Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (53538)	10/20/2002 8:28:55 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Do I think Bush should have spent more money on defense. I think since he's the president he should have attended to his duties, which up until 9/11 he was remiss in those duties. Hmmm... did you go back and research the veracity of the claim by the author, or did you just accept it like a good "sock puppet"?? I seem to recall that the first thing Bush/Cheney did was increase military spending by the largest percentage since Vietnam. He also instructed Rumsfield to completely review the DOD budget process to see where changes should be made in creating a modern force for the next 30 YEARS.. not just 2001. Those changes were supposed to be incorporated in THIS year's budget. Rumsfeld, to his credit, recognized that more money didn't immediately result in a better military. And the last thing that was needed was just throwing money at the problem. If spending $300 Billion per year can't buy us a decent defense.. I don't what can. I also recall the Democrats griping ALL THE WAY over how he had enough money for DOD, but not enough for the kind of prescription drug benefit they wanted. clw.org cnn.com The Pentagon would receive the largest increase in raw dollars, with an additional $13.6 billion slated for a total defense budget of $310 billion. $1.4 billion of that would go toward pay increases and other measures to improve the quality of life for service members. And you forget which party's president PUT the US in that situation in the first place, forcing a 40% DOD budget decrease... It wasn't Bush.. Maybe it was the VERY powerful and senior Senator Robert Byrd(D-W.VA) fcnl.org This is NOT about how much we spend on Defense Karen, it's HOW WE SPEND IT.. And what type of war we're planning on having to fight in the future... The military we've had for the past 30 years has been oriented to land war in Europe against the USSR. We'll, that scenario doesn't apply anymore... And one more point... Even IF Bush had increased defense spending even more, it would NOT have made a difference in preventing 9/11. Increases in spending DO NOT immediately result in increasing in readiness. It takes YEARS to see new equipment enter the field, and considerable time for actual training programs and readiness to increase. So if you're going to "play politics" here Karen.. and offer such incredibly inane and hypocritical accusations as Democrats accuse Republicans of NOT spending ENOUGH on defense, I'm going to have to call you on it... There hasn't been a democrat in the White House since Vietnam who hasn't sought to fund their domestic spending plans out of the defense budget.. Clinton certainly couldn't resist spending that "peace dividend".. Hawk