Why is Howard Dean, the peace candidate, or the anti-war

[Julien Sorel]

candidate, or whatever he is today, against cutting the military budget? We spend as much on the military as the rest of the world combined, while our schools turn out mediocre students, many of our nation's working poor, and children, go without healthcare, and every night, people across this nation, the richest in the world, go to sleep hungry. Yet Dean is against military spending cuts. It doesn't seem to make sense, and I find it troubling. Isn't Dean a progressive?

[w13rd0]

1. Alternative energy is a national security necessity...

...as are other concerns, like securing the ports and inspecting containers. There's no reason military spending couldn't be used in a sensible fashion, without the token, red meat charge of 'slashing our defenses' being made...

[E_Zapata]

2. I have to say......your reply is a total cop-out.

Defense spending is allegedly earmarked by Congress for specific programs. They get X dollars for nuke research. They get X dollars for 'alternative fuel research."

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just didn't realize that Congress does not just write a blank check for X dollars and the Pentagon just creates whatever programs it wants, and, according to you, what the executive office tells them to do.

I would hate to accuse you of answering a well-reasoned question with bullshit to sugarcoat a serious question about your candidate, for which no reasonable person can give Dean an A on. In fact, Dean gets an F for that. It puts him in the same boat as the neo-cons. I wish Dean supporters would at least be honest about what their candidate stands for and what the implications are. I see you guys make intelligent connections all day about other issues, and when DEAN comes up, you guys just lose all reason.

That list of 'good things' to use defense dollars on? You have to cut the spending programs in existence at the Pentagon and then go back to Congress and reallocate those dollars. The Pentagon does not operate by presidential decree.

(disclaimer: of course there is major corruption and of course the current president and past presidents and the CIA have diverted funds at the Pentagon for unapproved programs. But ideally, that doesn't happen)

[Julien Sorel]

3. But that doesn't answer my question. In fact,

it sounds like campaign spin. We have a limited amount of money to spend, unless we raise taxes. The two big competitors for that money are the military and what I will call 'public spending' -- the classic 'guns or butter' decision. Dean is on record as saying he won't cut the military budget. That means he will either A) continue running the Bush deficits; or B) cut spending in the public sector -- which will hit the poor. In other words, Dean is choosing guns over butter. That's not progressive.

[E_Zapata]

4. Exactly: Guns over Butter

It's downright hawkish and republican, in fact.

[blm]

13. Yes...and Dean got that from Kerry who has said it for years.

That alternative fuel research IS a national security concern. Kerry, however, still believes in cutting the mini-nukes program and Star Wars out of the defense budget completely.

[UnapologeticLiberal]

36. Dean never said he supports those programs

At least, not to my knowledge. He just said he would not cut the overall Pentagon budget. But there are plenty of ways to move the money around...for example, our soldiers are for the most part way underpaid, so that they earn barely above the poverty line. You could cut funding for star wars and "mini-nukes" and use it to increase soldier pay, and as far as I know, there is nothing that Dean has said that would indicate his opposition to doing that.

Mousepads, Shoe Leather, and Hope - The Great Grassroots Campaign

[TLM]

66. In fact Dean has said that's exactly what he'd do...

Dean wants to do things like use military money for reshaping our oil policy and give to states to fund first responders like police and fire departments. So basicaly he is cutting defense spending in a roundabout way. He's taking money from the defense budget and moving it to domestic issues... but doing so in such a way that he won;t get his with the soft of defense label.


“I think it would be foolish to reduce spending on defense at a time when we’re under threat. I disagree with the President about what those threats are, but here’s what we need money for: we need money to buy the uranium and plutonium stockpiles of Russia, which this president is not doing. We need money to change our oil policy. We need to inspect the 98% of cargo containers that come into this country uninspected. We need money to give to the states to help them in homeland security. So I think cutting our defense and homeland security budgets is a mistake. I would reallocate it in a different way than the president does because I don’t think the president has defended this country as much as he’s talked about.”

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

14. No difference between Dean and Clark on the Pentagon budget

none at all, regardless of this particular Clark spin. Dean says he "won't cut the Pentagon budget" because he'll get smeared for doing it as an anti-war hippie. Clark can say he'll "cut the Pentagon budget" because he's a general. Neither one of them will do anything about crony capitalism at the Pentagon, aside from getting rid of the recent shameless thefts of the Bush administration.

