# The final presidential debate: 10/22/12 **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 22, 2012, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497 "2012-10-22T06:57:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 36
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2012, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/701 "2012-10-23T23:32:17Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t know that that’s true. When I look to cut spending in _my_ budget, I don’t look first to my largest expenditure (my mortgage). I start with all the nice extras: eating out, movies, high definition cable, etc. Bad analogy. Your mortgage is a fixed expense. You can’t lower it a little bit by altering your expenditures. Better analogy: Your cable bill, already mentioned by you. As you correctly point out, high-definition cable is a luxury extra. You can save money by going down to a much lower package. You can save even more money by cutting it entirely, but perhaps you are not willing to cut that deeply for whatever reason. Still, basic cable will save you a lot of money over the high-def package with all the extras (DVR, the deluxe sports package, etc.). The defense budget is more like the cable bill than the mortgage. We don’t want to cut it out entirely, but we can probably spend less on it than we are right now. We certainly don’t need to upgrade it. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2012, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/702 "2012-10-23T23:33:44Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > ETA: I think of the military as one of those essential expenditures, like my mortgage. “The military.” When you say it like that, you can justify any frivolous expenditure. Building 5 more aircraft carriers than we actually need at 4.5 billion a pop, not counting operational costs? It’s **THE MILITARY** , so it’s justified! Your mortgage analogy would only make sense if you had a $1000 mortgage and were allocating $3000 a month to it. When you hit hard times, you sure as hell are going to scale back to the minimum payment. ETA: Or another analogy might be your internet service. Maybe in good times you run a high-speed connection that costs $60/month and is super-fast. When you need to tighten your belt, you switch to the budget $20 service that just barely lets you get online. You’re not going to get rid of it entirely and it would be dumb to, but you’re certainly going to shed the extraneous expense. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2012, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/703 "2012-10-23T23:40:40Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Red state vs. blue state math is hardly anecdotal. I’m not sure how this relates to the discussion about individuals who “complain loudly” about welfare spending. Could you elaborate? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2012, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/704 "2012-10-23T23:57:17Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m not sure how this relates to the discussion about individuals who “complain loudly” about welfare spending. Could you elaborate? [Red States Are The Real Welfare States](http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/02/red-states-are-the-real-welfare-states/) > [@](#): > > Contrary to popular belief, those who make the most noise noise complaining about Federal spending and the programs said spending support, are in fact the same people who collect those Federal dollars and who coincidentally don’t want to give up the programs. Their states; the RED ones… receive more per dollar, than they give,as a recent New York Times article documents–even as fiscally conservative lawmakers complain about deficit spending–their constituents don’t want to give up the Social Security checks, Medicare benefits, and earned income tax credits that provide a safety net for the struggling middle class.” ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2012, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/705 "2012-10-23T23:59:20Z")
**Ditka** , back to defense spending for a moment. you are clearly knowlegeable about it. I have a genuine question: what metric would you suggest for evaluating necessity of spending? % of GDP? Two fronts? Never met any defense spending you didn’t like? If you had the President’s (or Congress’s) ear, how would you advise them to evaluate Defense expenditures? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/706 "2012-10-24T00:43:46Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I ETA: I think of the military as one of those essential expenditures, like my mortgage. But nobody is seriously saying not having a military, just as the solution to a personal budget crunch is not to be homeless. The question is WHAT LEVEL of military expenditure is essential. $200 billion? $800 billion? $100 billion? $537.8 billion? What military spending does the USA actually absolutely, positively need right now, given the budget realities and American defense needs? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/707 "2012-10-24T01:04:18Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > The question is WHAT LEVEL of military expenditure is essential. $200 billion? $800 billion? $100 billion? $537.8 billion? What military spending does the USA actually absolutely, positively need right now, given the budget realities and American defense needs? Answer: Whatever people want so that they will vote for me. