Tea partiers waffle over cutting defense budget

[Leaper]

But the point is, the Democrats didn’t get into office campaigning as the people who were going to cut government spending to the bone.

[Kimstu]

@Mr Smashy

it’s a little disingenuous to claim that they [Tea Partiers] have the monopoly on using DOD dollars to create jobs.

Nobody is claiming that. AFAICT, the OP’s point is simply that the Tea Party candidates advertised themselves as fiscally responsible folks who were going to cut back on ruinous government extravagance, unlike those dirty deficit-loving Democrats (who inherited most of their deficits from the previous Republican administration anyway, but that’s another story).

What the Teapers are being mocked for here is their wimping out on their loudly proclaimed commitment to fiscal restraint as soon as DOD dollars are at stake.

[Giraffe]

Is there an echo in here?

[Kimstu]

Nah, just great minds happening to think alike right at 8:14.

[elucidator]

Why not make military supply a purely patriotic activity? If you supply to the military, you do it at an “at cost” basis, thus wiping away the unseemly profit motive. Costs less, and is bound to be met with enthusiastic support of the patriotic wing of our national debate! Instead of putting our money where their mouth is, let them put theirs. Most of our corporate heavy-weights are Republican, they would leap at the chance to show us all the purity of their patriotism!

…I know that there are a ton of doves here, and that’s fine, but just cutting for the sake of cutting is bad policy…

I’m sure we are all grateful for your tolerant acceptance, but you have to first demonstrate that “doves” are about “cutting for its own sake”.

[Peremensoe]

@elucidator

Why not make military supply a purely patriotic activity? If you supply to the military, you do it at an “at cost” basis, thus wiping away the unseemly profit motive. Costs less, and is bound to be met with enthusiastic support of the patriotic wing of our national debate!

Oh, now this is good. Let’s go with this, please.

[joebuck20]

@YogSosoth

According to yesterday’s Slate.com article, these so-called “fiscal conservatives” are planning the majority of their cuts to come from the small sliver of discretionary spending in the federal budget. They’re not touching defense, medicare, medicaid, or social security. Only in the non-defense discretionary budget.

In the end, these tea bagging shitholes are simply typical conservatives in disguise, seeking to trim necessary but liberal policies in favor of their fat, bloated military and retirement funds

So in other words, they’re just peddling the same old horseshit that’s come out of Washington for years.

[joebuck20]

@Mr_Smashy

It wholly depends on what you define the mission of the military. Do you want to be able to respond to Taiwan when the balloon goes up and China starts some shit? Better have a bunch of F-22s, and carriers in the area. Do you want to be able to maintain two simultaneous engagements like Iraq and Afghanistan? I know that there are a ton of doves here, and that’s fine, but just cutting for the sake of cutting is bad policy.

I know that Gates (and Obama) are looking to shutter JFCOM (Virginia/Norfolk) and both Warner and Webb coming out against it (both Democrats). So while it’s de rigeur on this board (and the NY Times… ) to hammer Tea Partiers, it’s a little disingenuous to claim that they have the monopoly on using DOD dollars to create jobs.

Well there’s a world of difference between having a strong military and having one with enormous amounts of waste. Ask anyone who’s ever served in the military and you’ll quickly get an idea of just how rife the DOD is with waste.

Also it’s a little disingenuous to say “well they never campaigned on cutting military spending.” Well, they campaigned on lowering the deficit. Defense makes up a huge portion of the budget and to treat it as one giant sacred cow, while refusing to raise taxes, isn’t going to help you make much headway toward your goal of balancing the budget.

[Squink]

@Giraffe

They’re retards because their platform is based on complaining that the government spends too much, without being able/willing to propose specific detailed cuts.

Aren’t you forgetting taxcuts?
That seems to be the one area where they approve of cutting for the sake of cutting, and to hell with the deficit. The house made this fairly explicit in their budget rules:

House Republicans, in one of their first acts in the majority, weakened the chamber’s anti-deficit budgeting rules to make it easier to approve tax cuts even if they add to the government’s financial shortfall.

The rules approved today, on a 240-191 party-line vote, will let lawmakers cut taxes without having to offset the cost with savings elsewhere in the budget. Proposed spending increases must be paid for with cuts in other areas, though, and tax increases to pay for new spending are prohibited.

Oh for the heady days of 2003 when both taxcuts AND a balanced budget mattered to conservatives:

House Budget Chairman Vows Tax Cuts and Balanced Budget
The chairman of the House Budget Committee promised today to produce a budget this week that would include all the tax cuts President Bush wanted and still show a balanced budget in seven years because of spending cuts far deeper than Mr. Bush was proposing.

Just you wait til 2010 Giraffe, You’ll see how conservatives honor their principles!

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

Why not make military supply a purely patriotic activity? If you supply to the military, you do it at an “at cost” basis, thus wiping away the unseemly profit motive. Costs less, and is bound to be met with enthusiastic support of the patriotic wing of our national debate! Instead of putting our money where their mouth is, let them put theirs. Most of our corporate heavy-weights are Republican, they would leap at the chance to show us all the purity of their patriotism!