If Clark is going to attack Dean from the "left" let's hear him come up with something more substantial than Dean's rhetorical statements, considering that's all Clark have given us as well.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

16. But There Is a Big Difference

Dean has stated he won't. Clark has stated he will.

I know you don't necessarily believe either of them, but I'm willing to take both candidates at their word.

?Naive? DTH

[clar]

5. I can't sleep

so let me take a stab at it. First, let me note, that I've read the four posts here. The attempt to answer your question by a Dean supporter made no sense to me. The original poster, I'm sorry to say, has been running through the threads taking swipes at Dean supporters. I'll attribute this to frustration, as most of those swipes have been in threads started to bash Clark. Still, you know the drill, two wrongs don't make......

I think Dean realizes that should he suggest cutting military spending, he'd be demonized. He's been painted as the candidate of the far left. It's that simple. BTW, with the exception of Kucinich and now Clark, none of the candidates, to my knowledge, have advocated military cuts. Dean has said he doesn't support star wars. I'm afraid I don't know much about that program. As I recall, it's the Reagan era plan to shoot nukes down, and very expensive.

I wish Dean would just say that he'd cut waste in the Defense budget.
Hopefully, he will. Dean isn't perfect. Neither are any of the others. Dean isn't a progressive, and he doesn't claim to be one. He's a difficult guy to label. I couldn't do it in the eleven years he was my Governor. Liberal on many issues, and not on others.
However, in Vermont, social statistics indicate significant improvement in several vital areas such as education, reduction of child abuse, teen pregnancies, and healthcare. When Dean entered office, there was a large deficit. Vermont had the worst bond rating of any NE State. By the time he left, we had a surplus and the best bond rating of any NE state. Dean will not seek to balance the budget on the backs of the poor. Vermont unlike many other states is not in the unenviable position of having to make large cuts in programs because it's drowning in red ink.

One thing I do like about Dean and most of the other candidates is that they have records. Executive decisions made, votes cast. That Clark doesn't is not a deal breaker for me, but it makes it more difficult. I like Clark, but watching some of his supporters join the great DU bashing game is disappointing. I don't like it when Dean, Kerry or Kucinich supporters do it. I don't like it any better when Clark supporters do it. And yes, some of the things said here are bashes.

[Julien Sorel]

6. I'm the original poster.

And while I have respect for you as an intelligent, and well-intentioned person who has been trying hard to keep things civil, I can't say the same for some of the Deanies, and I can tell you from long experience, that taking the high road doesn't work when you're dealing with the mentality currently prevailing on this board. So the Deanies will be getting what they deserve, or something close to it. Judging by the e-mails and PMs I've been getting, I'm not the only person who thinks that way.

At any rate, that being said, you didn't really answer the question, either, and the question is not a bash. Is what I posted an accurate depiction of Dean's economic policies or not, and if it isn't, what is? Because what I've seen of Dean's economic policy so far looks like conservatism to me, and it isn't compassionate conservatism, either. Someone is going to suffer, and that someone looks like the poor.

[clar]

7. Dear Billy,

Damnit. I just wiped out my post. It's just too early.

OK. I thought I answered your question. In any case, Dean has said repeatedly that he'll roll back the obscene bush taxcuts. A July WSJ op/ed piece that he penned is pretty detailed. Sorry I don't have a link. There's so much on Dean's economic policies, with more to come shortly, you shouldn't be in any doubt as to what they are. Check his website, google, etc. It's what I do for information on candidates' positions.

I could get into a tit for tat thing here, but it's wrong. I won't engage at that level. It serves only to diminish me and the already besmirched and befouled GD and P&C forums.

You said:

And while I have respect for you as an intelligent, and well-intentioned person who has been trying hard to keep things civil, I can't say the same for some of the Deanies, and I can tell you from long experience, that taking the high road doesn't work when you're dealing with the mentality currently prevailing on this board. So the Deanies will be getting what they deserve, or something close to it. Judging by the e-mails and PMs I've been getting, I'm not the only person who thinks that way.

Yikes, Billy. I appreciate your recognition that I try to keep things civil. It's important to me. I agree that some of the Dean supporters are obnoxious, even noxious, but you're wrong, taking the high road, in my not inconsiderable experience, is effective and exactly the right thing to do. Perhaps my background in mediation helps me with this. The path you are about to embark on leads to ugliness and bitter confrontation over inconsequential stuff. It's never worth it. I hope you rethink such a revenge driven tactic. It won't help your candidate, and any momentary satisfaction will be short lived.

