Your tax dollars at work

[_Tarski]

there is nothing near the consistent drum beat in the media criticizing Obama these kind of policies in the way there was for Bush.

What is the media? Rupert Murdoch's various outlets? EIB Network? The Internet?
FOX news dominates TV news and talk radio is nearly 100% rabid "Obama is a socialist Muslim" kind of stuff.
The media seems to have it in for Obama from where I stand.

[_EAllusion]

What is the media?

Imagine the media as a giant pie and the slices of it their relative influence on the wheels of public conversation and opinion. The mainstream media, the big slices of the pie I had in mind, includes predominately network news, cable network news, widely circulated newspapers, and clearinghouse newsources.

Both the Democratic and Republican parties have deeply entwined relationships with the major newsources. They have surrogates for their predetermined talking points on all major TV news sources, for instance. When Bush was in office, those Democratic surrogates hit him hard on war on terror / civil rights issues. Obama ran on this wave in 2008, if you recall. It's a comparative whisper for what's going on with Obama right now. It's because Republican leaders agree with his civil rights abuses and Democrat leaders with surrogates by and large either have changed their views in light of Obama's actions or won't stray off message to criticize their own.

[_Drifting]

The implication is that I share in that opinion. I do not, and linking my OP with that was a cheap shot.

In which case I apologise.
I was shooting at Romney, if I missed and hit you please accept my apologies.
I have deleted my posts out of respect for you and your OP, if you delete where you quote me the record will be expunged.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Apparently, an independent panel of idiots who reviewed the most recent Quadrennial Defense Review agrees with Romney and that bribe-taking moron chief of naval operations that the current size of the Navy is too small, and the administration's plans are inadequate:

http://www.usip.org/publications/willia ... pendent-pa

We then turn to the condition of America’s military. We note that there is a significant and growing gap between the “force structure” of the military – its size and its inventory of equipment – and the missions it will be called on to perform in the future. As required by Congress, we propose an alternative force structure with emphasis on increasing the size of the Navy. We also review the urgent necessity of recapitalizing and modernizing the weapons and equipment inventory of all the services; we assess the adequacy of the budget with that need in view; and we make recommendations for increasing the Department’s ability to contribute to homeland defense and to deal with asymmetric threats such as cyber attack.

Their assessment calls for a fleet size of 346, more than the Pentagon wanted, and a lot more than the Administration proposed. Of interest, the panel recommended a second "Bottom-Up Review," such as was done in 1993 to address fundamental changes in strategy and force structure. The Obama administration rejected that recommendation as well.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_u ... .27.10.pdf

[_Bob Loblaw]

Some other information about the current state of our Navy. President Obama specifically mentioned submarines and aircraft carriers, both of which have serious issues. According to a defense analyst (presumably another one of those idiots):

The U.S. Pacific Command has long stated that it requires between 16 and 18 attack submarines to fulfill operational requirements; the Navy can currently provide only 10 at any given time. This comes as the Chinese Navy has begun to outnumber the U.S. Navy’s submarine force in the Pacific, playing directly into Beijing’s “anti-access, area-denial” strategy for limiting America’s freedom of movement in the region.

So, our submarine fleet is smaller than what the Pacific Command says is required and is outnumbered by Chinese submarines. As far as aircraft carriers:

The Obama administration has also been less than enthusiastic about the aircraft carrier, the most versatile tool of American power operating today. Only after the Navy’s top officers told Congress that eleven carriers were absolutely essential to American security did the administration attempt to walk back a suggestion that we should reduce the number of carriers in the fleet. ... The Navy leadership has been requesting [an eleven-carrier fleet] for years, as it would markedly enhance our ability to project power around the world.

The Navy's maintenance budget was cut by $800 million, and consequently "more than 20 percent of the fleet failed its annual inspection in 2011, a sizeable increase over previous years. Obama has also slashed funding for research and development, failed to develop adequate replacement platforms for aging ship classes, and ignored our Marine Corps’s requirement for 39 amphibious ships, which is particularly important given the vaunted “pivot to Asia” the President has initiated but refused to adequately resource."

