7 Responses to “Friday fiscal blogging”

1. #  JayBandit 5/17/2008 7:28 AM

   I'm sure that has nothing to do with a War or anything like that.
   
   Honestly, this is a completely pointless post. If you're going to post a graph, add some commentary about it; otherwise, don't post at all.  

2. #  Buck B. 5/17/2008 8:06 AM

   A war of choice is just as bad a reason to increase the deficit that much as any other kind of unneeded discretionary spending. Worse, actually, since those dollars spent at home would at least have some benefit for the American people.
   
   By itself, the graph does a better job of indicting the Republican Party's complete abandonment of its principles than anything I could write. Is that enough for you?  

3. #  kofi the he adds less than nothing; he takes away from the rest of this place's content 5/17/2008 3:57 PM

   Can we send Buck B. back to the minors and call dranproft back up? The last thing this blog needs is another conforming liberal shill.  

4. #  J. Prescott 5/17/2008 5:10 PM

   Numbers without context is like a car without an engine: pointless. Yes, Clinton capitalized on the "peace dividend" to fund his balanced budget almost exclusively. As a percentage of GDP no other aspect of government spending was increased or decreased. As a result, the military began to be underfunded and undertrained, because they couldn't afford as much ammunition or equipment, and military personnel level were systematically decreased.
   
   Wait a minute. Isn't there an issue with personnel levels and equipment in Iraq? Is that an issue? And aren't there also concerns that the personnel is undertrained? I wonder what caused all that.
   
   So instead of budgeting the right way, which is to cut programs and funding across the board, Mssr. Clinton and his band of merry men said, "Screw it. It is peace time right now. Let us do the easy thing, the simple thing, and play a short term game instead of considering the long term effects."
   
   It is also important to note, that the only increase of funding for the military is returning it to 1995 levels, in terms as a perccentage of GDP. Arguably, the war would have been cheaper if Clinton had not been a moron and sliced the military down to lower levels. Instead, Bush and co. had to ramp the military up as well as execute the war; its cheaper to do thing slow and steady then to do it quick and dirty. That is what Bush had to do, once he decided to go into the war.
   
   In other words, Clinton's budget was stupid and short sighted and Bush's plan was nasty and sloppy. Clinton stole from Peter to pay Paul, and Bush made the decision to pay Peter back early with funds he did not have. In other words, incompetence abounded between the two individuals between two parties that couldn't run a mom and pop grocery store.
   
   So next time, why don't you show insight and some research instead of throwing up a half assed attempt to make a point.  

5. #  Buck B. 5/18/2008 4:49 PM

   Shorter J. Prescott: Clinton was stupid and short-sighted because he failed to plan for the worst strategic blunder in U.S. military history.
   
   Please, please, please provide evidence that the U.S. military was "underfunded and undertrained" after Clinton. The invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq went swimmingly, and if the occupation of Iraq had gone like war boosters said it would, everything would have been fine there, too. In fact, in the aftermath of our easy "victory", there was plenty of talk about how well Clinton's military performed.
   
   So next time, why don't you show insight and some research instead of throwing up some half-assed right-wing talking points. It makes you look like an idiot.  

6. #  J. Prescott 5/22/2008 11:44 AM

   Buck -
   
   Here is the irony of you calling me a political hack. You substantiate your claims of how well the military did in Iraq and how it was all Clinton's doing by citing an article in Slate magazine, a liberal periodical. Essentially, you found a piece of liberal dogma and held it up as an unbiased piece. You are so deep in liberal hype that you can't understand that the post you put up had an obvious bias, and the facts could be interpreted another way.
   
   Yes, there was a lot of technical hardware that won the war against the conventional army in Iraq and Afghanistan. No one doubted that. Further, no matter who was in office, I would suggest that there would have been development of advanced technological gizmos for the military because you know what? Thats what the US military does. But that stuff costs a lot, and in exchange, the United States reduced their standing military force through the peace dividend (a Clinton word). http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7626/10-05-Recruiting.pdf. That is a document relating to the personnel reductions in the US military, which were initiated and pushed for by the Clinton White House. The issue has not been drones or technological disadvantage. Hell, without the new technologies from the Clinton administration, the US would have technology superiority. The problem has been boots on the ground, a problem, if at not initiated then exacerbated by, Clinton not having boots on the ground.
   
   Also, before you say, "well the Kosovo thing went well," I would like to point out to our readers that Kosovo and the Balkan region remain a nightmare. While this post is biased (see Buck, that is how you alert to people that you are at least cognizant of the content of the reference), it does have some good excerpts as to why the Balkans is a sewer and why it may be likely that the Europeans (but hopefully not us) will have to go back and fix it. http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2007/12/of-clinton-and-kosovo.html.
   
   Tech is cool, but there is no substitute for boots on the ground. Bottom line, there was not enough during the occupation, although that may or may not be changing with the surge. I don't know, and right now I don't have the time to find out. If we had more troops back at the beginning maybe Iraq goes better, maybe it doesn't. But it would have been nice to have had the option.  

7. #  Buck B. 5/22/2008 1:28 PM

   Prescott,
   
   I don't understand the article is biased? What, am I retarded? I've said more than once I prefer partisan media. I know Slate is biased. (Name me a publication we could both agree isn't.) In this this particular case I happen to agree with the bias. In fact, the author and I are making the same argument, which is why I cited it.
   
   I completely agree with you that there weren't enough boots on the ground in Iraq. But the reason there's not enough boots is because we're in Iraq. Nice little bit of self-fulfillment there.
   
   Lowered recruiting figures is evidence only of military (not presidential) priorities changing. Most military experts felt we should direct money into both technology and fewer, more highly-trained forces. Green berets and army rangers can integrate with insurgent forces and influence wars without a heavy investment of American treasure, which is much more valuable in today's world than raw military force. (Though that's nice too, which is why we make damn sure no no on can touch our navy.)
   
   You mention Kosovo, but that was a jerk-off session where we didn't want to get our hands dirty — which is why it's all fucked up now. Rather, Afghanistan was a picture-perfect use of the new American military. We dropped our special forces in, then unleashed our full air power. There were fewer than 100 "boots on the ground" in Afghanistan when Kabul fell, virtually all of them green berets, and the Northern Alliance was responsible for many of the biggest victories against the Tabliban. If we hadn't subsequently taken our eye off the ball Afghanistan might actually be a functioning nation today. With pro-American leanings, even!
   
   The problem with an awesome military is the same as with any weapon: You have to know how to use it. This new military was particularly ill-suited to an invasion and occupation of Iraq (as plenty of people were saying at the time). And yes, in order to occupy it you need an insane number of troops. That's why you shouldn't try in the first place.
   
   I seriously cannot understand how you can blame the current troop shortage, six years after the invasion began, on anyone but the people who started the unnecessary war that's causing the troop shortage.