text:
By Halimah Abdullah
The Department of Defense plans to scale down the nation's Army to its pre-World War II size and do away with an entire class of Air Force attack jets in an attempt to cut military spending, which mushroomed after the attacks of September 11, 2001, according to reports.
The plan, backed by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, as first reported by The New York Times, positions the military to handle any enemy but will leave the armed forces with much fewer resources to take on lengthy missions abroad. The dwindled budget also reflects the current political climate, with a President who has pledged to pull back from extended and expensive wars abroad in an era of federal funding cutbacks.
The budget is to be presented Monday.
Hagel proposes cutting the Army to 440,000-450,000 troops, according to the Times. Army troop levels already were supposed to go down to 490,000, from their height of 570,000 after the 9/11 attacks.
The budget, does, however, protect funding for cyberwarfare and special operations, a reflection of the evolving way in which the U.S. has approached fighting overseas, using tactics that don't necessarily rely so heavily on land fighters. The proposal also preserves money for controversial and costly F-35 fighter planes.
The proposed cuts will probably draw sharp criticism from some members of Congress, especially those with large Army bases in their states and districts, or whose economies depend on building and servicing parts for the Air Force planes that will be eliminated.
I am in favor of dramatic cuts to our military
Are you aware about these absurd so-called "housing" handouts in the all volunteer mil that 99% of the general population knows anything about?
My posts are not getting posted. Why?
The bottom line is the Military is supposed to be for the defense of the nation not for the power projection that it has become. The stronger that our military has become since Viet Nam the more we have been willing to get ourselves in wars. It's that Simple!
Excellent point. When you've got a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Every problem, however, is not a nail. Scaling back our military will force us to consider non-violent and maybe even non-coercive means of solving problems in the world, and that's a good thing.
This may be a bad idea. Look what happened in Europe while we had too small of an Army. But, warfare is different now and we might be able to get away with it. I would rather close a bunch of our overseas bases to save money. There is something like 1,000 of them. We need to keep some but probably not all of them.
Instead of down sizing our troops lets first down size our contractors that make 6 figures a year. And on that note lets down size on congress first. Let's see how they like it if the roll was reversed.
Let's talk about these absurd so-called "housing" handouts in the all volunteer mil that 99% of the general population knows anything about.
Housing handouts? Please do explain. Is it the dorm size room (with roommates sharing community bathrooms) that the majority of the army lives in or the 1500 sq ft home, attached to another with a carport, for a family of four, that gets on average $1200 less a month because they live on a military post and receive a housing handout? Google military BAH and read a little. It is not a handout. If you do live of post, you will get BAH to help with rent because the military does not have enough room for you to live on post.
Get rid of the fat, out of shape, poorly trained, I'll-equipped and extraordinarily incompetent National Guard and reserve forces
We did, we sent them to Iraq for three or five tours. Now most of their equipment is ready to be scrapped.
Here's a thought. Cut the military budget by 10-15%.
Put that money towards extra teacher and teacher salaries (not administration), college tuition grants and work skills training (not everyone wants or needs to go to college, and we need skilled carpenters, plumbers and masons).
Develop the arts and sciences so kids will get interested in being whole people, not smartphone drones.
Then see if we can take back our industrial and technical leadership position in the world.
Finally! It's about time this country cut the unnecessarily huge military budget and start focusing funds on other departments, especially the massively neglected education! The children are our future, and we need to start acknowledging that.
Let us talk about that, Department of Education who purchased plenty of guns and ammo before, during and after all the school shootings and has it's very own SWAT team...
It isn't the people in the military that carry the high price tags, it's the equipment. Review the contracts – follow the money trail. An E2 – Private (Army) in the US is $18,162. For 2014, the Federal poverty guideline is an annual income of $23,850 for a family of four. You have to be in the Army for roughly 3 years before you make more than poverty wages. You have to make E6, Staff Sargent, to make between $30 and $50K annually – these figures do not reflect hazard (combat) pay or BHA.
What a preposterous claim! Mil pays and especially so the tax free " housing" handouts that can and DO reach upwards of $3,000 a month for singles and $9,000, yes $9,000 a month for dual married volunteer couples are ABSURD!
I have been in the Air Force for 13 years this July and currently hold the rank of E-6 TSgt. I currently receive $1,200.00 a month for rent. I'm not sure where u are getting the $3,000.00 for single or $9,000.00 for mil to mil couples. Granted officers and higher enlisted who are married to spouses of equal or greater rank could reach these numbers the vast majority of the military does not and will never see that amont of money for rent.
It isn't the people in the military that carry the high price tags, it's the equipment. Review the contracts – follow the money trail. An E2, married, with one child is eligible for WIC. If they have 2 kids they can and often do receive SNAP. The median expected salary for a typical E2 – Private (Army) in the US is $18,162. For 2014, the Federal poverty guideline is an annual income of $23,850 for a family of four. Most people don't realize that you have to be in the Army for roughly 3 years before you make more than poverty wages. You have to make E6, Staff Sargent, to make between $30 and $50K annually – these figures do not reflect hazard (combat) pay or BHA.
Eastern Pakistan is a perfect example of what happens when the world ignores extreme poverty. All it takes is for someone to come in, provide them with their basic needs and they will follow you. Think about. What would you do if all you were trying to do was survive. This is where the extreme right is so ignorant. They are not able to think outside of their own narrow view of the world. Again they are cognitively lazy.
This is why the far right is dangerous. They think in black and white terms and have trouble with the cognitive difficulties of the nuances of the world. One could say that they are cognitively lazy.
The right: We like the big-government wasteful ideas from 1942. If they worked then, they'll work now. No need to even consider new military technology....
These cuts are pretty minimal as far as I am concerned.
Automation, e.g. drones, robots, and the computerized battlefield have made "bodies" much less needed. It is similar to manufacturing. We simply don't need as many soldiers, sailors, and marines as we used to. So they should be cut.
Exactly. The cuts are minimal in how much cutting low ranks out will actually save. Not much. This is just a farce that puts 50,000 people out looking for a job
The military hasn't really fought a conventional army since Korea really. Gulf war kind of. What I'm trying to get at here is that the military is relatively untested against a modern day conventional military force, such as China. A draw down of this proportion could significantly hurt our ability to fight.
Just because the active component is reduced doesn't mean our military is downsizing. We did the same thing after the first Gulf War. Major realignments in active duty units resulted in shifting most of the combat service support units to the Reserves. This allows a leaner fighting army while conserving a large reserve force should we go to war. I have been mobilized twice since 1990, having gone to Saudi Arabia the first time and later serving two years stateside as a training NCO for a mobilization Bde.
As for base closures...Fort Dix was closed to active duty decades ago but is still being utilized as a Reserve training center. It now supports reserve training for most of the Army Reserve units on the east coast as part of the 99th RSC, as well as Navy and Coast Guard training.
Hear alot of people commenting about spending on foreign aid but they offer no dollar amounts. Could it be that if we can spend foreign aid in a manner that brings growth and democracy to countries that the people of these countries are less wiling to send their sons and daughters to be terrorists or that the public is less willing to goto war because of what they might lose. If you have nothing it is much easier to follow a terrorist organization and/or goto to war.
The best way to defend the country is to make the world so interdependent via trade that war is all but impossible.
You are to smart for this site. We should be focusing our foreign aid on such things as open internet access so that militant men of words can not spin their kool aid unless of course you are a kool aid zombie like Glen Beck followers.
I agree with everything that you said. Once more of the world depends on other countries for their well being people will think twice about going to war.
Well, isn't that our current inter-twined stance with China now? We are so dependent on each other right now that we have to work together to some degree.
I agree with cutting the military but it will never get through congress....
Funny, I try to debate, and it I get selectively washed out. Guess that will be all for today. Shame some of my best debating is my reply to the reply ones. Good day to you all and stop calling each others names. It brings nothing to the debate, Oh and stop believing in either political party, they really don't care anything about you but your vote. I some cases multiple votes.
Get rid of the never served a day of Active Duty- Weekend Warriors "Reserves & National Guard" and take back all the educational funding, VA Benefits, etc. that we continue to pay for. As a former Spec Ops Vet, I find it offensive that these Weekend Warriors think they deserve the same respect as full-time troops and their rank matches both ways.
Playing Call of Duty doesn't actually make someone a former special ops vet. Just in case anyone was wondering.
Too true!
I absolutely agree! I truly appreciate those who have actually served our country. It rubs me the wrong way when the people you mentioned take credit in the same way.
Quite a few of those "weekends warriors" that you are talking about have died in combat. So I think you need to chill out.
Hey, knuckledragger, try looking up the deployment histories of reserve and NG units before making such an asinine post. Those units have been the backbone of our war-fighting ability for decades.
And I seriously doubt you were a spec ops anything.
Backbone? Thats a stretch
Not really a stretch. Check how many reservists and NG troops did multiple tours during Bush's "I Want to be a Cowboy" tour.
Finally a comment I agree with. I served in both, active USMC infantry then I did 4 years in the California Army National Guard. Other then the 2 SF groups in the guard, they were the most heinous excuse of a military force. Full of ignorant and fat hicks, gang bangers, elementary school drop-outs, I was embarrassed and sickened every drill I showed up to. On my first PT test, I lapped the companies fastest soldier on the 2-mile run, and I wasn't even in shape.
Get rid of the guard and reserve forces, allocate their gear, weapons, and equipment for their more competent active duty counterparts.
Thats because you took a major step down brother. We do things way different in the Marine Corps. I've been saying do not cut the Marine numbers, just get rid of the useless excuse for a National Guard. Or take all these Marine vets that are being pushed out and have them replace the current National Guardsmen. Problem solved.