[_Analytics]

Some other information about the current state of our Navy...

It's fascinating how a thread that started with a criticism of the government for wasting a few tens of millions of dollars on a non-productive battery plant morphed into a thread about how the government ought to spend tens (or hundreds?) of billions more on boats and weapons.

We currently spend over one trillion dollars every year on national defense. That's well over $3,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country, every year. Think of it--divided evenly among all citizens, a family of four needs to spend $1,000 every month on national defense.

Of course the military industrial complex wants the government to spend much more than that. It’s a tautology that they do. But as a citizen, how much do you think an average family of four ought to pay on national defense per month? $1,100? $1,500, $2,000?

[_Bob Loblaw]

Some other information about the current state of our Navy...

It's fascinating how a thread that started with a criticism of the government for wasting a few tens of millions of dollars on a non-productive battery plant morphed into a thread about how the government ought to spend tens (or hundreds?) of billions more on boats and weapons.

We currently spend over one trillion dollars every year on national defense. That's well over $3,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country, every year. Think of it--divided evenly among all citizens, a family of four needs to spend $1,000 every month on national defense.

Of course the military industrial complex wants the government to spend much more than that. It’s a tautology that they do. But as a citizen, how much do you think an average family of four ought to pay on national defense per month? $1,100? $1,500, $2,000?

Let me be clear (I believe I said this earlier in the thread): I am not advocating spending billions more on defense, as I leave that to the experts. The accusation was, first, that we conservatives like spending money on killing people, and second, that Romney had lied in the debate about the Navy's requests for a minimum fleet size.

The first accusation is absurd and rather nasty, and the second, as I showed, is just plain false. Personally, I agree with the independent panel that reviewed the QDR in saying we need a second bottom-up review of military priorities and strategies. I would be ecstatic if such a review meant we could spend less, not more, on defense.

But Romney is right that the current administration (as well as Bush's) has rejected the recommendations for modernization of the navy. Whether it's needed or not, you can't say that Romney is an idiot for agreeing with the last 3 chiefs of naval operations.

[_Analytics]

But Romney is right that the current administration (as well as Bush's) has rejected the recommendations for modernization of the navy. Whether it's needed or not, you can't say that Romney is an idiot for agreeing with the last 3 chiefs of naval operations.

Corporations are making hundreds of billions of dollars in profit in the business of designing and building weapons of death. They mainpuate politicans and the public into being very scared. They insist that regardless of how much we spend on over-priced bombs and missles, we need to spend much more. They support the best politicans money can buy.

Romney is most certainly an idiot for pandering to the military-industrial complex. And Obama is too.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Corporations are making hundreds of billions of dollars in profit in the business of designing and building weapons of death, manipulating the politicans and the public about how scary the world is and how regardless of how much we spend on over-priced bombs and missles, we need to spend much more, and buying politicans to support them.

Romney is most certainly an idiot for pandering to the military-industrial complex. And Obama is too.

That's why I hope they'll accept another Aspin-type bottom-up review. The last one, in 1993, was intended to set priorities and strategies in the wake of the end of the Cold War. Given that we are coming out of two regional wars and global operations against terrorism--not to mention the Chinese desire to restrict us from shipping lanes--it is high time for a major review.

Hypothetically speaking, if I were in the president's shoes, I would wonder why our military is so heavily geared towards wars in which we are fighting nations, not international nonstate organizations. It would seem to me that a smaller, more agile military is a better way to go. One of the things I read in the QDR, by the way, is that before leaving office, Defense Secretary Gates initiated an overhaul of the procurement process designed to avoid waste and overpricing. Will it work? I hope so.

These are complex issues that deserve more than snarky soundbites.

[_Analytics]

[I'm making a new thread with this]