|
Post by glennkoks on Jul 10, 2012 14:32:29 GMT
It looks like Ike lowered defense spending from this chart. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Jul 10, 2012 15:52:22 GMT
Ike lowered defense spending coming out of a war by the lowest percentage in modern history, and helped foster in the huge non-war defense budgets.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 10, 2012 16:07:16 GMT
It looks like Ike lowered defense spending from this chart. WWII war ended, spending decreased. Korean War ended, spending decreased. Duh. Notably missing is the pre-WWII data, which left the U.S. completely vulnerable. Eisenhower understood the new threats and the need to have a "mighty military". Give it up Glennkoks, Eisenhower was a proponent of a strong Defense, which is required by the Constitution. Not taken into account of Defense budgets are the retirement and disabled vet benefits so much better now than 50-60 years ago. Funny how only a small portion of his farewell speech is quoted and not put into context.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 10, 2012 16:27:37 GMT
Ike lowered defense spending coming out of a war by the lowest percentage in modern history, and helped foster in the huge non-war defense budgets. Are you still going to say with a straight face Bush outspent Obama? Seriously guy? What's next, blue states are in better fiscal shape than red states? Ohio, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Michigan all had two things in common before January 2011. Guess what they are.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Jul 10, 2012 20:39:11 GMT
magellan, our defense and it's budget should be directly proportionate to our threats. Our greatest threat now (outside of our spending) comes not from the USSR but from small terror cells capable of hitting us at home. These terrorists will not meet us on the battlefield so Abram's Tanks and Stealth Bombers are not nearly as effective as intelligence and small elite teams like NAVY SEAL Team 6.
Overspending on a military poses more of a threat to our future wellbeing than any other foreign power.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Jul 10, 2012 21:09:13 GMT
justsomeguy, Ike may have have lowered defense spending by the smallest amount coming out of a war but there was still a Cold War going on and our threats at the time were still very real.
You have to go back and look at potential threats that Ike faced before you criticize his administration. The threats we face today are nowhere near what Ike still had to defend against.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 10, 2012 22:43:36 GMT
magellan, our defense and it's budget should be directly proportionate to our threats. Our greatest threat now (outside of our spending) comes not from the USSR but from small terror cells capable of hitting us at home. These terrorists will not meet us on the battlefield so Abram's Tanks and Stealth Bombers are not nearly as effective as intelligence and small elite teams like NAVY SEAL Team 6. Overspending on a military poses more of a threat to our future wellbeing than any other foreign power. That's all your opinion, and people that think like that assume there are no threats abroad. Ron Paul thinks it is perfectly fine if Iran attains nuclear weapons, which is one main reason I did not vote for him. How about asking NAVY SEAL Team 6 if they agree with you. Here is spending as a % of GDP, which as you would say is not very much.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 10, 2012 23:16:51 GMT
magellan; You are not seriously saying that the USA needs to spend 1.2 trillion dollars for defense are you?
When the next highest spender is China...and it is paltry compared to the USA.
And who is going to invade us? That is what a defense is for....not this damn world wide 884 bases and counting crap.
The demise of many an empire is mirroring the demise of ours.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Jul 10, 2012 23:36:23 GMT
magellan,
Considering our threats we should spend about 1/2 what we spend. I'm sure Navy Team Seal 6 would agree considering they did what two wars and trillions of dollars could not do. And that is get Osama Bin Laden.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Jul 10, 2012 23:49:29 GMT
sigurdur, we have nuclear weapons to protect us from foreign attack. It is still one hell of a deterrent. Making the amount we spend even more foolish.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 11, 2012 0:54:46 GMT
glenn: I agree. If we are never going to use them, why have them?
Defense is for defense. We have a large standing army.....just not in uniform.
The baloney that everyone wants to take us over is promolgated by the folks who benifit from that military spending.
Funny how you can zip right up into Canada.....but when you come back to OUR country...it is like being a criminal.
I am kinda cantankerous.....I don't put up with BS. Last time one of those fellers gave me a hard time I drove away. Told him he worked for ME, I didn't work for him nor needed to tell him anything EXCEPT that I was a US citizen. That IS the law.....ya know?
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Jul 11, 2012 3:03:47 GMT
sigurdur, I have travelled extensively for work and just came back from Calgary. Walked right in, got my passport stamped. Coming back it took over an hour waiting in line and I just barely made my plane even though I arrived an hour and a half early.
I used to think the extra security made me feel safer. Now it kind of creeps me out.
If Osama Bin Laden's goal was to destroy us economically and take away many of our freedoms he at least partially achieved his plan.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 11, 2012 10:42:27 GMT
magellan, Considering our threats we should spend about 1/2 what we spend. I'm sure Navy Team Seal 6 would agree considering they did what two wars and trillions of dolllars could not do. And that is get Osama Bin Laden. with your logic, there is no need for any standing army, ships, planes, subs. We only need two shifts of SEAL Team 6, because as everyone knows they need little sleep. They'd be like the Maytag repairman, sit around and wait for the next mission to kill that one bad guy, bored out their minds since with no U.S. military the world would be a much safer peace. Yeah, we just need a few Rambo's. Name one reason why we need a standing army of any size. Not smaller, any at all.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Jul 11, 2012 13:41:11 GMT
magellan, your rambling. There is plenty of room to cut our military industrial complex and still have the strongest best trained armed forces in the world.
I suggest we cut our military budget to "reasonable" peacetime levels not care free foolishness.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 12, 2012 20:18:05 GMT
|
|