold War, even the 1970s. The USAF's fleet is currently the smallest AND the oldest, and its planes are rusting out of the sky. The Navy's ship fleet is the smallest since 1915, and one ship can only be in ONE place at any given time. Borowski is 100% wrong - she's lying on all counts - and an isolationist foreign policy would make America dramatically less safe.
But the defense budget has NEVER been treated as sacred. Not in the last 3 years. Not ever. In fact, in the last 3 years alone, it has undergone several rounds of defense cuts, and now, under the BCA, it is slated for over $1 trillion in cuts over the next decade. It has never been given "a free hand for waste and empire building." Your and Borowski's claims are blatant lies.
The claim that the defense budget is heavily influenced by defense contractors is also a blatant lie. The defense industry is, according to ACTUAL DATA, one of the smallest political donors in this country; unions are by far the biggest. The biggest defense contractor, Lockheed Martin, is barely 33rd on OpenSecrets' list of donor organizations; Boeing is 51st; Northrop Grumman, GD et al. are even lower. The vast majority of the defense budget has EVERYTHING 2 do with protecting America. It pays for the troops' salaries, benefits, healthcare, and care for their families (who have also borne the burden of war); for their training, operations, and the maintenance of existing equipment and bases; for the development and acquisition of neweq.
This entire screed is a litany of blatant lies, none of which is even close to being true. But it shouldn't surprise anyone given that Borowski is a self-proclaimed "anti-war" libertarian who gets her information from Ron Paul's "Campaign for Liberty". Take, for instance, Borowski's lie that Obama isn't cutting a dime of the defense budget. He is. His FY2013 budget alone, w/out sequestration, will cut the base defense budget in real terms from 535 bn today to 525 bn in FY2013. Sequestration would cut it all the way down to 469 bn in FY2013 and keep it below 500 bn for over a decade. The claim that defense cuts are only to the rate of growth is a blatant lie, like the entire rest of this article.
Previous 11 - 20 Next