[Julien Sorel]

8. Be careful about assuming motive. At any rate,

The WSJ piece is here:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003920

It says, in a nutshell, that he will repeal the tax cuts, and press for 'fiscal responsibility,' which is code for tightening spending, and boasts of Dean's record of balancing the budget in Vermont 11 times. Since repealing the tax cuts will not be enough to balance the budget (that's even assuming, by the way, he doesn't change his mind about it again) and he has placed the Pentagon budget off-limits, that means the money is coming out of public spending: he's choosing guns, not butter. That's what conservatives do.

[clar]

10. I give up

but before I take my leave from this thread, let me point out that you made your motive (payback) perfectly clear, for all to see. I want to note here, that I felt far more benignly towards you until I saw the personal attacks you made on Dean and his son in another thread. You're just like those you rail against. Too bad.

Regarding your point that rolling back the taxcuts won't balance the budget, it's certain that other things need to happen. Dean has talked about this, as well as asserting that it ain't going to happen overnight. But you're not really interested in substantive discussion. You've found your talking point, now you'll simply repeat it.

I hope things improve here on DU, but it's pretty clear you're not going to be part of a solution. That's a shame.

[Julien Sorel]

11. I'm genuinely sorry you feel that way.

I'm even more sorry not to see my question answered. Dean is supposed to be Mr. Domestic Policy, and some of Dean's most gluttinous Kool-aid swillers have attacked Clark for lacking domestic policy experience. So I look at Dean's economic policy, expecting at least to see something semi-comprehensive, and what do I find? Something straight out of Herbert Hoover, with holes wide enough for a high school econ student to see. Hoover was a failed, Republican president. Democrats do not fund the military at the expense of domestic spending. Why does Dean seem to think it's perfectly OK? This is a serious issue, your beliefs about my motives notwithstanding. Is Dean planning on campaigning as a Democrat with a Republican economic philosophy? Is he really planning on running to the right of Bush, as he has said he would?

[Eloriel]

30. Boy did YOU just prove her point -- in spades

And while you're all busy playing martyr because Clark is getting a lot of scrutiny, don't imagine that the Deanies haven't had to put up with all this and more. AND, most of them aren't nearly as aggressive and obnoxious as the Clark supporters who invaded DU.

Eloriel

[Julien Sorel]

34. OK. Care to answer the question?

It's still out there. Or is it beneath consideration, because it's merely a policy issue, and Dean is beyond such trivialities?

[diamondsoul]

56. I just had to comment on this because I've seen it before-

"AND, most of them aren't nearly as aggressive and obnoxious as the Clark supporters who invaded DU."

Ok, be irritated with Clark supporters if you like, but please tell me how Democratic supporters of a Democratic candidate "invade" Democratic Underground- a board INTENDED for use by Democrats and progressives??

[DoveTurnedHawk]

57. They're Claiming the New Members Aren't "Real" Democrats

In other words, not only is the CANDIDATE not pure enough for them, but the supporters aren't as well.

And people wonder why the hell we've had some trouble winning elections in the past. Some "big tent" after all.

DTH

[Julien Sorel]

58. An astute comment.

But lots of these folks are too caught up in their political narcissism to get it.

[diamondsoul]

69. Well, I'm one of the other kinds of freaks around here-

A Kucinich supporter who claims Clark as second choice. I've met him, I was at Ft. Hood when he was, and I've seen enough of him in action to have developed a deep and abiding respect and admiration for him.

I do NOT like the implication that Clark supporters or even Clark himself aren't "real Democrats". It's not much different than some religious wingnuts claiming they designate "real Christians", and I hate them both equally.

Carry on, my friends, you're backing one helluva man. He doesn't necessarily speak for me as well as Kucinich, but I tell you, he impressed the hell out of me as a military spouse and that's not easy for someone in the Officer Corps to do.

[Brian Sweat]

74. I'm not a big fan of Opinion Journal

and I don't put a lot of stock any anything that comes from there. If what they are saying is true, there should be a moe credible source.

[Mairead]

9. "Dean is difficult to label"

Clar, I'd suggest that you can easily find a basic label for anyone, if you want to, by following the money. Social freedoms mostly matter only if people have the money to take advantage of them.

Rule: If the net money flow is toward the rich, the person running the pump is a right-winger.