Spec ops? Sorry, I call bull... Just because you *may* have done some pre-RASP training or tried out for selection doesn't mean you were S.O. I've never head of anyone that actually was SF, a nightstalker, or had a scroll refer to themselves in that way.
Meanwhile we have Iran ships in our oceans..Never cut a countries defenses..The world thanks Obama worst administration in history.
One: You obviously have no comprehension of the records of this or any past administrations.
Two: A couple of Iranian cruisers aren't a serious threat to us, especially as long as they are legally in international waters.
Three: Grow up.
Don't be obtuse. Our defense budget is a frankenstein of bad and unnecessary spending, and it has needed to be looked at for years. Most objections to defense cuts are due entirely to congressmen wanting us to keep wasting money just because it happens to support their districts. We have lots full of tanks that, not only will they never be used, but we are still spending a fortune just to park them.
It's high time conservatives, liberals, independents, and anyone else in congress wises up and starts trying to adjust defense spending to actually support the programs and growth we need in defense.
Socialize the military. That is the only way I can see the liberals running the military. Socialize it and tax the rich to pay for it. Do to the military what the government does with social security recipients by making it in to a welfare program and there will be surefire support among liberals for a bigger military.
Socialize the military? Wow, you're about the most ignorant person I've encountered on here. While we're at it, let's burn fire and moisten water.
Socializing somthing means that the government takes over ownership and control of it. The government owns, funds, and controls the military. IT IS SOCIALIZED! Rich people pay taxes to the federal government, and about half of their taxes, along with the middle class' taxes, pay for the military.
I wonder what kind of taxes went to finance your short bus.
Cruel and witty!
Good job.
The rich already transferred the military to Halliburton.
Amen sister! And anyone questioning that change in SOP met with an untimely accident.
A Channel 2 Action News investigation found that the State Department is sending millions of dollars to save mosques overseas. This investment has received criticism as the United States makes an effort to slash nearly $4 trillion in government spending.Plenty of outrage following the announcement made Thursday afternoon by a government commission that suggested huge cuts to the budget, including eliminating the interest education for home mortgage. This juxtaposed with the United States investing millions to refurbish mosques as a good-will effort in Muslim countries has upset many taxpayer groups.
"We are spending money we don't have. This is all on a gigantic credit card right now," said Jared Thomas, a taxpayer advocate.
Millions more dollars have been sent to places like Cyprus. The State Department displays before and after pictures of mosques refurbished with U.S. tax dollars.
"I think it is very hard to explain to the American taxpayer right now whose having an extraordinary time paying bills and making ends meet that this is why we took this out of your paycheck, so we can fund this," said Thomas.
The State Department declined a Channel 2 Action News request for an interview. We wanted to ask why are we using tax dollars to refurbish religious buildings overseas. The State Department did send Channel Two Action News an e-mail saying that they are fighting Islamic extremism by building relationships with Islamic leaders.
Egyptian-American human rights activist Nonie Darwish told Channel 2 Action News anchor Justin Farmer that trying to buy respect in the Middle East only shows our weakness.
"This part of the world has a lot of respect for power and America is not showing its power, it's showing its appeasement. They are laughing all the way to the bank," said Darwish.
What you are referring to actually started in 2001 by President Bush. Just another thing Obama has had to adopt from the previous admin. Read the full piece so you have the facts. www factcheck.org/2011/03/funding-mosques-overseas/
I dont care who started it. If military funding is being cut before this ridiculous program, I have a problem with it.
Military funding was being cut by the Bush admin. were you crying out then.
I am not a Republican or a Democrat. Your argument is invalid
Straw man argument.
But how will we defend ourselves every time we want to start a war?
Plan on future drafts if something were to happen..
Like the draft after 9/11? Wait, no, we just raised the military budget.
Why? With a technologically updated military (at a fraction of the cost of the current one), the need for massive # of troops needed to fight in combat drops significantly. Why wouldn't we go that route?
john lennon would not look to start a war because he wanted to.
If defense is the issue, we are already well-equipped for that without the need for big old (read – obsolete) war tactics. New technology is cheaper and more accurate than sending in scores of troops to be killed.
Having untrained people go to war will KILL MORE PEOPLE
True. We will be relying less on troops and more on technology. No need to send in hundreds of men to the front line to be killed any longer. There are other ways to take care of that old idea.
If you seriously think that our "troop strength" has anything to do with keeping the US from getting invaded you are literally deluded.
Trained troops keep troops alive and how exactly are you suppose to train troops when you are already at war? you dont and you end up handing guns to boys and getting killed liberals are out of there minds.
You are assuming that all military interaction will be a massive troop-based conflict there, where all the articles show the trend going away from that.
I feed on the tears of angry conservatives in tin foil hats.
Good one!
you people truly are ignorant you just think that countries wont come here? you better wake the heck up~~liberals in lala land
So delicious. So very delicious.
They keep you misinformed and scared, don't they?
Oh, let them try to defend big, wasteful government spending on obsolete ideas. It's halfway entertaining.
Amen comrade! Finally one who sees the light. It is every socialists ' patriotic duty to educate the capitalist to the fundamental and collective good of socialism. We, the people of the united socialist front, salute you!
Cut the waste.
Cut the fat.
Cut the obsolete military concepts.
Cut the tax payers' bill.
About Time, No Money for Education, Health Care, Housing, Infrastructure, Environment and Life, plenty of money for Bombs and Wars for Corporate Wall Street Oil profits. It's time for the Usa to end being the policemen of the world. Bring all the troops back home and let them work on this totally declining country. We can't rebuild other nations when this one is falling part for 99% of the population. Foreign nations will have to save themselves, just like we need to save america here.
Don't cut the military, cut food stamps 50%. In the last 5 years Food Stamps costs have gone up from 40 BILLION dollars to 80 BILLION dolalrs as the number of deadbeats on them increased from 27 million to 47 million loafers. This is because this administration, by Executive Order, cut the Food Stamp requirements and requirements for receiving them and time on the program. The current people are getting Food Stamps under different names and SS numbers so they can afford their monthly drug purchases. Lyndon Johnson started the program in 1969 and it has exploded since that time. But its funny that people managed to live without Food Stamps before 1969, I wonder how. Maybe they went out and worked for a living or did not have 8 kids by 8 men, none of whom are living with the woman now.
Welfare programs and Food Stamps- That's where the fraud and waste is in government and the corruption and the programs need to stop now.
It has more to do with the rate of inflation verses the rise in wages that so many more are on the system. Do you realize that many of our young men and women in the armed services are on food stamps. Just to give you an example, E2, married, with one child is eligible for WIC. If they have 2 kids they can and often do receive SNAP (food stamps). The median expected salary for a typical E2 – Private (Army) in the US is $18,162. For 2014, the Federal poverty guideline is an annual income of $23,850 for a family of four. Most people don't realize that you have to be in the Army for roughly 3 years before you make more than poverty wages. You have to make E6, Staff Sargent, before you hit $30K. Pretty sad actually. Your statement would indicate that you think everyone receiving assistance is some type of moocher with a small army of their own children. Which is far from the truth of the situation.
Since we have nukes we really have no need of a standing force.
Quote from a older family member that was a clerk in his career in the army – never saw any combat, but has cleaned out the VA every single week of supplies for the past 50 years to hoard for no chronic illness (the same family member who complains about soldiers with PTSD taking up his attention-seeking time at the VA): Obama is cutting "Our" military.
Shut half of the foreign bases that only protect global megacorporations' investments in other countries. If they want stability and protection by our tax dollars, let them come back to the US and start contributing. Halliburton et al now control so much of our military they control deployment... thanks to Dick Cheney. Kick out corporate control of taxpayer-paid military, it is a huge risk to this country. Keep all US bases open.
Pre WWII when we where caught with our pants down at the Naval and Air bases on the island of Hawaii. There is a reason that we have not let our guard down that low. But I guess history will have to repeat itself to teach the younger generations how to not forget the past.
Psssst, the world has changed some since those days. We haz satalights in da sky.
This is more akin to the modernization that happened pre and during WWI. A new century with new technology made old warfare styles obsolete.
A group of Rangers with tech can do more damage than an army in WWII. These changes direct funding towards the areas that are most effective in MODERN combat- SF and Drones.
Reducing the bloat of our 20th century styled army does NOT mean we will have a weaker army, nor that we are letting our guard down.
To underscore your point, Facebook just bought a company...Whatsapp...for $19 billion. It only has 55 employees. Think about that. The era of needing a lot of people to accomplish huge things is gone. If 55 people can generate $19 BILLION in worth, the world is a different place. Warfare is going the same direction. The "Jericho" weapon in Iron Man? That's where things are going. But everyone is really missing the point that the Cold War presumably taught us...that future wars will be won economically and technologically. We didn't win Iraq. We didn't win Afghanistan. We didn't win Vietnam. We didn't win Somalia. Conventional warfare has little merit in the modern era.
We werent caught with our pants down because our military was not as large. We were caught with our pants down for the same reason tha were when September 11th went down. Intelligence and politics refused to coordinate and report what people didnt want to believe. They knew that something was going down in 1941. They knew that there were possible terrorists learning to fly planes in the US.
We didn't have near the amount of intel assets back then that we do now. The CIA, NSA, Homeland Security, DIA, FBI, US Air Force, and others either didn't exist or were not near as large as they are now and there is so much overlap. Hopefully when they say reduction they mean by reducing military size overseas. I highly doubt we need to worry about the Germans and it's time for our friends and allies, no matter how questionable they are, take responsability for their own regions of the world.
