patrick.net

With the ending of two wars and diminishing budgets, the Pentagon had proposed retiring the U-2 and the A-10, taking 11 Navy cruisers out of the normal rotation for modernization and increasing out-of-pocket costs for housing and health care.

Republicans, even tea partyers who came to Congress demanding deep cuts in federal spending, and Democrats rejected the Pentagon budget, sparing the aircraft, ships and troop benefits.

Sounds insane, doesn't it? Seems like Congress spent more time trying to prevent anal sex by military service members than it did on cost-cutting of inefficient programs.

tatupu70 says

Once again Republicans illustrate that cutting costs is not really their objective...

Once again Tat shows inability to see beyond partisan lenses... Since Republicans are almost never for defense cuts but for cuts elsewhere in the budget - a criticism frequently directed at them by many liberals, including here in pat.net, there is no hypocrisy in their position here, except your meaningless partisan interpretation of it.

Meanwhile, so-called "liberals" and Democrats say they ARE for cutting defense and what is to be taken from your own link above?

corntrollio says

....and Democrats rejected the Pentagon budget....

Pot, meet kettle...

Here's the general rule of thumb....
1. Republicans are generally not for cutting defense spending... (Did you really not understand this to begin with?)
2. Democrats say they are for cutting defense spending but that only applies if those cuts do not come at the expense of their own districts, states, or some other party-level tactical or strategic approach (whether DoD needs the money or the specific assets is secondary or tertiary at best).

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., highlighted her vote for the bill and its importance to her home state, where more than 150,000 have defense or defense-related jobs. Her colleague, Rep. Ron Barber, D-Ariz., praised the A-10 Warthog, which trains in Tucson.

Paralithodes says

Once again Tat shows inability to see beyond partisan lenses... Since Republicans are almost never for defense cuts but for cuts elsewhere in the budget

I see fine, thank you. Republicans almost always portray themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility and I thought it useful to show the truth. They are NOT for cutting spending.

Paralithodes says

there is no hypocrisy in their position here,

LOL--OK. Show me the next Republican that says he is for raising government spending.

Paralithodes says

1. Republicans are generally not for cutting defense spending... (Did you really not understand this to begin with?)

Of course I understood it. Just wanted to point out the hypocrisy (YES, it is hypocritical).

Paralithodes says

Democrats say they are for cutting defense spending but that only applies if those cuts do not come at the expense of their own districts, states, or some other party-level tactical or strategic approach (whether DoD needs the money or the specific assets is secondary or tertiary at best).

Obviously. The first duty of a Congressman is to represent their district. If the Republican's felt the same way, we might have a balanced budget.

That's the point. Defense spending causes our deficits. If you're not for cutting it, you're not really for a balanced budget.

Paralithodes says

Once again Tat shows inability to see beyond partisan lenses... Since Republicans are almost never for defense cuts but for cuts elsewhere in the budget - a criticism frequently directed at them by many liberals, including here in pat.net, there is no hypocrisy in their position here, except your meaningless partisan interpretation of it.

Can you show specifically where Republicans proposed cutting spending that would even add up to 2.5% of the budget?

For example, cut department of education by 20% - how much does it save?

tatupu70 says

I see fine, thank you. Republicans almost always portray themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility and I thought it useful to show the truth. They are NOT for cutting spending.

You can certainly show the "truth" regarding spending in general. But Republicans in general do not claim to support cutting defense, and are often public about preserving defense spending, willing to cut other things instead. Because they do not want to cut one part does not mean that they don't want to cut the cumulative whole. Your argument is simply illogical.

tatupu70 says

LOL--OK. Show me the next Republican that says he is for raising government spending.

Would it really surprise you to see a Republican say he/she is FOR cutting overall government spending while simultaneously being FOR increasing (or at least NOT cutting) defense spending?

Likewise, would it really surprise you to see a Democrat say he/she is FOR increasing overall government spending while simultaneously being FOR decreasing (or at least not increasing) defense spending?

Simple nuance... Worth a try in order to see things from a nonpartisan lens from time to time.

tatupu70 says

Of course I understood it. Just wanted to point out the hypocrisy (YES, it is hypocritical).

In other words, you simply wanted to avoid logic to say "I don't like Republicans."

tatupu70 says

Obviously. The first duty of a Congressman is to represent their district.

So would you say that the Democrats who support decreasing defense spending yet vote against decreases that affect them are hypocritical?

tatupu70 says

Defense spending causes our deficits. If you're not for cutting it, you're not really for a balanced budget.

Defense spending is part of the whole that causes our deficits. If you think that defense spending is THE cause of our deficits, you are blindly ideological.

But in any case, thanks for acknowledging the hypocrisy of Democrats on defense spending and their contribution to the deficit.

Paralithodes says

Would it really surprise you to see a Republican say he/she is FOR cutting overall government spending while simultaneously being FOR increasing (or at least NOT cutting) defense spending?

Likewise, would it really surprise you to see a Democrat say he/she is FOR increasing overall government spending while simultaneously being FOR decreasing (or at least not increasing) defense spending?

Simple nuance... Worth a try in order to see things from a nonpartisan lens from time to time.

You're completely missing the point. Republicans campaign on the deficit and portray Dems as being the party of out of control spending.

Do you disagree?

Paralithodes says

In other words, you simply wanted to avoid logic to say "I don't like Republicans."

No, not really. There's really no way to draw that conclusion unless you don't understand the meaning of my words.

Paralithodes says

Defense spending is part of the whole that causes our deficits. If you think that defense spending is THE cause of our deficits, you are blindly ideological.

I think defense spending is, far and away, the major cause of deficits. That's not blindly ideological. It's a fact.