[KaraokeKarlton]

23. Nope, clar is right...you can't really label Dean

He's not a typical politician. All you can do is describe him somewhat and say he's unique. He's always been a politician for the best interest of the people he serves. Everything he's done, he did because he firmly believed it was in the best interest of Vermonters. He sort of approaches politics like a doctor approaches practicing medicine. He studies the symptoms, diagnoses the problem, looks at all the different courses of actions and treatments, considers the potential outcomes of each course of action, weighs the pros and cons or each, considers the cost effectiveness and goes with the course of action that will have the best results and cost the least amount of money. He's very thoughtful in what he does, and he isn't own by the corrupt powers that be. Bottom line, he's one of those very rare honest and sincere politicians who actually means what he says and intends to do what he tells you he wants to do. He has sincerity and integrity and he can be trusted. Will you agree with him all the time? Nope. In fact, there would be times he'd piss you off. But in almost every case, what he chooses to do ends up being the right thing. He gets things done and is great at solving difficult problems and cleaning up awful messes. He's the best one for the job this time around based on what the country's needs are.

[Mairead]

27. Sorry, that sounds like religion

Which way did the wealth move? If his policies tended to make corporations (and thus their elite owners) wealthier, then....

[Julien Sorel]

12. No Deanite is able to answer these questions?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

15. It's a Legit Question

Dean has apparently recognized that he won't be able to cut the military budget. I think that's a pretty sound acknowledgement of the political reality, of the impossibility of a Democratic President trying to cut the military budget with a Thug Congress in control, especially during a perceived time of war.

That is the beauty of Clark's position. As a general, he is the only one with the standing and gravitas to even potentially challenge the Thugs on this issue. He has stated he would cut the military budget to fund healthcare, and I applaud his position.

I think Dean is savvy and is being honest about the political realities. That said, I much prefer Clark's position, and I am excited about the better chances he would have to make his position a reality.

DTH

[DoveTurnedHawk]

17. I Think Most Dean Supporters Are More Experienced at This Than Us, BB

See how this legit but difficult question just sinks?

Maybe we'll have to add a subroutine to the Clark "Borg" Collective during the next programming revision, about ignoring the tough questions and hoping they go away.

I don't mind Dean's position on this, I think it's a reasonable and realistic one. But I sure as hell wish people here would give Clark credit, for once, for his position on this.

DTH

[Julien Sorel]

18. I agree with you to a degree on this one.

It's too bad the same Deanites who are eager to slam other candidates won't step up and discuss the issues that will actually decide the election, but the spineless kind of people willing to quote the same BS articles endlessly aren't likely to actually stand up on an issue of substance.

I think this is one of those things that needs to be brought out in front often until it is either dealt with or people simply come to accept the fact that Dean is not a progressive in any meaningful sense. Politically, such an awkward position is a mine waiting to explode. The WSJ piece is awful from the standpoint of a progressive: it amounts to Dean going to a right wing paper and bragging about how right-wing his policies are. But no one utters a peep, and the article itself is held up as an example of Dean's policy expertise, when it is, in fact, fluff, and Republican fluff at that.

[Eloriel]

31. IMO it's not about the question, it's about the motives here

It isn't even a sincere question seeking answers. It's just flame bait. You know it, I know it, others have seen it too.

Been there, done that. Most Dean supporters are a little weary of the game. But thanks for playing.

Eloriel

[Julien Sorel]

33. In other words, you don't have an answer.

If you've 'been there, done that,' there would be an existing set of arguments that answers the question, but there obviously aren't.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

38. Good Point, BB

We've got so many Clark rebuttals to the BS, after all. It's quite telling to me that no one here appears to be willing to deal with this question.

DTH

[tjdee]

19. No Dean is not a progressive, and NO, he isn't "the peace" candidate.

That's the fact.

He has a few progressive positions (health care and some others that escape me but I'm sure someone will set me straight), but he is not a liberal or a progressive.

He is certainly, certainly NOT the "peace candidate", as he has supported every single military action of past years *except* the Iraq war. Kucinich is the peace candidate.

The only candidate for cutting the defense budget, out loud, anyway, is Dennis Kucinich--Clark says he is willing to consider it I think? The others aren't touching it (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong).

[DoveTurnedHawk]

22. Not Sure

Clark says he is willing to consider it I think?

I thought a reporter asked him where he'd fund his healthcare plans, and he replied the military, because it's a want machine set up to feed on its wants, or something like that.

DTH

[blm]

24. Kerry's for cutting mini-nukes and Star Wars programs.

That's a healthy chunk of change.