Except which side of the political spectrum thinks of the profit motive as being “unseemly”? Righties have no problem thinking you can be patriotic and make a profit at the same time.

[kaylasdad99]

The concept of “serving two masters” springs to mind…

[John_Mace]

@Kimstu

I think what John Mace is saying is that if that’s your point, the thread title should be something along the lines of “Tea partiers waffle over cutting spending to preserve bloated military budget” or what have you.

Technically, if the Teapers were never in favor of cutting defense spending per se, then it doesn’t count as “waffling” when they don’t cut it.

Thank-you. It’s nice to know there is at least one “lefty” on this board whose knee isn’t set to jerk mode at the slightest mention of Tea Party.

I don’t like the Tea Partiers. I don’t like defending them. I don’t want to be associated with them. But I can’t see that much of their rhetoric is any more coherent or intelligent than what the OP in this thread has offered up. And we shouldn’t let that kind of argument slide on this MB.

[elucidator]

Alas, its true. I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen such an argument, and breezed right by as if it were insignificant and trivial. God, I am so ashamed…

[woodstockbirdybird]

Actually, as a bona fide lefty, I have noticed this kind of argument being ignored by my fellow liberals. I think John Mace’s point is valid, and exactly the kind of things Republicans on this board get torn apart over, and honestly I don’t see how that helps our side’s cause.

[Robot_Arm]

@John_Mace

So what? Unless they campaigned on cutting defense, they’re not “waffling over cutting defense budget”.

Okay, what specific proposals or programs did they offer up during the campaign? Hell, we’ve even had threads on these boards arguing over who was actually in the Tea Party, or spoke on its behalf.

It reminds me of the resistance movement during World War II. Nobody knows who’s in it, or who’s in charge. Try to oppose it and it evaporates like a wisp of smoke, only to coalesce somewhere else.

So, John, or anyone else, how will we know if they’re waffling; by what standards can they be judged?

[elucidator]

…It reminds me of the resistance movement during World War II…

Well, there wasn’t much resistance in WWII, not much of an “anti-war” sentiment. Outside of the Copacetic Cats for Peace, of course.

[elucidator]

On the one hand, I can see a place for rhetorical nicety. Its called Great Debates, and you can dance the argumentative minuet and sip your tea with pinkys athwart, all manners and propriety. In fact, you are more or less required to do so. Hell, no problem, I can carve my sarcasm into polite forms as well as anyone.

But its a sliding scale, and there’s a bottom, and the Teapers are it. I see no reason why I should pretend to gaze upon their “arguments” with somber gravity, their reasoning is unhinged, their conclusions absurd. I need not worry that I offer them too little respect.

If someone were to press the charge that child molestors have poor personal hygiene, it may be unfounded, it may be unfair, and maybe I should give a fuck.

[SenorBeef]

@John_Mace

Well, that’s the same thing. There is no indication they ever campaigned on cutting DOD spending.

So what? Unless they campaigned on cutting defense, they’re not “waffling over cutting defense budget”. Defense may be the biggest single expense, but it’s still less than 1/4 of the budget.

Sorry, but you put a thesis out there, and it doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny.

They ran on the idea of cutting the deficit. So far they’re unwilling to touch social security or medicare. They’re unwilling to touch the defense budget. Obama proposes to veto any bills with earmarks, and the republicans are on his ass about that.

So they’re proposing no spending cuts, and fighting the cuts that other people would propose, and at the same time seeking tax cuts that’ll drive up the deficit.

I guess by your logic, you could declare that they aren’t being inconsistent because they never specified exactly how they’d be cutting the budget - but doesn’t the fact that they seem to be completely unwilling to actually cut any real part of the budget constitute either waffling or just flat out lying on their part?

[John_Mace]

@Robot_Arm

Okay, what specific proposals or programs did they offer up during the campaign? Hell, we’ve even had threads on these boards arguing over who was actually in the Tea Party, or spoke on its behalf.

It reminds me of the resistance movement during World War II. Nobody knows who’s in it, or who’s in charge. Try to oppose it and it evaporates like a wisp of smoke, only to coalesce somewhere else.

Well, yeah. The “Tea Party” is an amorphous blob. It’s leaderless and agendaless. It’s a loose conglomeration of people who are mad as hell, and who just aren’t going to take it anymore.

So, John, or anyone else, how will we know if they’re waffling; by what standards can they be judged?

Gee, I don’t know. How about comparing what any given individual said during his or her campaign against what they say once they are in Congress? Or would that be too much work?

[John_Mace]

ETA: If you really want to hold the Tea Partiers to an agenda, the closest thing they have to one is The Contract From America.:

   1. Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does (82.03%).
   2. Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. (72.20%).
   3. Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification. (69.69%)
   4. Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution. (64.9%)
   5. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities. (63.37%)
   6. Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%).
   7. Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (56.39%).
   8. Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation. (55.5%).
   9. Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%).
  10. Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend permanently the George W. Bush temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. (53.38%).

Nothing in there about defense. Nothing. As for dealing with the deficit, they’ve committed to “begin the process” of passing a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. That’s a pretty soft goal-- beginning the process.