Romney Blames Obama For Bipartisan Military Spending Cuts
Last edited Mon May 21, 2012, 12:18 AM - Edit history (1)
Source: ThinkProgress
In a new op-ed in the Chicago Tribune ahead of the NATO meetings today in the Second City, Mitt Romney attacked President Obama, claiming he hasnt showed sufficient American leadership in the Atlantic Alliance because of the administrations cuts in military spending:
Last year, President Obama signed into law a budget scheme that threatens to saddle the U.S. military with nearly $1 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years. President Obamas own defense secretary, Leon Panetta, has called cuts of this magnitude devastating to our national security. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has plainly said that such a reduction means we would not any longer be a global power. Despite these warnings, the Obama administration has pledged to veto an attempt to replace these cuts with savings in other areas. [...]
With the United States on a path to a hollow military, we are hardly in a position to exercise leadership in persuading our allies to spend more on security. And in fact the Obama administration has failed to exercise such leadership. Quite the contrary; a multiplier effect has set in: The administrations irresponsible defense cuts are clearing the way for our partners to do even less.
Theres one major flaw in Romneys argument: Obama alone is not responsible for the $1 trillion in military spending reductions over the next decade. The Obama administration did usher in nearly $500 billion in cuts over the next decade, but those cuts contrary to Romneys suggestion have real buy in from the militarys top brass, as Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said. Panetta supports the cuts too, saying the U.S. will still have the capability to confront and defeat more than one adversary at a time.
Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/05/20/487290/romney-obama-military-sequester/
creeksneakers2
(7,476 posts)Obama would consider restoring the cuts if the restoration was offset with acceptable cuts elsewhere or tax increases.
goclark
(30,404 posts)I cant recall anything that he has ever said that makes sense.
Please everone, GET OUT The VOTE!
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)The rich like Willard can ask to have their taxes raised to 70% so they could rest easy with a well funded military
They have the money to do it but don't feel that they should pay for it
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)have a witch give him the Pinocchio treatment. his nose might break off..
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,157 posts)Time to move into the 21st century Willard.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Grassy Knoll
(10,118 posts)If America elects this Bush III.
Obama 2012-Forward
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)more rat crap out his trap. Yes Granny,this guy is for real. To think,this has five spawn,male version of Babs the Bush.
cstanleytech
(26,316 posts)in defense than China, Russia, France and the UK combined are spending.
A scheme is being two faced and agreeing with across the board cuts over which you secretly have no intention of honoring!!
The Wizard
(12,547 posts)on defense/war and 19 guys with box cutters brought us to our knees. We're being robbed by defense contractors and the legislators on their payrolls. Cutting military spending in half would be a good start toward bringing down the debt the repubes are always carping about.
cstanleytech
(26,316 posts)if defense is cut it will hurt the economy which imo is complete bs as the money could and should be redirected to infrastructure like roads, dams not to mention building new schools and hiring more teachers.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,352 posts)The survey, conducted by the Center for Public Integrity, the Program for Public Consultation and the Stimson Center, shows that 90% of Democrats and 67% of Republicans want less spending at the Pentagon.
According to the survey, in which respondents were told about the size of the budget as well as shown expert arguments for and against spending cuts, two-thirds of Republicans and nine in 10 Democrats supported making immediate cuts a position at odds with the leaderships of both political parties.
The average total cut was around $103 billion, a substantial portion of the current $562 billion base defense budget, while the majority supported cutting it at least $83 billion. These amounts both exceed a threatened cut of $55 billion at the end of this year under so-called "sequestration" legislation passed in 2011, which Pentagon officials and lawmakers alike have claimed would be devastating.
Read more: http://economy.money.cnn.com/2012/05/10/americans-overwhelmingly-favor-big-defense-cuts/?iid=HP_LN
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014118422
There's such a good case to be made for large defense cuts, that people, including a majority of Republicans, will support when it's explained, that I think the Democrats should stand up and say "these cuts should go through whatever else we decide - they're the least we should do".
jimmydwight
(41 posts)difference whether it is true or false. The Repubs will eat it up and believe it. Unfortunately, facts are not important with them.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)want to see the defense spending go down.
They don't talk about it.
This is another situation in which anybody that is already worried about it isn't going to vote for Obama but that independents are now less likely to vote for Romney.