If you think that defense spending is THE cause of our deficits, you are blindly ideological.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=BzK

shows defense spending was greater than or equal to our deficits up through 2008.

Since it's all money flushed down the toilet, it's not "blindly ideological" to assert they're THE cause of our national debt, up to 2008.

After 2008, it's clear they're not the primary driver of deficits.

While the welfare state has expanded immensely since 1990:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=BzL

(blue is DOD, red is social spending)

much of that is medicare and SSA:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=BzM

red is social spending less medicare and SSA, which are funded (as of now) by direct payroll taxes.

tatupu70 says

You're completely missing the point. Republicans campaign on the deficit and portray Dems as being the party of out of control spending.

Do you disagree?

I fully agree that they campaign on that. And I fully understand that anyone who pays close enough attention knows that the Republicans are quite open about the fact that they want to cut spending in general, but excluding military spending in the details.

I fully get that your point is: If Republicans are for cutting spending in general, that means they must be for supporting cutting spending in every single government program or area ... Therefore they are hypocrites according to an absolutist, non-nuanced standard that you personally hold, even though being against cutting defense spending is not at all hypocritical to their own well know positions.

tatupu70 says

No, not really. There's really no way to draw that conclusion unless you don't understand the meaning of my words.

Of course there is.... The meaning of your words are clear: You wish to create a strawman argument attacking one party, on a standard that you create and apply, ignoring any very well known nuance. If this weren't just an anti-R, pro-D post, you'd at least not have ignored:

Paralithodes says

So would you say that the Democrats who support decreasing defense spending yet vote against decreases that affect them are hypocritical?

tatupu70 says

I think defense spending is, far and away, the major cause of deficits. That's not blindly ideological. It's a fact.

It is as much of a "fact" as someone claiming that some specific area other than defense is, far and away, the major cause of deficits.

In other words, we have a major deficit, and you pick the particular part of government spending that you like the least or think is the least important, and attribute that as THE cause of the deficit.

To Tatupu70, defense spending is the major cause of the deficit. Sorry, just because it is your opinion does not make that a "fact." Opinions and facts are not necessarily the same thing.

Bellingham Bill says

shows defense spending was greater than or equal to our deficits up through 2008.

Since it's all money flushed down the toilet, it's not "blindly ideological" to assert they're THE cause of our national debt, up to 2008.

Even this... To the degree that incremental defense spending increased relative to increases in non-defense spending (which also increased), you can say that defense spending contributed to increases in the deficit in relative proportion to how much the other areas contributed to it.

But to take one area of spending that you want to focus on, compare it to the deficit, and claim that it is the cause of the deficit because its total spending exceeds the deficit value is meaningless outside of an ideological context. So is making the claim because your opinion is that " it's all money flushed down the toilet." By those means, someone else could claim that welfare or some other social spending was "THE" cause of the deficit.

Paralithodes says

I fully get that your point is: If Republicans are for cutting spending in general, that means they must be for supporting cutting spending in every single government program or area

No--that's actually not at all my point. And I suspect that you know it and are just being disingenuous. But--to be clear--my point is that if you claim to be for cutting spending, you can't be for expanding the single largest portion of the discretionary budget. It's simple math.

Paralithodes says

Of course there is.... The meaning of your words are clear: You wish to create a strawman argument attacking one party

How is it a strawman??

Paralithodes says

To Tatupu70, defense spending is the major cause of the deficit. Sorry, just because it is your opinion does not make that a "fact." Opinions and facts are not necessarily the same thing.

Defense is well over 50% of the discretionary budget. So, yes, it is a fact that is a major cause of the deficit.

Paralithodes says

By those means, someone else could claim that welfare or some other social spending was "THE" cause of the deficit.

No, because DOD spending is double all that.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/G160461A027NBEA

shows DOD spending shot up $400B once Republicans got full control of the budgeting process (WH and Congress). Of course this is 'ideological'.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=BA2

Blue is DOD, other colors are other programs.

We outspend the rest of the world on defense, we do not outspend the rest of the world on social benefits.

Conservatives are very happy with this situation and defend this immense DOD waste to your dying breath.

Pretty odious, really, all that waste. But hey, our military leans conservative, so it's all good for you I guess.

(and yes, there's tons of waste in Medicaid and it is a driver of our deficits now, but that's only because our medical system overall is so inefficient, thanks to conservative inability and non-desire to reform it in any meaningful way)

Paralithodes says

f you think that defense spending is THE cause of our deficits, you are blindly ideological

$10T in DOD expense since 1999

$10T in total debt: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=BDX

Paralithodes says

I fully get that your point is: If Republicans are for cutting spending in general, that means they must be for supporting cutting spending in every single government program or area ... Therefore they are hypocrites according to an absolutist, non-nuanced standard that you personally hold, even though being against cutting defense spending is not at all hypocritical to their own well know positions.

That is nonsense worthy of captainshutup. The vast majority of the debt is from defence. The largest budget item in the general budget (which is where the deficit and debt lies) is defence at 672 billion. That's not including homeland security at 55 billion, veterans affairs at 140 billion or the alphabet soup of national security costing god only knows how much tucked into other agencies budgets. Medicaid is a very distant second at 265 billion then medicare at 241 billion. The next largest agency is agriculture at 128 billion. You can't be for cutting spending and not be willing to address defence/security that takes up over half the budget. It is most certainly hypocrisy through any standard, nuanced or not.

Paralithodes says

1. Republicans are generally not for cutting defense spending

Yes, I get it, even when it's stupid spending that the Pentagon doesn't recommend. You didn't read my comment which specifically referred to "inefficient programs." A huge amount of our debt is due to defense spending.

The sequester was similarly moronic -- it funded things the Pentagon wanted to defund and cut funding to things that Pentagon wanted to fund. Congress completely ignores the experts here.