History will repeat itself unbelievable..we will know who to blame when it does,
Since Lyndon Johnson became king, congress passed 124 welfare programs and they now support endless fatherless children that wind up in gangs selling drugs and spending half of their lives in jail at 50K/year of taxpayer costs. Food Stamp costs have gone up 100% in 5 years and are used to buy drugs and the deadbeats on them will stay on them for their lives and generations going forward.
That and taking care of illegal aliens- 20% of all federal prisoners are illegal aliens. Secure the border and deport all illegal alines.
Cut these programs and these people will have to go out and learn how to make a living working for a living instead of being a leech on US taxpayers forever.
smaller army..yes..but more automation..drones replacing all land war equipments...
Exactly. What the rabble-rousers don't understand is the change is focus will result in a stronger, not weaker, military.
Finally! We have to make our government fiscally responsible. "If" this happens I will be very happy. I am ok with us just having a military that is larger than the top 3 other largest militaries combined instead of the top 5 combined.
Agreed! and its more like top 10 combined
You must have missed something in everything you've read or heard..... China has the largest military in the world by the numbers. America spends more in defense than the rest of the top 12 combined. Yes, our spending could drop to that of the top 4 or 5 and still maintain a superior defense capability... But stop perpetuating thoughtless drivel.
sorry, i miss read the post. you are correct
we are not the largest military and havent been for some time. We may be the third largest at best behind China and Russia.
sorry, you're right. we just spend the most. I miss read the original post.
I don't understand why they keep trying to save the f-35. The plane will never be worth the cost, especially when they keep getting lost to accidents.
Oh well. I guess people said the same thing about the Phantom and the Tomcat. Only those were successful designs.
No F-35's have crashed. What are you talking about?
We could save billions more if we just implement the draft, so the Elite kids get a chance to serve. No exceptions.
Unlike the NFL, where winning teams get the most funding, military funding is about rewarding the corporation for poor results.
Looks like someone dropped a large steaming poop in my pool again.
Hey this has been the plan from Obama Administration to do away with the Military as the Military has had it's hands tied on where it can operate legally Operationally only outside the US boarders. Posse Comitatus Act. If you all haven't noticed that all the federal agencies have been purchasing military grade weapons and armored vehicles and ammo making the Department of Homeland Security an Army of itself. Not surprising with every democratic President in office the military gets downsized. Don't forget that this goes with the same lines of Democratic attacks upon the 2nd Amendment as well and more so now. Also find it odd that a majority of the school shootings and mass killings happen under the a democratic run Presidency... Makes you wonder!
No, just makes me wonder when you took your meds last.
Seriously man... you need to take those meds just like the Dr. tells you to. Otherwise stuff like this starts happening.
Where do you people come from?
They are part of the deadbeat left, probably on food stamps and welfare themselves. Or maybe sending this from the prison library.
Uh, Jerry, I think he was talking about people such as yourself.
This is some of the best news that I can remember from, well, almost ever.
Seems like the Romans had the same problem in their later day – history repeating itself...
I'm not sure I'd mothball the A-10. For close air support, I'd choose the A-10 over the F-35 any day of the week.
Cut it in half.....we'd still be leading the world in military spending by a lot.
Cut it in half and you better learn Persian so you can speak with the Iranian invaders.
Somehow I seriously doubt that the United States being invaded by Iran is a serious threat in my lifetime, or anyone else's lifetimes.
dude...you really need to stop listening to limbaugh, beck, hannity, coulter, etc. they're scaring you into believing this load of horsecrap.
u.s. military spending -682 billion/year
iran military spending - 6 billion/year
u.s. nuclear weapons - 7700
iran nuclear weapons - maybe 1 or 2 if any
the military needs to be vigilant when it comes to terrorism, but to think we are going to lose a war to anyone (let alone to any middle eastern country) is simply idiotic. but down that crack pipe and wake up.
How would the Iranians even get here?
Please tell me how Iran has the capacity to invade America?
I guess I will have to start learning Persian so when Iran invades the U.S. I can communicate with the invaders as I put a couple rounds of 7.62 x 54r into them.
Internet tough guy alert!
Neocon warmonger alert.
Nonsense. You must live off the taxpayers. Every empire that overspent on the military and aggression bankrupted itself. Every one. Our military was given up to Halliburton control by PrezCheney and Bush Baby. That is the biggest threat to the US, not the ineffectual Mideast. Dingbats procreate.
Obama wants these cuts for only one reason. He needs a massive influx of released funds to pay for all of his Marxist social welfare programs. We are about to s acrifice our national defense in favor of the social slugs in this poor sick Republic.
U guys are 2 funny.
That comment was so stupid I can't even think of a witty retort.
So, I was reduced to just commenting on its stupidity.
Hey at least food stamps will be in heavy production. Makes sense
So we reduce the defense of our country so some single mother with 5 kids can have her insurance paid for by someone else.
And people wonder why this country is collapsing before our very eyes?
collapsing? really?
No, you've got it all wrong.
We can reduce our military spending because technology innovations in that area are now a fraction of the cost of the old ideas that are obsolete now.
... it would be so awful to fix some problems at home...
Got a little news for you. All health premiums paid before the ACA were mostly paid by about 40% of the US population. Why not allow the other 60% to pay some more?
Do you look as dumb as you sound?
Why is every move Obama makes Marxist? We do not live in the 1920's anymore. Expand your mind a little farther than talk radio and Fox News.
Congrats RPLAT – you've just been awarded "Most Insane Comment of the Week"!! Wow.. what a rare achievement! Please report to the psych ward prescription dispensary to pick up your reward!!
About time! The navy needs to lose about three carrier battle groups. If they did that we could fund 100% universal health care coverage for everybody in the country with money left over.
Buy your own damn health insurance slug . . . we won't scrifice the national defense for your selfish needs.
Here's the problem with your statement! Your anger is miss placed. Most of us that want Universal Healthcare have carried our own policies for decades and are tired of free loaders like my republican sister and her husband who have built new homes and drove new cars since their 20's. But, hey they can't afford healthcare and no one should force them to buy it (according to them). Trouble with that – my sister developed colon cancer and skipped on nearly $100k in medical bills. When people skip on those bills those of us who have behaved as adults and carried insurance end up paying for it in higher premiums. Those are the folks you should be angry with not the air conditioner repair tech who makes $20,000 a year and actually can't afford a policy without help. I know that would shatter your view of who the freeloaders are though wouldn't it.
How is it selfish to want health insurance for everyone?
And why do we need so much Naval power when the closest country to rival us in military might has just a couple carriers, and the second country to rival us has just 1 carrier?
Modern warfare has changed a lot since the 1980's, and 1/3 of our military is now obsolete (unless some not very advance aliens invade). Our national security is being threaten by China's cyber-attacks, and by terrorists organizations who are trying to strike inside the country, so wasting money in Cold War technology is just plain stupid.
So you're saying "Socialized Medicine"?
RPLAT calls you an "insurance slug"... Hahahahaaaa... because, you know, RPLAT doesn't nor will ever require healthcare. Perhaps Nazi fascist trolls don't need healthcare.
Lack of health care can be a national security issue, especially in times when rapid mobilization is needed, such as during WWII. Eisenhower pushed the school lunch program because so many of the trainees for WWII were suffering from malnutrition when they entered basic and had take longer to go through because they were so poorly fed during the Depression. Health care and health insurance should be available to ALL Americans (note I said available, not paid for by the government.) The system we are moving out of has too much profit in it, is discriminatory and is not affordable for most. The ACA is messy, needs serious changes, but at the root does have the right goal – universal access to health services, mostly through affordable health insurance. Very poorly executed though. I could write a better law, in probably less than 500 pages.
This seems like a mixed bag. Good choices to drop the Army size and to invest in Spec Ops, CyberWarfare, and drones.
Regarding the choices to toss more money into the F-35 and mothball the A-10. Doing this says we are planning on a future conflict relying on manned Gen 5-6 fighters as a means of gaining air superiority over a relatively large land area. So, our military planners are basically planning for an overseas conflict with China. A-10's will be vulnerable to China's large store of advanced ground-to-air weapons, and the U.S. believes it is now in a fighter technology race with China and will need to launch Gen 5-6 fighter-bombers from carriers (hence the F-35). Honestly, no other scenario makes sense within the next 5-15 years. Unfortunately, the A-10 is ideal against less-capable enemies in Afghanistan and the middle east. Guess we are going to leave that to the drones and Apache's. Not a totally bad approach.
Interesting analysis but the capability of Apache teams and A-10 teams do not fully overlap. Also, I think the A-10s ability to get on target (to the area it needs to get to) is much faster than that of a team of AH-64s. I think drones are a long way away from delivering the precision CAS the A-10 delivers in a dynamic environment. I think dropping the A-10 is a mistake, but people said the same thing about the Phantom and the F-14 and so on... maybe a better approach is to cut out a few tank battalions (M1A1 battalions).
Yep, as I said the A-10 is ideal against less-capable enemies. 🙂
The quicker the U.S. (and Sen. McCain) get out of this "policeman of the world" posture the better.
The U.S. should know they have no influence to change a countries behavior other than military invasion and we know how that works out.
More drones i guess
It costs $$$$$ to be the World's Policemen.
To some of our dead-beat Allies;
You're on your own, boys!
Why is the right defending needless billions more in debt every year to be racked up with China for an old-school substandard military? New technology is cheaper, more accurate, and less of a threat to our troops. I'm not getting why they insist on spending needless money on outdated ideas.
What about the needless millions of tax dollars being spent to renovate mosques in egypt and provide them with free internet service? Do you defend that?