[KaraokeKarlton]

20. He'll end up doing something with the defense budget

He might make some cuts, but most of all he'll end up moving resources around to take care of funding state homeland security. If there is room to make some cuts without minimizing our ability to protect our country, he'll make them. But he has to look at things first. He is going to work really hard to balance the budgets and if there are cuts that can be made anywhere that will reduce waste, he will tend to it. That's one thing you can always count on with Dean. He's very good at identifying waste and getting rid of it. When it comes to services, if something costs a lot and isn't doing what it's supposed to, he'll either fix it so it works or he'll come up with another way to address the problem and fund it in a cost effective way.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

21. Huh?

He might make some cuts

But he's already said that he won't.

but most of all he'll end up moving resources around to take care of funding state homeland security.

How? What you're describing sounds like a military budget cut coupled with an increase in the separate homeland security budget. Is that really his position, or is that what you believe his position to be? Genuinely curious, because I don't know the answer. If that is in fact his position, it would seem equally difficult for him to do, with a Thug Congress, as just cutting the military budget.

When it comes to services, if something costs a lot and isn't doing what it's supposed to, he'll either fix it so it works or he'll come up with another way to address the problem and fund it in a cost effective way.

When you're talking about something as large as the Presidency and the Pentagon, it is exceedingly difficult to just try to waltz in and "fix" inefficiencies. It's just too large to manage effectively. After a point, it becomes an fruitless exercise in massive micromanagement.

Finally, while I agree in concept with some of what you say, your defense sounds a lot like Schwarzenegger's promise that he will "go in there and audit everything." I don't think that is enough.

Again, I think Dean's position on this is realistic: he's not going to be able to cut the military budget because the Thug Congress won't let him, and they'll paint him as weak on defense in the process.

I like Clark's position on this issue better. Don't you?

DTH

[KaraokeKarlton]

25. I'm going on how he did things as governor of Vermont

Seeing as I live in Vermont, I have the advantage of knowing more about how Dean runs things than those who don't live here.

Dean isn't going to commit to making military cuts without having access to all the information he needs to know whether or not he CAN make any cuts. Rolling back the tax cuts is much easier to take a stand on because it's going to put needed money back into the budget and provide more funding for necessary programs. The military budget is an entirely different thing. Bush has made one hell of a mess and whoever follows him is going to have to examine all that stuff very closely before they know the best way to proceed. Dean is NOT going to claim he will do something unless he's certain he knows enough of the details to KNOW what he would do.

Based on how he did things in Vermont, he WILL look for wasted money in all of the different budgets and will do everything in his power to cut that waste and make things more cost effective. He also won't hesitate to use veto power as a means to get everyone on the same page and doing their job for the people. In the same way Bush has been able to gain the support of a lot of the Democrats, Dean possesses the same ability to get Republicans on board. He's a very strong leader. I don't know of any other politician who was able to get so many Republicans to support Civil Unions. He also taught Vermont's liberal Democrats to embrace a balanced budget. He's good at uniting all sides.

[Julien Sorel]

26. But he's already committed to

not touching the military budget.

So he's going to look for 'waste.' What is 'waste?' Where is it in the budget? What happens if he doesn't find it? Every politician talks about cutting wasteful spending from the budget; Bush did that, in fact. And since you live in Vermont, and are familiar with him, perhaps you can give me some examples of 'waste' that he cut out of Vermont's spending? It sounds like more spin. One person's waste is another person's lifeline.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

29. Yes, and Also

It's one thing to cut waste and increase efficiency on a small scale, like in Vermont. It's another thing entirely to do it on a national scale.

DTH

[no name no slogan]

84. To be fair....

I've read where Dean said he'd cut Star Wars funding by 1/8, so he WOULD cut some of the military budget.

I'm not aware of any other positions/statements he's made on this, but it's possible he'd make other military cuts/additions.

[Julien Sorel]

28. Kick

Because this simplest of questions remains unanswered.

[Eloriel]

32. Because it's simply playing games

Like I said.

Flame bait.

G'night.

Eloriel

[WillyBrandt]

35. Truth Bait

How will Dean de-bloat the military? It's a legitimate question.

He's been anointed by his supporters as the "progressive" candidate, even though he is far less progressive than, say, Kerry. (I'd like to have seen Dean's Iraq vote if he were in the Senate, by the way. . .)

So, maybe Dean can't touch the military, because folks will smear him as a crazy liberal. And maybe Dean has to keep that "A" NRA rating, because because he's got to appeal to good old boys.

The appeal of Clark is that he CAN be an unapologetic liberal, instead of a very centrist dude who just plays a liberal for primary season.