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/708 "2012-10-24T01:08:11Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The Marine’s EFV was estimated to cost $15 billion. Obama’s stimulus bill had $8 billion for high speed rail ([cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_the_United_States)). Look at that, I’m halfway there. Hey, how are we fixed for [aircraft carriers](http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.htm)? (Go to the bottom of the page for an illuminating graphic.) ---
**Author:** ![humblebumble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5e925/32.png) [@humblebumble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/humblebumble)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/709 "2012-10-24T01:15:37Z")
[Mitt Romney fails at geography](http://www.indecisionforever.com/blog/2012/10/23/mitt-romneys-route-to-the-sea-fail?xrs=share_red). Who knew? [Stop talking about my son!](http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2019398117_apusromneynavyseal.html?prmid=obinsource) Romney lies more than Obama. How much more? [58% more!](http://ezkool.com/2012/10/politifact-mitt-romney-lies/) ---
**Author:** ![EverwonderWhy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee59a6/32.png) [@EverwonderWhy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EverwonderWhy)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/710 "2012-10-24T01:29:20Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Where does this come from? I’m sure the military would _love_ more tank and planes and ships. The Marines wanted an Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle , but we didn’t want to spend that much for it, so we cut it. The Air Force wanted more F-22’s and F-35’s, but got told “no” because they cost too much. The Navy wanted 32 new destroyers, but that eventually got cut down to just three. Several top defense officials have suggested a goal of 4% of GDP for defense spending. Romney thinks the Navy, and the military overall, is too small by using a businessman’s INVENTORY APPROACH to evaluate it. “We have fewer ships than in 1916…” The President correctly asserted that the method he and the Pentagon use is the CAPABILITY of our forces. How is the current US Military inventory deficient, particularly since we are supposed to be preparing to withdraw troops from Afghanistan? ---
**Author:** ![BlackKnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eb8c5e/32.png) [@BlackKnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlackKnight)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/711 "2012-10-24T01:43:18Z")
We’re no longer fighting two wars at once. We damn well _should_ cut military funding. It’s a lot cheaper to not fight two wars than to fight two wars. Anything else is fiscally irresponsible. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/712 "2012-10-24T01:55:11Z")
> [@BlackKnight](#): > > We’re no longer fighting two wars at once. We damn well _should_ cut military funding. It’s a lot cheaper to not fight two wars than to fight two wars. Anything else is fiscally irresponsible. Romney wants to be able to fight “two conflicts at once”. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/713 "2012-10-24T01:57:36Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > But nobody is seriously saying not having a military, just as the solution to a personal budget crunch is not to be homeless. > > The question is WHAT LEVEL of military expenditure is essential. $200 billion? $800 billion? $100 billion? $537.8 billion? What military spending does the USA actually absolutely, positively need right now, given the budget realities and American defense needs? Oh, just give the generals whatever they ask for. Even the one with the funny tic who’s always muttering about “purity of essence” and “bodily fluids.” ---
**Author:** ![humblebumble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5e925/32.png) [@humblebumble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/humblebumble)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/714 "2012-10-24T02:03:51Z")
You guys are focusing on military spending when Romney doesn’t have any math skills or geographical skills? Wow. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/715 "2012-10-24T03:01:41Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > Romney wants to be able to fight “two conflicts at once”. That’s been Department of Defense policy for a long time, and still is. The point is not that we shouldn’t have that capability but that we don’t need to spend an extra $2 billion to maintain it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/716 "2012-10-24T03:13:35Z")
> [@humblebumble](#): > > You guys are focusing on military spending when Romney doesn’t have any math skills or geographical skills? Wow. The hope here is that if he is elected, he will screw up the math and cut spending on the military and then send them off to war, but send them to the wrong place so our troops wind up in Bermuda or the Fiji Islands lounging on a beach and drinking Mai Tais. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/717 "2012-10-24T03:14:34Z")
[Things are still trending Romney’s way.](http://news.yahoo.com/romney-ekes-bragging-rights-210012699--abc-news-politics.html) ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/718 "2012-10-24T03:24:06Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > FTR, the [United States Navy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy) has 287 ships, more than 3,700 aircraft, and “a battle fleet tonnage that is greater than that of the next 13 largest navies combined.” If you go by size then it’s big enough, I should think. How many wars or engagements have we ever lost because the Navy was underfunded? > > (For comparison, the British [Royal Navy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_navy) has only 78 commissioned ships, now.) The problem with Obama’s snarky comment was that it came across as being completely ignorant as well as condescending at a level so low that it showed Obama’s