Do you condemn similar funds going to different church-run organizations?
here is a video of the newscast from 2011 on channel 2. I'm not just making this up. Wish I were
And yes Kevin. I would condemn any of my tax dollars going to do this type of work in any country other than the US. Afterall it is our money.
I'm not against the cuts, and I think DOD should be lean and mean, but I am curious about your allegation that our military is "second rate". Elaborate, please, which military is better? How could our military accomplish its mission more economically?
I'm just wondering if you have any actual proposals.
You mean why does Congress insist on building thousands of unwanted tanks? Ask the Senators and Congressmen who represent those districts where the tanks are built and you'll have your answer. A Kia tank. What a concept.
wait so is it WW2 levels or Pre-WW2 levels because that is a huge difference.
(ww2 levels would actually be an increase from today).
try reading the caption at the top of the article! you know the really BIG letters:)
If you actually think military procurements and war is about defending freedom you've past the point of any sane argument. Every war fought by the US since WWII has been about $$$ and political maneuvering. Do you actually think that Iraq or the Taliban was any more of a threat to the US than today even if not a single bomb or bullet was ever fired in their country?
Do you think Vietnam was ever a threat to the US? Or Korea or Beirut? LOL
the odds of you getting killed in a violent manner is 100000 times higher in the hands of your own fellow American than some boogeyman foreign invaders!
Most that was done to foil the Red Menace aka the Ruskies.
Actually, the two things wars are based on are politics and human weakness. Reference Caluswitz "On War."
Anybody worried about the Chinese bogeyman really needs to take a class in geography.
How is the Chinese army supposed to get to the U.S.? Amphibious invasion? The Chinese don't have enough transport ships to move even 1/50th of their 2.2 million men. Not to mention it takes roughly 10-12 days to transit the Pacific Ocean from China to California – so I'm pretty sure the U.S. Navy would have enough of an opportunity to trim that invasion force. And let us not forget, every transport ship that is sunk is not easily or quickly replaced, so the rate at which China can land more troops decreases with every transport ship sunk.
Those two million men also need supplies – ammunition, clothing, medical supplies, food, fuel, etc. They can't assume they'll be able to "live off the land" in the U.S. All those supplies would have to transit the Pacific as well. Again, I imagine the U.S. Navy might have a thing or two to say about that.
Are they going to cross over the Aleutians and down through Canada? They only have to invade part of Russia to pull that off – something I imagine the Russians would object to. Even assuming the Russians didn't object, those troops have to cross the Bering Sea – which is prone to bad weather – and across numerous tall mountain ranges.
Are they going to cross over the Arctic and invade through Canada? Again, they'd have to cross through Russia. And they'd be weather limited. They'd have to come during the winter after the Arctic Ocean has frozen enough for heavy vehicles to safely traverse the ice. That would only give them a window of a few months before they'd have to run supplies and reinforcements/replacements either across the Pacific or the Aleutians.
Then they have to fight through the U.S. Our political, economic, an manufacturing centers of gravity are not on the West coast. Our manufacturing is pretty spread out, so a knockout punch would require capturing D.C. and/or New York City. The Chinese would have to cross the Coast mountain range, the Cascade or Sierra Nevada mountain ranges, the Rocky Mountains, and then the Appalachian Mountains (while not as forbidding as the Rockies, you still can't simply drive over them like they're not there). They would also need to cross some combination of the Snake, Colorado, Missouri, Arkansas, Rio Grande, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Ohio Rivers. Then they have all of the Great Plains – no real geographic features to use for hiding from our cruise missiles, bombers, or attack aircraft.
.. and you just wasted your entire argument arguing on a strawmen and fallacy.
FACT: China has ZERO plans nor intentions to invade the US. As a matter a fact I would argue the likelihood of US invading China is probably higher than China invading the US LOL which is to say it's non existent.
I was replying to some previous posters who were saying that cuts to the military leave us vulnerable to a Chinese invasion.
Nice scenario you gave as to why US cannot be invaded. Now do the same for a China invasion of Taiwan and should the US be involved.
Perhaps the Chinese will send their men in shipping containers labeled "Walmart".????
LOL – most intelligent post in this thread
Best comment of the day. Reality check!
If you've ever played Risk you know that North America has the most defensible borders in the world. Unless we're going to be invaded by Mexico or Canada, the Navy ought to be able to handle anything they throw at us. (I'm agreeing with you).
After the Chinese buy California they won't need to invade anything.
Those are all good points. But most of what you suggest would require the US to still have an intact defensive force. I find it unlikely that China could manage to eliminate most of our forces but it is certainly not impossible. If anything history has shown that militaries are never prepared for the new way of war but have instead planned for the last war they fought. The French for instance thought they were ready for the Germans in WW2 and instead got steamrolled by tactics they hadn't considered at all.
Wouldn't a much more sensible strategy be to cripple the U.S. economically, and slowly and non-violently buy up the U.S. piece-by-piece? On wait...that's exactly what's happening.
And what happens when the U.S. dog is backed into a corner economically? It just might lash out...but it needs advanced carrier-borne fighter-bombers to make that happen (along with missiles, subs, Spec Ops, Cyberwarfare, drones, B-2's, etc.) What the U.S. won't need is a big army or the A-10, because the U.S. won't invade China either. This all actually makes a fair amount of sense.
To say nothing of the fact that if China invaded the US it would start a nuclear war that would kill everyone on Earth anyway.
China's invasions are being conducted in the purchasing departments of global retailers and financial cyberspace. Their military investment is for domestic purposes and a certain amount of external window dressing.
And they're generating such huge trade imbalances that they need to find things to spend all that money on (besides U.S. debt). Might as well invest some in the military. Who knows...maybe they see an opportunity as a low-priced provider of advanced arms? Would you rather buy an F-35 for $150-$200 million per copy, or a future Chinese J-20 for a fifth of that price? Seems like that strategy has worked out for them pretty well for every other product.
Nothing is ever needed until it is needed and then, if it is not available, it is needed more. Who knows what war will look like in the future. Technology will always change the way in which we fight. Honestly, if I were to invade a country like the US, I would start my invasion one person at a time simply moving one at a time over such a porous border. Over time, I could move perhaps 1, 2 or three million people into the country and dwarf the US military from within its own borders. Those with long term goals count certainly invade this land mass and render our defense mechanisms useless. But, no problem, it has been a very calm and compliant world thus far.
it actually takes an LHD which is an amphib 10 days at full steam to get from San Diego to Hawaii.
And it was the "supply multiplier" that kept the Confederate Army from getting further north into the Union than Gettysburg. They could not haul enough supplies for the CSA Army, especially fodder for the horses and mules, which translates to fuel for tanks and other vehicles in today's armed conflicts.
It makes sense for libtards to send millions and million to keep Muslims happy in Egypt , West Bank, and the Muslim world but god forbid we have a strong military.... I served in bagrim afghan and our liberal admin won't let A side gunner of a Blackhawk return fire after being shot at by an RPG cause they hit a woman or child,,, welcome to liberal America where almost 7years later people still blame an older president , not the one in office
Let me see if I have this straight or I misunderstood. He would not allow this because it would kill women and children?
As soon as you said 'libtards' you revealed yourself as someone not to be taken even slightly seriously.
I was gonna say that but you beat me to it.
You do realize that we send them money so that they can fight for us right, saving us billions and turning the world against us?
I agree with the "idea" in theory; But: Why, for example and if you noticed, keep an unnecessary, "porked out" budget for the already controversial F-35 fighter planes(which do nothing more than our current aircraft) and scrap multi-million dollar planes we already have while considering cutting support for our veterans who have already sacrificed?! The latter I am against with every fiber of my being while thinking of ALL who protected our Freedoms in the past; like my son, also a US Marine, who "laid it on the line" for you and I during three tours in Iraq.
Did you notice one of the Aircraft they are going to scrap is none other than the A-10 "Warthog" mentioned? Now this is to my point Which is: Yes, the Idea is great but the people responsible for formulating and implementing it are, well, to put it lightly...totally incompetent! Example:It would stand to reason not a single one of them understand or even know this "slow, lumbering" plane is not only excellent for the tasks like being our best platform for radar, jamming, etc. It proved itself invaluable as a workhorse/beast that struck terror in the hearts of and brought destruction to the enemy, saved a countless number of our own troops lives. This was also the only platform that could circle high above out of sight and range also staying on target day or night, laying down suppressive fire or or taking out targets with 50cal (or other weapons) seemingly forever.
See, the group of people we need to figure this out need to think critically with our best interests in mind and not owe or own part of corporate america, or be serving themselves and political "machine" interests of either party! So...we're screwed! Just Sayin'
Well, that's not how the A-10 is used, nor can it hover and provide precision fire from a .50 cal. It has a 30mm gun that can be loaded with some different types of impressive rounds, but the plane has to dive and aim the gun by aiming the aircraft. However, I don't see it as being much of a strain on the budget.
Half a million troops not spending their cash overseas and working paying taxes here sounds good to me. Why are so many people on here saying don't do it. Tomorrow those same people will be saying the gov't is out of control with their spending.
Exactly where do you get your figures? Half a million troops overseas? Where in the world do you spend money in Afghanistan. Get a life or be deployed to learn how stupid your comment is.
Our troops pay federal taxes and state taxes depending on the state. Oh and they also contribute to medicare and social security like the rest of the work force.
Now we know what President Obama was talking about when he whispered to Dmitry Medvedev to tell Putin he would have "more flexibility" after the election, eh?
A tremendous mistake, with far reaching consequences.
