Nah. They'll just continue lowering taxes on the wealthy and following it up with a round of "entitlement" cuts.
Posted by erik28com at December 27, 2005 02:35 AMIt always chaps my hide when people call for Rumsfeld's resignation while ignoring the wizards behind the curtain.
If he goes, the rest of the crooked lot should go with him. Rumsfeld is a dick to be sure, but he's hardly the root of the problem. His resignation would let the rest of the culprits shirk responsibility.
Fuck that.
Posted by God Of War at December 27, 2005 05:44 AMI'm sure China and Iran are giddy.
Well, I'm sure China is fully aware that the high-ticket weapons systems that they are helping us buy have only one serious purpose: a huge freaking war with China.
Posted by dj moonbat at December 27, 2005 06:42 AMI wouldn't count on it. The defense contractors and their lobbyists own congress. If things get cut, it will be items like the VA or research and development, things the big boys don't care about.
Posted by searp at December 27, 2005 06:55 AMwar with china, I doubt it. A conflict of that magnitude would certainly become nuclear, so basically signing onto war with china is signing onto nuclear holocaust. Not to discount proxy wars between china and others supported by us.
Posted by hoosadem at December 27, 2005 07:24 AMIran and China dont matter........at present the US spends the most on defense, as much as the next 14 countries together... even if the budget is cut, they'll still be the most expensive military on the planet.
Posted by polmorf at December 27, 2005 07:46 AMWhether it's necessary or not; whether it's sane or not; whether we can afford it or not, for a looong time, the "serious" hawks have been the anti-China folks. Do you know how hard it's been to encircle the Eurasian land mass when one end of it is home to a billion people living under a hostile ideology?
Posted by dj moonbat at December 27, 2005 07:57 AMJust a couple of qualms, Steve.
I'm not sure why "China and Iran are giddy" is added here. Should the US be spending even freaking more on defence?
And I'd be hesitant to draw a parallel between Rumsfeld and Kerry's visions of defence posture and to contrast Rumsfeld's designs with those of Cheney. Rumsfeld was indeed trying to "revolutionise" the military, but virtually none of those "visionary" efforts should be applauded, at least as they were intended. The Nuclear Posture Review is just one case in point. Rumsfeld is an ideologue of the first magnitude, along with Cheney and co., and the military and geopolitical ambitions of this gang of fanatics are quite inseparable.
Posted by KM at December 27, 2005 08:00 AMWhat utter insanity.
The defense hawks mistrust China, while the Bushco finance buffoons (and our Congress of Clowns) have allowed us to become so reliant on China's excess bond-buying cash that economically we're at their mercy.
And what the Chinese themselves think or intend appears inscrutable.
Posted by euzoius at December 27, 2005 08:04 AMAnd what the Chinese themselves think or intend appears inscrutable.
I think they intend to be running things a hundred years from now. What's their hurry?
Posted by dj moonbat at December 27, 2005 08:07 AMIf anything I imagine Iran and China enjoy watching us bankrupting ourselves spending more than the rest of the world combined on "defense".
And for all that spending we've proven to be a paper tiger in Iraq, without peer at blowing shit up from a safe distance but pathetically inept at counterinsurgency.
Posted by ran at December 27, 2005 08:11 AMWhat is the point of the US spending billions on weapons systems that we'll never use? They certainly don't deter the terrorists, and that's the neverending war. Defense contracts are just more massive corporate welfare.
I think it's good that Rummy is willing to consider cutting some pork, but I do think there will be a massive battle in Congress over this. Defense contractors are some of the biggest political contributors.
Posted by ann at December 27, 2005 09:15 AMI think they [China] intend to be running things a hundred years from now. What's their hurry?
Someone or something I read this morning discussed how Sun Tzu's Art of War was not an ode of love to warfare, but to the deceptions a skilled warrior undertakes that minimize or remove violent action by the enemy as an option.
I think China's got some potential long-term problems - the gulf between their upper, middle, and poor classes is the big one - but I'd say they're fairly on the right road to being the world superpower.
Posted by idiosynchronic at December 27, 2005 09:47 AMI must admit that the new F-35s are just flat out sweet, especially the STOVL F-35B which has an integrated lift fan for vertical takeoff ( a la the Harrier).
Hopefully these neocon profit-fuckers won't see fit to sell those wicked machines to our potential enemies.
Posted by God Of War at December 27, 2005 10:00 AMFeeling compelled to clarify, I didn't mean to imply that proposed cuts to our obscene, almost comical, "defense" budget are insane or somehow inappropriate.
We could cut it, and cut it, and cut it some more without the cuts having an iota of an effect upon our national security.
Such cuts WOULD have an effect on our national economy, but that goes without saying when America has become the most militarized, force-loving nation since the foundation of the Kingdom of Prussia.
I agree with all those above that BushAmerica will literally eviscerate every other program in the federal budget, including possibly payments on the national debt, before there will be any significant, meaningful cuts to our bloated, elephantine "war-making" department.
Posted by euzoius at December 27, 2005 11:00 AMI agree with all those above that BushAmerica will literally eviscerate every other program in the federal budget, including possibly payments on the national debt, before there will be any significant, meaningful cuts to our bloated, elephantine "war-making" department.
It's basically the only industrial sector that Republicans think it's OK for the government to subsidize (though they've learned to accept farm subsidies because of the obvious political payoffs). America would starve every last child inside her borders, and have every senior citizen eating cat food, before diverting money from defense. It's the Right(wing) thing to do.
Posted by dj moonbat at December 27, 2005 11:05 AMHopefully these neocon profit-fuckers won't see fit to sell those wicked machines to our potential enemies.
Hire the right PR firms on K Street and make campaign contributions to the right people on the hill and-volia-wicked weapons systems get sold to the darnest of "friends."
Posted by rlp at December 27, 2005 12:13 PMIt's basically the only industrial sector that Republicans think it's OK for the government to subsidize...
Absolutely true, moonbat, for who else truly benefits from military expendatures in this nation? The whole purpose for having such a large military in the first place is to protect the 'investments' of the Topper$ in the other nations of the world.
If anything I imagine Iran and China enjoy watching us bankrupting ourselves spending more than the rest of the world combined on "defense".
Indeed, ran! Aren't the Republican militarists that moonbat cites proud of the fact that the Grate Commie-unicator Reagan broke the Soviet Union through the economic warfare tactic of out-spending the Russians? Why is it then that they can't otherwise see we are now doing it to ourselves?
What is the point of the US spending billions on weapons systems that we'll never use? They certainly don't deter the terrorists, and that's the neverending war. Defense contracts are just more massive corporate welfare.
You summed it all up perfectly, ann!
Posted by pessimist at December 27, 2005 12:22 PM