own ignorance. It’s like having a debate regarding solid-axle suspension vs live axle in a car, and having someone pop in saying, “HELLO??? We have these things called TIRES now. They’re RUBBER. Rubber is SPRINGY! Learn something about cars!” Once in a while you’ll get someone interjecting condescending nonsense like that into a discussion, and all it makes you think is, “This idiot knows so little about what we’re talking about that he doesn’t even realize his snark just shows his own ignorance.” For example, Obama seems to think that having an aircraft carrier means you need fewer ships. But deploying an aircraft carrier requires an entire carrier group consisting of roughly 7 ships and two submarines. In addition, deploying a carrier group overseas requires an entire logistical chain of ships to support it. The U.S. has 11 carrier strike groups, so that’s at least 77 ships just for that. In reality, there are more ships required because ships have to be maintained, retrofitted, etc. Also, Obama called submarines “ships”. The navy calls them ‘Boats’, and the existence of them does absolutely nothing to reduce the need for other surface ships. The U.S. has 71 submarines in commission. Many of them are for protection of surface fleets, but there are also the big ‘boomer’ nuclear subs, attack submarines, hunter-killer subs for tracking and taking out other submarines, etc. The role of submarines has actually expanded due to cruise missiles, drones, and other capabilities that have made subs more useful. In other words, Obama’s snarky comment about those newfangled carriers and submarines was incoherent. It was also stupid in that both have existed in the U.S. Navy for over a century, so they aren’t a new development that changes the needs of the Navy. Obama also mentioned that horses and bayonets are long gone, but in fact bayonets are still standard issue in some services, and horses are still used by special forces. As to why America needs a much larger navy than other powers, the answer is simple: The U.S. has force projection requirements across oceans, and in multiple theaters. This requires not just lots of ships for patrol and combat, but oilers for providing fuel to those ships, missile cruisers and submarines to protect them, transport ships for material and personnel, etc. No other countries except France and the U.K retain the ability to project power across oceans, and both of them have capabilities that are a mere shadow of their former selves. So the U.S. has had to pick up the slack. The key takeaway for future snark is that if you’re going to give someone a condescending, smug response, you’d better be damned sure that you come across as someone who really knows what he’s talking about, lest you just look like an ass. ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/719 "2012-10-24T03:31:26Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > [Things are still trending Romney’s way.](http://news.yahoo.com/romney-ekes-bragging-rights-210012699--abc-news-politics.html) Honestly? I’ll wait a few days to see what happens with the polls. I don’t think anything too meaningful can be taken from a flash poll. How the polls trend for the rest of the week are more important. In other news, [Lawrence O’Donnell](https://twitter.com/Lawrence) thinks he knows where the “horses and bayonets” line came from. His guess is it was written by Senator Al Franken. I will admit the sarcastic tone fits. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2012, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497/720 "2012-10-24T03:45:21Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > That’s been Department of Defense policy for a long time, and still is. The point is not that we shouldn’t have that capability but that we don’t need to spend an extra $2 billion to maintain it. Leon Panetta has said that the U.S. is going to lose its ability to fight in two theaters at the same time under proposed cuts to the military - not just sequestration, but cuts proposed by Congress and the White House. The problem with this is that it creates a very unstable situation. The two-theater projection strategy was really to ensure that if the U.S. gets involved in one conflict it won’t trigger wars of opportunity in other parts of the world. For example, if the U.S. became involved in a conflict with Iran, North Korea might decide that it has a golden opportunity to attack South Korea. Or Russia might decide that this is a perfect time to flex its muscles in the old Soviet states. Or China might start saber-rattling with its neighbors - not with the intent of starting a war, but because it could negotiate from a position of greater strength if everyone knows the U.S. is out of the picture. And sometimes saber-rattling leads to conflict. Frankly, I think there is room to cut the U.S. military budget, but the proper way to do it is to force U.S. allies to pick up the slack. Canada has to rely on U.S. transport to get her troops overseas en masse. France is a pale shadow of its former self. The U.K. probably can’t even defend the Falklands any more. The same goes for other U.S. allies, who have cut back whenever America has increased its strength, taking advantage of U.S. power to protect them while spending their own money at home. A strong president should go to these countries and tell them in no uncertain terms that they will have to start picking up the slack, and threaten the pullout of strategic assets and military bases unless they step up to the plate. NATO’s force structure should be much more balanced across the various treaty countries. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497.md?page=35) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-final-presidential-debate-10-22-12/638497.md?page=37)