You should volunteer to pay more of your taxes for the army. Most don't like paying for a world police-type army.
I would rather pay for a strong military than to give people foodstamps and welfare, and illegal immigrant children...etc... The military is one of the few things the fed should be involved in.... not paying a bunch of dead beats not to work
I'll pay for it. The government can just transfer my tax money over from welfare.
Amen Brother!
Still too big. Still too expensive.
So Obama has destroyed the economy and you want to throw thousands of military into that. You must be the kid on the short bus.
So the military should be politicized and used as a jobs program in your view?
You guys have the attention span of a mosquito. Who destroyed the economy? It was destroyed by your hero Bush before Obama set foot in office. You can blame Obama if you like! but those of us with a memory know differently.
You are also mad at Obama for doubling the debt. Bush doubled the debt, but you Republicans gave him a free pass on that too.
Way too BIG and expensive. Afghanistan alone will cost us additional $111 Billion if Obama bribes the next Karzai into accepting our troops so that he doesn't look like a loser in a war he pledge to win at taxpayer expense.
About time! I hope we get some tax reductions! This country has being paying for THE largest defense budget in the WORLD. That is a budget of 600billion US dollars. That is the same size as all of the top 14 countries COMBINED!!! (BBC figures)
Of course there is room for cuts. China's defense budget is 112bill, just to really put things into perspective. Good choice US GOV! For once.
If reducing the military equaled not spending it elsewhere you would have an interesting point. We just had the largest tax increase handed to us in decades and it was not the military. According to the Supreme Court the only way forcing Obama Care on the populace is legal is because it is a tax.
At least Obama care is a positive way to spend my money. Much rather that then give the US blood money.
Yes, and Chinese soldiers are draftees amd get paid even less comparatively than the little our junior enlisted get paid.
Someone please explain to me your proof for arguing there will never be another large conventional war. Those who believe something like that are fairly historically ignorant. There is no proof at any time in history when governments/societies thought that "we won't have to face this crisis again" they end up in big trouble.
Those who want to address military budget cuts should look at the military-industrial complex before gutting our military both of talented troops and the morale of those remaining.
Agreed. Though that's exactly what they are doing. They are looking to the military to see where to cut budget. Even soldiers are saying there are room for cuts. Just like any gov funded organization.
Yes the next conflict we are in will be cheaper, however, it will require a much greater commitment in manpower to replace the technology we are giving up. Will your opinion hold after a much greater death toll in the next conflict. The decrease in spending only increases the likelihood and severity of conflict in the future, it does nothing to prevent them.
i dont believe the future of war will have anything to do with man power. It will be precise, strategic and tactical strikes. High death tolls are a thing of the past. That is until we have a nuclear bomb land on our faces. I just pray I'm long gone before that happens.
Comparing China and US spending is crazy
Why? They are both countries in the world. What is the difference? If anything, China should be held to different standards and should have a much higher defense budget because they have a much higher population.
So how did bush miss the 9/11 attacks ? We could cut the army in 1/2 and we would still be 10 times larger than most countries.
Hahaha did someone really bring up bush??!! Omg crying years later means ur diaper is full time to change it.
then why we so undermanned for the Iraq invasion. Really, you just showed you know jack, please shut up and log off now.
Bush missed the 9/11 attack because Clinton cutback on military including CIA which was supposed to prevent 9/11.
George W Bush still believes bin Laden is living in a cave
Although a conservative whom one would expect to be against any cuts to the military, it is time to shift our focus from a war economy and match our military to the threats that exists today. The need for maintaining a massive infantry is gone but the need for highly trained strike teams is critical, for example. If there is ever again a "conventional war," then we can crank it all up at that time.
We have great strike teams.
ow true after all it only takes 18-20 years to "crank up" effective leadership... Brilliant, experience doesn't happen over night. I hardly doubt you want your son or grandson to be lead by someone who has just graduated
Yeah, I'm glad the world is so much more peaceful now..... If a fairly large scale conflict Does happen, we will just have to reintroduce the Draft!
We spend more on our military than the next 9 leading nations combined, so please cut away–it's overdue. Let's get smarter about our spending.
If we don't control our overspending and debt – we will destroy ourselves from within.
we already are
Agreed, but what do we do with a government that is know for wasting 50 cents of every dollar it spends?
Roland, you are absolutely wrong about A-10s. They are the most effective air support in a ground fight in Afghanistant because they can stay longer and fight better than any other air platform we have. And those who argue that there will never be a big conventional war again are exactly like the people in late 1800s and early 1900s Europe who thought that was the case there. And then came WW1.
I've seen what the pig can do first hand. It was like watching god throw a temper tantrum right in front of me. It was brutally awesome.
Oh don't get me wrong I know they have legs and are very capable of destroying insurgents but they are expensive jets you can have the CAS role done with turboprop planes you are not dealing with advanced enemy AA here.And if there is advanced AA the A-10 wouldn't be there anyway. The F-35 would be flying fast and high.Turboprop planes are just way cheaper to operate then the A-10's.I know it's painful btw because they are cool planes but it's kind of like beating a nail with a rolls royce instead of a hammer. Yes you can do it with a Rolls but a hammer is cheaper.I wouldn't use the Apache's either , in my view they are low slow death machines very vulnerable to enemy fire and not good for the CAS role maybe escort of transport helicopters but that is about it.
We just started paying down the debt on Afghanistan and Iraq. Why should we keep racking up massive debt with China at this point?
Let's stay out of needless wars for a change. Give peace a chance.
I'm sure the radicals would love for us to "give peace a chance". Then they will have less trouble building up their numbers again and planning another 911. The Beatles can hunt down these guys and hand them flowers. After they get blown up by the low lifes, These terrorist will need a bullet to the head and that comes from a well trained soldier/Marine!
Clue: We don't need a 50-60 year old military to be a strong military. With technology innovations, we can have a stronger military at a fraction of the old cost. Why spend more for less?
Well they need to make the cuts to HELP pay for Obama care
You are FOR big government spending on an obsolete military???????
Yeah, but not for healthcare. Go figure.
It is not obsolete. But do not worry your food stamps will be on time.
We are paying already for the folks who had crap coverage and the folks who had zero coverage. You do know everyone pays a premium for ACA, right? Some pay more than others, but EVERYONE pays.
Does anyone know why they are able to comment on this article? Because of the sacrifices the military has made to preserve this right. We won the cold war by our military strength. I don't know if you have noticed how China and Russia have flexed their military muscles lately. I like how all of the cowards on this board make comments about our military strength and have only taken from this country. Put your freedom where your mouth is for once and try serving the greater good. Liberty comes at a cost.
Here is a big example of waste Abrahams Tanks. We have over 10,000 of them at over 20+ million apiece. We are never in a battle that requires 10k tanks.
Dwindle them down and we will soon. What the hell is wrong with you liberal morons?
you can always tell a conservative -there only argument is to call people names.
If they're thinking about messing with us, those 10k tanks will make them think twice. Look at history; in WW2 and in the Israeli wars, thousands of tanks perished, and the force with more tanks usually won. Still, since we have 10k tanks, some could be mothballed against future need.
Simple..... If a larger conflict does happen..... Everyone on Food Stamps gets to go in First.... That should do it..... one way or the other.
D- reduction in numbers does not mean a weaker army. Modern warefare =/= 20th century battlefields. The combat capability of a group of Rangers and support is far greater than the previous century.
Cutting away the bloat may make our military STRONGER, not weaker.
Production of M1 and M1A1 tanks totaled some 9,000 tanks at a cost of approximately $4.30 million per unit.[4] By 1999 costs for the tank were upwards of US$5 million a vehicle.
And many are no longer in service. Please get facts before posting.
Does your comment mean that our military can spend unlimited amours of joey? No.
…amounts of money...
Enough with patriotism angle. Do you work for a defense contractor? We have 10,000 Abrahams Tanks at 20+ million each. You just keep on going like this. We can destroy the world a thousand times over. How many times is enough for you? 5,000 times?????
Production of M1 and M1A1 tanks totaled some 9,000 tanks at a cost of approximately $4.30 million per unit.[4] By 1999 costs for the tank were upwards of US$5 million a vehicle.
Stop putting out false information
Abraham? What is an Abraham?
Well Dave, maybe you are right. Maybe we should stop spending all of our money on conventional weapons and just use nukes.
Jeez man. Lay off the Fox News for a day or so.
What are you talking about? First off, no one "won" the cold war. It was just a d1ck measuring contest - there was nothing to win. Also, serving in the military during today's time does not have anything to do with preserving freedoms. It is about policing the world and acquiring resources.
Without those resources, our freedoms erode quickly, especially if we let someone else take them first.
Have you served? I mean other than playing Tour of Duty in your parent's basement...
We spend more on our military than China and Russia, combined. We spend more than all other European democracies combined. A strong economy is more important to our freedom than maintaining a large peacetime army. Just study our history. You talk about China "flexing their muscles." They have just outfitted their first aircraft carrier. That compared to our fleet of aircraft carriers is insignificant. Even China is allowed to have a military and compared to its size, its military isn't that large. Instead of endless militarism on the part of the US we should try really defending our country, not fighting all over the world, just making enemies. Paranoia and endless military spending will bankrupt this country. When people say there isn't the money to fix our roads and bridges or fund food stamps it is time to stop building useless weapon systems.
The sad part is, if not for over spending and carrying the brunt of the cold war, all that eurotrash wouldn't have all those neat programs they shove in our face today. Hell, the way Europe turned out, I wish we had just left Hitler alone. He only cared about wiping out communist russians anyway.
Less than 10% of military members are ever deployed to an active combat zone, and less than 1% have ever been in combat. I'm grateful to those who have, but the pencil pushers riding desks can go take a hike. I'm tired of people who never saw combat getting the same benefits that were designed to support those who did. There are people coming back from Afghanistan who never set foot outside of Baghram's security barriers (air conditioning, fast food) complaining of PTSD despite never being involved in a single second of combat. What a load of crap.
This is an outdated view.
Reducing the military does not mean reducing its combat capability. The fact is, the old 20th century way of fighting is no longer viable or necessary. Military action is moving towards precision strikes with small, highly trained groups of soldiers. We do not need a standing army designed to fight a 20th century war any more than we needed cavalry regiments in WWI.
Changing the focus of the army does not, in itself, make our army weaker.
Also, note that we won the cold war for two reasons: military strength and ECONOMIC flexibility. The latter was far more important, and this move seeks to preserve that aspect of our win.
You did not fight for anyone's freedom. You fought in assistance to help the US gain more control of the world. You were nothing more than a pawn. Until someone actually comes on US soil. Then your Fight for Freedom bit. Would actually be true. But I do thank you for your service. Because personally I would not put on any army gear to go fight in another mans war.
We won the cold war by economically defeating the Soviet Union. Let's face it, militarily the Soviets were winning on the conventional warfare front...they won in Vietnam, Cuba, and semi-won in Korea (through their Chinese semi-ally). However, the U.S. had the better political and economic footing.
It's about time they started hiring midgets..
My first impulse was 'thats nuts'. But on reflection, whether it is or not depends on what the Army's mission is defined to be. Obviously, the main mission of the military is defense of the US and its people, but what role is the Army to play in that mission? To date, it's role has been to fight and win wars on the ground. However, in today's world, the major threats are from terrorists who hold no land or country for the Army to conquer. Yes, there are countries that could pose a military threat in the future, but other than planning for such possibilities, how do we justify a million (or more) troop Army? My point is, tht before passing judgement on this proposal, we need to establish (or be told) what the Army's mission is deemed to be so that the real number of combat-ready troops to fulfill it can be better determined.
Stick with your first impulse...."that's nutz"
We do not have a "Million Man" Army.
I'm not getting why the right is defending big government ideas - wasting billions every year on obsolete military ideas.
Because family's depend on military paychecks, why doesn't the obozo admin stop the afghan war !? I've been there that's a few billion each year if that war was to end!!
Keep up. Afghanistan is being drawn down. Afghanistan is a no-win territory, if you look at its history. Afghanistan was a ill-planned war from the beginning, financed from '01 (with the Chinese), and NOT FUNDED for repayment (interest keep piling up on an unpaid principal) from day one (until Obama took office).
WHY do you want to rack up more big-government spending on an obsolete military again? You are looking for a jobs stimulus there? What is it?
Spendiing money on something that isn't needed just to keep people who should be doing something productive for a living employed? Sounds like socialism to me, comrade.
While we're at it, let's keep buying typewriters so that the people who work at typewriter factories keep their jobs. Newspapers are going out of business. Let's have the taxpayers fund the printing presses too.
North Korea hasn't been invaded for 60 years. Why? Because they have nukes. We have way more nukes. Nobody would ever invade this country because we would turn their nation into glass with ICBMs. We don't need this big army. It's a waste of money. Big, bloated government, plain and simple.
To any soldiers who lose their jobs: I feel for you. You are now in the private sector with the rest of us. Learn a skill that is in demand and go do it. The government will pay for it. Its way more exciting than waiting for a land invasion so you can use the tank you learned to operate that has never fired a round outside of a training exercise.
I wonder this all the time. Our military, for all it's new and cutting edge tech, is still ridiculously out of date. We could be spending easily 1/3 to 1/2 what we spend now if we just modernized the administration and management of the whole military.
I need an explanation from Washington as to why we are cutting military spending, when millions of tax dollars are being sent to egypt to provide free internet services and repair to mosques? In what world is this logical?
Completely agree.
Free internet and repairing mosques?
Too much Fox News.
Worthless attack, Stop listening to MSNBC
Why does it matter what they are repairing? Any intelligent person can see where you are going with a comment like that. Don't be ignorant.
Its matters because I dont want my tax dollars being spent on that. If you need to cut cost, cut it in places like that first. Cutting military funding should be the absolute last resort after all other unnecessary spending has been cut elswhere.
Does anybody realize how advanced technically US military is? We just announced this month that US Navy will be equipping new anti-air defense Lasers on ships along with the recently completed "rail gun", which most people don't think is plausible but oh it is. Point is we don't need a million boots on the ground when our Air Force and Navy will be taking over most of work, from long distances I might add. Obama and Hagel are doing a smart thing as we are switching to a very technically advanced military, and we will look back one day and be grateful.
A strong military creates a strong country. These cuts cannot be allowed. Our President is trying to make another cut to weaken this country. Don't let him. Write to your Congressman and women and tell them this cannot pass. He has ruined us finacially now he wants to take our defenses away from us.
News flash: we can not afford it anymore. We never could. Your grandkids will be paying for this.
In a time where everything is getting cut...ie education, nasa, and just about everything else you feel like the military is sacrosanct. Despite the fact that our budget is larger than the next 10 countries COMBINED including China AND Russia, you feel like this cut is just too much?
Our military was gutted by Halliburton and Sick Cheney. Bush declared that the military is to protect global megacorporations financial interests overseas. He created Homeland Security to control Americans. Close half of the 750 military bases overseas. Leave U.S. bases intact. Reverse the transfer of our military to Corporations.
Seriously, if you believe this, take your meds or get a bigger dose.
Lady, put on your tin-foil helmet and get down to my office so I can prescribe you so e med!
The military produces nothing. It just sits there and waits for bad things to happen. We need it, but we don't need the one that is as big and bloated as it is now.
You are a big government hypocrite pretending to be a conservative. You want cuts to the welfare state, as long as its not YOUR welfare state.
We, the MAKERS, have to finance a military which is composed mostly of non-combat paper pushers. How many Generals getting 6 figure salaries in the Pentagon ever fired a shot in combat? How many tanks that sit in warehouses, getting maintained by hordes of workers we pay for, will NEVER FIRE A SHOT? Stop TAKING. Go learn a trade that is in demand and go do it. Stop sitting around whining about the government while relying on the government to pay you.
The military is a giant socialist state. Need housing? They pay. Need a gym? The taxpayers provide it. Need a grocery store? Go to the commissary. Every Air Force base in the country has golf courses on it that the taxpayers provide. Its nanny state garbage.
Translation: You must be insane to join a reserve component in the armed forces these days. They might be drawing down on the numbers in the active forces, but we not change the foreign policy behavior that requires servicemembers to deploy. If you want to serve, then you might as well be active duty. There's no such thing as a reservist anymore...just servicemembers receiving less benefits.
So true ... even Coasties and National Guard folks got dragged into Iraq and Afghanistan. A buddy of mine is a Captain in the Navy Reserves and he's 45-years old and got called up to go to Iraq to build bridges because he's a degreed engineer. So, yes, reserves aren't "reserves" anymore.
Democrats need new recruits that do not think like the old generation. When the time comes to move against the American public the democrats will need mindless slaves of the state to do it.
Its a grave mistake to do that
Good. A cut should free up money for John Kerry's war on global warming.
America, keep doing what you are doing! It is for the collective good!
LOL... Ladies and Gentlemen ... this is how you know a basement dwelling redneck pretends to be a Chinese guy on the internet.
Thanks Obama another reason to like you , ( no sarcasms) spending more than a trillion dollars per year in foreign affairs its far to much if you add to that another trillion on well fare programs the country goes bankrupt
For any right-wingers complaining about this, your hypocrisy is showing.
I guess you don't get it.
It's about time. 672.9 billion dollars for the DoD in 2013's budget, and quite a lot of that is nothing more than a welfare program for defense contractors. We could cut that in half, and after paying the troops (at current strength) there would still be over a hundred billion left. Do it, and do it now.
Sorry, Some how you correlate making hundreds of thousands of hard working uniformed patriots into a slam on contractors. Please read the story instead of cutting and pasting.
Either you replied to the wrong post or you have an incredibly serious problem with reading comprehension. The words you typed have so little to do with what I said - the post you appear to be replying to - that you might as well have typed random letters and numbers.
You will find, SB, that a lot of us DoD personnel ARE Guardsman by virtue of our contract. I was out for 12 years but came back after my 6th civilian lay off AFTER I put myself through school to retrain myself like Bill Clinton pushed in the 90's. Did I mention that all of my lay-offs came while a Democrat was/is in office? Tell me why I should support Obama for myself or the men and women I serve with?
And you will find that not a single thing you just said has anything to do with the post you are ostensibly replying to.
Fine with the cuts to programs, but Congress had better live up to the promises they made to induce servicemembers to stay for two decades or more...
Until costs have been cut by closing every US military base that does not reside on US soil and every soldier stations outside the US at joint installations is brought home, I won't side with cutting numbers or domestic spending.
If we need a greater ability to project our power build a bigger navy...but personally I would rather we stop policing the world.
What will be in this budget will be lost US jobs, not just the 50k service men and women but the thousands and thousands of domestic jobs they create while our foreign bases that pump billions into foreign economies will maintain or increase.
Beyond that...the A-10 has been one of the industrial military complexes greatest successes with massive combat effectiveness per dollar spent...so of course it will be mothballed. After all they will need to replace the already owned $12m A-10's with new $20 Apache...great thinking.
Replace the $12 million A-10 with the $200 million per aircraft F-35? BTW estimated at $350 million up becoming operational. Yes! Great thinking Washington, way to save $$$!
While the 35 is spending insanity the 35 doesn't fill the close air support roll the A-10/Apache do...
I'll admit: I don't know a lot about the specific needs of our Military...but who in the public really does? Anyway, I say NO. Be creative and position troops in the USA to help us. Don't cut back.
2010 China PLA breakdown estimates of military personnel: (citing Wikipedia)
Available for
military service 385,821,101 males, age 16–49 (2010 est),
363,789,674 females, age 16–49 (2010 est)
Fit for
military service 318,265,016 males, age 16–49 (2010 est),
300,323,611 females, age 16–49 (2010 est)
Reaching military
age annually 10,406,544 males (2010 est),
9,131,990 females (2010 est)
Active personnel 2,285,000 active[1] (ranked 1st)
Reserve personnel 800,000 reserve[1][2]
1,500,000 People's Armed Police[1]
President Obama, you and your Administration are causing irreversible damage to America's national defense. Our country is under a microscope from China and elsewhere, we will be vulnerable to attack at a very sensitive time when we should maintain a substantial defensive posture. Re-bolstering our military in sudden time of need will cost us trillions.
Not to mention all the experience lost by having to train new recruits. Battlefield experience is irreplaceable
That assumes that conventional tactics are used. Sorry but with the advent of technology, the days of fighting 1:1 are over. Any significant conflict with China will involve nukes.
Great. Lets just blow the whole planet up while we are at it. Good idea
When you can give me a solid argument for why we need to spend 3 times what China does on our national defense to be secure, then I might support you, but so far you haven't. What you have done is fear monger.
If it takes 3 times what china spends to stay safe, then the problem isn't money, but we know the truth. The truth is the military-industrial complex will not be denied will they?
As Zappa put it many years ago.."The government is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex"
Does anyone know why they are able to comment on this article? Because of the sacrifices the military has made to preserve this right. We won the cold war by our military strength. I don't know if you have noticed how China and Russia have flexed their military muscles lately. I like how all of the cowards on this board make comments about our military strength and have only taken from this country. Put your freedom where your mouth is for once and try serving the greater good. Liberty comes at a cost.
No argument? Did you read the statistics? With China's army having more military age males available for service than the entire US population we have to spend three times more to have a technological advantage to overcome their numerical superiority. Look at what the Soviets did to the Germans in WWII. The Soviets beat them on pure numbers alone. If China and the US are on the same level of technology, we lose.
Our military people and those who support them in industry to supply the equipment they need are paid 5 to 10 times what their Chinese counterparts get paid. That is the major reason our military costs more than the Larger Chinese military. But we will never have a conflict with China, so what compare them?
There are good reasons why the U.S. spends far more than China on it's military.
1. It costs more to build high tech, high quality weaponry as well as train and pay troops in the USA than China. It's the same reason why so much manufacturing has moved to China – labor is cheap. Paying soldiers, sailors and airmen is also cheap.
2. U.S. equipment is far better quality and higher tech than China. Many will argue this, but no one who knows what they're talking about will. In addition to that, R&D costs are massive in modern military spending. China is still happy, for the most part, to buy a few things off of Russia, France or anyone else and reverse engineer it as best they can rather than invent anything new.
3. U.S. equipment is designed to protect the human behind it first and foremost. Again, people will argue this, but the argument goes something like this: "In WWII, the Germans had better tanks but the U.S. and Soviets built far more and won the war". The Soviets and U.S. also lost many, many more tank crews than the Germans did. Today U.S. military understands that keeping your trained troops alive is the most important thing (both strategically and politically). This is a concept lost on China where human life is not terribly high on their value list.
With all of that said, I'm not even against military cuts – but it needs to be done very wisely and not along political lines (ie. what state is losing and what state is gaining). Good luck with that, though. If fear of China is seriously something to be considered, then bolster the Navy (can be used for defense) while cutting the Airborne and Marine element (offensive weapons – and an outdated ones on large scales anyway).
our military is huge. China is not going to attack us. Stop watching Red Dawn. It was a movie.
Our military was huge. Look at our current sphere of influence for democracy, disgusting. I will be glad when this experiment is over...
"NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET" or MILITARY BUDGET ? if you are brain wash you can use the first name
You're out of your mind, I think the military knows more about what they need then you. And you honestly believe China wants a war with us? Put down the crack pipe.
Yes, it's like if a guy owed you several trillion dollars, and he was making payments and all, you would probably not go out and kill said guy...just sayin.
china has almost 4 times as many people as america does. no matter how much we spend on the military, they will always have more people in reserve. these figures you site are misleading and doesn't tell the whole story.
the u.s can cut the military budget in half and we would still have the biggest and baddest armed forces in the world. look at these numbers (per wiki).
u.s military spending 682 billion/yr
china military spending 166 blillion/yr
russia military spending 90 billion/yr
country nuclear warheads/active
u.s. 2,150 / 7,700
russia 1,800 / 8,500
u.k 160 / 225
france 290 / 300
china n/a /250
quit crying wolf. the tea party has been whining about welfare and reducing the federal budget for years now. the military is the biggest federal expense and welfare user of all. reducing it's budget will not weaken us AT ALL and will help the shrink the deficit. conservatives should be happy about this...not decry it.
This is Georges doings.
How quaint, revert back to "blame Bush." The man left office 6 years ago. When are you going to get off of that soapbox?
So pay people to learn a skill, defend the country, learn diversity, leadership, and ethics. Or pay people to do nothing, use drugs, stand on street corners, and be local thuuuu u gs. Liberals will support the useless th u u g s every time.
Why not update our military for 2014, for a fraction of the cost? Not put our troops in harm's way or worry about caring for their PTSD for the rest of their lives (because they won't be in combat in massive #s). Then use that saved boat load of tax dollars to fund jobs programs/re-training skills/college scholarships?
Throwing massive $$$ at obsolete ideas as a form of stimulus is short-sighted, and funded by China, btw.
Steve, I am a pretty liberal individual – however we are a military family. That being said please take a look at what we actually pay our folks in uniform. It's a disgrace. An E2, married, with one child is eligible for WIC. If they have 2 kids they can and often do receive SNAP. The median expected salary for a typical E2 – Private (Army) in the US is $18,162. For 2014, the Federal poverty guideline is an annual income of $23,850 for a family of four. Most people don't realize that you have to be in the Army for roughly 3 years before you make more than poverty wages. Pretty sad actually. Your statement would indicate that you think everyone receiving assistance is some type of moocher with a drug problem. Which is far from the truth of the situation.
More cost efficient, non-obsolete military for needless full-scale wars......I'm good with that.
Cutting back the troops will save money. BUT: What will be replacing them: Robots, Drones, Special Forces, electronic spying, and pay raises for the fewer men doing all the work? I hope the changes will be beneficial for The USA.
This military cut might help govt' spending. But if they let military personal go, these people will have to find new jobs. So how will this help our economy. It just mean the middle class will get hit again and the govt will reap the benefits again. This will leave more people out of work.
It is no wonder the Joint Chief of Staff agrees with the military cuts, anyone that objects to the military reductions is forced to retire. I guess America will have to take a nuke in Washington DC before they come to their senses. I just hope that the nuke gets King Obama.
Why should we keep spending billions on an obsolete military again?
so that you have the freedom of expression and speech.
Enjoy your visit from the Secret Service.
Maybe terrorists and the rest of the world won't be as inclined to even bother once you pull out and stop screwing with the rest of the planet. You'll get a lot more respect by taking care of your own infrastructure then you will blowing up and rebuilding others for profit.
Dumbdrop:If you are so against this country and the President and wish for it's demise,why don't you just do us all a favor and leave this country to allow the rest of us make it a better one after your departure?
Dennis, Dumbdrop is in a way right, Washington IS the problem. If we get involved, we're bullies and imperialist. If we sit home and let the world figure it out (Syria) then we're ass hats for not caring. If you're a high ranking official in Washington and you don't do what Obama wants, you are relieved for someone who will and I don't need to mention the elected officials of both parties who represent an agenda and NOT the American people. We need to start over.
Sure, so they obviously won't cut anything that eats into our civil liberties, nor disrupts the budgets of the key players in the military industrial complex... USA!
Quote: "nor disrupts the budgets of the key players in the military industrial complex"
I sure hope I am misunderstanding your intent with this comment, but if not, then it is completely moronic. Cutting an entire program greatly affects a key player in the military industrial complex. It will affect hundreds of jobs directly, and thousands indirectly by the time you factor in first, second and third tier suppliers. These are people who actually work to supply these products by the way, not people depending on government hand outs. Cutting financing to the military and to military suppliers is another misguided attempt by the government to act like they are doing something constructive.
Cut troop spend more on weapons & more on foriegn aid less on our troops.
We spend very little on foreign aid, especially when compared to the bloated military budget. Fighting wars overseas does nothing to prevent attacks like 9/11.
Cutting back of the troop will save money. BUT: What will be replacing them: Robots, Drones, Special Forces, electronic spying, and pay raises for the fewer men doing all the work? I hope to changes will be beneficial to The USA.
So what do you think about the chair force putting on a b b q cookoff? Priorities?
Those BBQ's are why they are the reason for the Army cuts. Air Force, Marines, and Navy are the keys to success. There is always room for Army to stand at the gate and check ID's lol
Great news!! We have the greatest bloated military in the world. Way too much is spent of our tax dollars. Cut deeper..close those useless bases and don't let Congress keep open the ones not needed in their local gerrymandered districts. Warfare is changing..don't need the tanks and weapon systems we are used to throwing money at.
What does "pre-WWII size" even mean? You do not need as many ships,fighter jets or troops to carry out a mission.Most nations in the world spend about 1.5% to 2% of their GDP on defense. Some nations like the UK and France that still have imperialist ambitions or hangovers, spend 3% of their GDP. The USA spends close to 5% of it's GDP on defense.It spends more then the next few countries combined.The U.S. could cut it's budget in half and still spend more then any other nation.Besides what use is maintaining large conventional forces? What you should do is keep the submarine force and ICBM's and then lightly armed "peacekeeping" forces equipped to deal with third world enemies as opposed to gearing up for a advanced conventional enemy.The A10's are legacy aircraft that cost a lot and were build to destroy Soviet armor they were not meant to hunt insurgents in Afghanistan it is just very expensive to do it that way.
Finally. It's amazing how people get so angry over citizens collecting food stamps (to eat and live). Yet, there doesn't seem to be much backlash over spending billions to produce jets, planes, tanks etc that never get used and just end up rotting on a base somewhere.
Because the military members and their families can't eat jets...your point is meaningless.
No, it isn't. People complain about their neighbors getting a few dollars to help with their groceries, but have no problems with the U.S. spending trillions on redundant military expenses.
The military isn't supposed to be a jobs program, moron. Google Eisenhower's speech on the "military industrial complex" and get back to us.
Actually it still is, just because the military spends money to receive jets, tanks, etc...does not mean that the pay of the soldier has increased, . And I do not get mad at some needing a few dollars (as you say) for groceries and it is for a temporary time frame or because of disability. However, I do complain about them getting money when they drive around in a brand new lexus. Furthermore, welfare has seen large percent increase recently (close to 30%), and their increases greatly overshadows the increases to pay that the military receives annually, soldiers usually receive anywhere from 2%-4% increase to pay.
That's because most people on welfare and using food stamps are worthless people who have refused to put in the work necessary to be self-sufficient. It's not my fault baby momma has 8 kids with 3 baby daddies.
Our Military keeps is in a position where those who want to live in a free world and work hard, increase wealth and have the life the founding fathers of this country can do just that.
D, do you realize that an E2, married, with one child is eligible for WIC. If they have 2 kids they can and often do receive SNAP. The median expected salary for a typical E2 – Private (Army) in the US is $18,162. For 2014, the Federal poverty guideline is an annual income of $23,850 for a family of four. Most people don't realize that you have to be in the Army for roughly 3 years before you make more than poverty wages. Pretty sad actually.
That is because the military might is a safety mechanism that prevents us from being invaded and or attacked (note these trends in history). In other words, taxpayers are getting something in return for the investment. However, with government dependent programs, it involves giving away food, shelter, medical care, legal counseling, cell phones (recently considered a luxury), etc. for nothing in return except for growing crime statistics where the dependents are concentrated.
Actually they are getting something in return - food and social order. Starving people turn into criminals or revolutionaries. The Romans knew this (bread and circuses). Now we have welfare and TV. Same reasons, same result. In Rome, slave labor replaced honest wages, and criminality soared until the unemployed were fed and entertained (and some went into the military). In America illegal immigration and offshoring replaces blue collar work, and the unemployed must be fed and entertained (and some of them go into the military).
Social order that involves overflowing prisons with extremely low arrest per crime rates isn't exactly social order. If you think I am mistaken, feel free to take a midnight stroll at your nearest inner city alley for a reality check. Expecting service in return discourages system abuse and removes using these programs as a vote buying system. Comparing our dependents in their heated & A/C private apartments with private bathrooms, diets that produce hoards of fat dependents, all with available health care, electricity, water, refrigeration, etc to Roman slaves is obviously desperate exaggeration.
Yo Res: Try reading it again. I'm comparing the illegals with Roman slaves and the citizens with Roman citizens, and I'm comparing macro economic effects, not the comforts of the modern home vs Roman houses. The Romans had plenty of prisons too, and when they overflowed, there were lions to kill the prisoners for the entertainment of the citizens. Thank God our blood and guts is graphic trickery instead of real people getting maimed and killed...
There are abuses in social programs and I agree that they should be addressed and that only those who need temporary help should receive it. Our troops deserve pay commensurable to their service, but that doesn't mean we should maintain a bloated military.
A 12 years old boy asked me a important question: "If only one atomic bomb can destroy so much in the world, why do we need 4,000 of them?
I told him that banks make money with wars.
Wars are perfect for banks. The countries get in trouble and the banks get richer.
Banks, maybe? But lots of industries make money off of wars. Defense contractors, the media, oil companies, government consultants ...
Shame on you then for lying to that 12 year. Old boy.
That little boy is now just a little bit dumber because of the response you gave him. Nice work.
For your information The-Man: You're probably the coward, I was in Vietnam and I think we have a choice either cut back on the military, or tax the Filthy Rich. What d you think your Conservative and Extremist Republic0ns and Teabaggers would do given the choice. You can bet your sweet ass that they would sell the military down the road. No bribe money there for them. Abbey: You call him a liberal hillbilly, just to set you on a better path, I will inform you that Hagel is a Republic0n from Nebraska. Money should be cut from the Military and the Filthy Rich should pay more taxes and have a lot less loopholes.
How do you figure? Republicans have always been pro military. It's the Democrats that have nearly destroyed the military. Check your facts. Maybe, just maybe politicians should stop campaigning on tax cuts. We can't keep cutting taxes when there are fewer people in the workforce. The money has to come from somewhere. As for taxing the rich, that's just Democrats trying to create jealousy. Do you really think that Nancy Pelosi will buy off on paying more taxes. Do you really think Obama will buy off on paying more out of his $17 million a year income (yes he does, check it) I can't believe a vet would say anything of what you've said.
Anyone on here can SAY they were anywhere. Now how am i the coward again?
You're dogging TEA party folks? You do know A LOT, if not most, of them are vets? It's pathetic to see a fellow vet knocking vets.


text:
During the 2016 presidential campaign, many observers wondered exactly what motivated voters most: Was it income? Authoritarianism? Racial attitudes?
Below, I'll examine three narratives that became widely accepted about the 2016 election and see how they stack up against the ANES data.
The rich, the poor, and the in-between
The first narrative was about how income affected vote choice. Trump was said to be unusually appealing to low-income voters, especially in the Midwest, compared with recent Republican presidential nominees. True or false?
The ANES provides us data on income and presidential vote choice going back to 1948. To remove the effects of inflation and rising prosperity, I plot the percentage voting for the Republican presidential candidate relative to the overall sample, by where they rank in U.S. income, from the top to the bottom fifth. The dashed horizontal line shows the average likelihood of voting for the GOP presidential candidate that year; a point above that means an income cohort was more likely than the other groups to vote for the Republican. To most directly test the Donald Trump income hypothesis, I've restricted this analysis to white voters.
Authoritarians or not?
Many commentators and social scientists wrote about how much about authoritarianism influenced voters. Authoritarianism, as used by political scientists, isn't the same as fascism; it's a psychological disposition in which voters have an aversion to social change and threats to social order. Since respondents might not want to say they fear chaos or are drawn to strong leadership, this disposition is measured by asking voters about the right way to rear children.
The idea is that voters anxious about change and disorder will say it's best to encourage children to follow rules. For instance, respondents are asked whether it's better when children are considerate (likely more liberal) or well-behaved (likely more authoritarian), or whether they should be self-reliant (likely more liberal) or obedient (likely more authoritarian).
The next chart shows how white GOP presidential voters have answered these questions since 2000. As we can see, Trump's voters appear a little less authoritarian than recent white Republican voters.
Did racism affect the voting?
Many observers debated how important Trump's racial appeals were to his voters. During the campaign, Trump made overt racial comments, with seemingly little electoral penalty. Could the unusual 2016 race have further affected Americans' racial attitudes?
To test this, I use what is called the "symbolic racism scale" to compare whites who voted for the Democratic presidential candidate with those who voted for the Republican. This scale measures racial attitudes among respondents who know that it's socially unacceptable to say things perceived as racially prejudiced. Rather than asking overtly prejudiced questions — "do you believe blacks are lazy" — we ask whether racial inequalities today are a result of social bias or personal lack of effort and irresponsibility.
In the chart below, you can see the scores for white voters who supported the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates between 1988 and 2016. For clarity, the second and fourth items have been reversed so that the larger values always indicate higher animosity.
Since 1988, we've never seen such a clear correspondence between vote choice and racial perceptions. The biggest movement was among those who voted for the Democrat, who were far less likely to agree with attitudes coded as more racially biased.
So which of these had the biggest influence?
Finally, the statistical tool of regression can tease apart which had more influence on the 2016 vote: authoritarianism or symbolic racism, after controlling for education, race, ideology, and age. Moving from the 50th to the 75th percentile in the authoritarian scale made someone about 3 percent more likely to vote for Trump. The same jump on the SRS scale made someone 20 percent more likely to vote for Trump.
Racial attitudes made a bigger difference in electing Trump than authoritarianism.
Thomas Wood is an assistant professor of political science at Ohio State University. He studies public opinion and elections. Follow him on Twitter @thomasjwood.
Note: The first graph comparing the presidential vote by income levels has been replaced with a version using the correct survey weight for the 1948-2012 data. This does not change the substantive findings.

subset: commoncrawl


text: Family pet adoptions certainly are an amazing point. Whether you plan to embrace a dog, pet cat, rabbit, or some other animal, you'll be getting a fantastic pet and in some cases, you'll be conserving a life also. Looking for a pet to follow is definitely exciting, but you have to always keep several things… Continue reading Pet Adoption Service