Ah, I forget, Dean isn't centrist or liberal or conservative. He's something new that has never been seen in human history, ever, and those who doubt that are Repuke light and DLCers and this and that. . .

[DoveTurnedHawk]

37. This Is Absurd

It's a legitimate question, and everyone on this thread has been polite.

I find it incredibly hypocritical that you and others call inquiring threads with a negative tone "fair inquiry" so long as they question Clark, while you simultaneously try to spin this completely legitimate thread as "flamebait," simply because it deals with Dean.

If you really think this thread is "flamebait," then you fail to understand the definition of flamebait.

No one here has contested what Dean's actual position is, so I'm guessing it's true that Dean is opposed to cutting the military budget. In contrast, Clark has said he'd fund healthcare by cutting the military budget.

No one says you have to switch your support, but I would certainly appreciate a couple of Dean supporters having the integrity and intellectual honesty to give Clark a wee bit of credit for having the more progressive position here, at least on this issue.

DTH, Who Has Already Given Dean Ample Credit for Having a Much Better Message and Discipline on the War Issue Than Clark, So Far

[Julien Sorel]

39. Almost two full days, and the question is unanswered.

[clar]

42. I answered the question

You know that. I know that. Try again.

[Julien Sorel]

45. No, you didn't.

You referred me to some op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal that actually backed up my point: Dean's economic plan and record are anti-progressive. When I pointed this out, you said 'I give up,' and whined about Dean bashing.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Julien Sorel]

49. Errrr, no.

You can say you did, and attack me personally as you will, but the fact is, you didn't answer anything. Here are your words:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=373083#373149 (pasted link because it's too long.)

Here was my rebuttal:

At any rate, that being said, you didn't really answer the question, either, and the question is not a bash. Is what I posted an accurate depiction of Dean's economic policies or not, and if it isn't, what is? Because what I've seen of Dean's economic policy so far looks like conservatism to me, and it isn't compassionate conservatism, either. Someone is going to suffer, and that someone looks like the poor.

Then you said,


OK. I thought I answered your question. In any case, Dean has said repeatedly that he'll roll back the obscene bush taxcuts. A July WSJ op/ed piece that he penned is pretty detailed. Sorry I don't have a link. There's so much on Dean's economic policies, with more to come shortly, you shouldn't be in any doubt as to what they are. Check his website, google, etc. It's what I do for information on candidates' positions.

If you answered the question, why would you come back and say otherwise, and then refer me to the WSJ and his website for information on his positions? And to reiterate, the WSJ piece did nothing but confirm my suspicion that he's to the right of many Republicans on fiscal policy.

[Darranar]

40. Hey!

How much does Clark want to take away from the military budget?

$0.01?

[Julien Sorel]

41. He is on record as saying up to 25%, I believe.

But this thread isn't about Clark, it's about Dean, and his economic policies. Do you have anything useful to contribute?

[LizW]

43. Really.

Do you have a link for that? Not that I'm doubting you, I just find it amazing that Clark would make such a claim.

[Julien Sorel]

44. I believe it is posted elsewehere on the board.

But to reiterate, this thread isn't about Clark; it's about Dean. So unless you have something relevant to say about Dean and his economic policies, may I suggest you start your own thread about Clark, and not try to screw this one up with irrelevancies?

[LizW]

50. Defense spending is the top issue on my list

and Clark's position on cutting it is of interest to me. Sue me for asking for a source from someone who claimed to know.

I thought you were interested in advancing Clark's candidacy by pointing out how his positions on certain issues were superior to others. But if you consider his position irrelevant to this thread, so will I.

[Julien Sorel]

51. But to reiterate, this thread isn't about Clark; it's about Dean.

[Sterling]

88. I would like a link as you made the claim

This thread seems to be as much about the contrast in positions between Clark and Dean and you made an unsubstantiated claim about Clark’s position. Please show some sort of proof of your claim.

I would be impressed with Clark if that is true so spend more time being a good poster and less time with petty attacks, you might actually end up helping your candidate.

[TLM]

46. Why has nobody called you on the false premise....

Dean said he disagreed with Kucinich's blind 15% off the top cut first and ask questions later policy.

As far as I know Dean has never said he is against cutting the defense budget, but rather that he wouldn't make such broad proclamations about what percentage he might cut without first reviewing the spending to see what can be cut safely during war time.

Where has Dean said that military budget cuts are off the table?

[Julien Sorel]

47. Direct quotation:

"I don't agree with Dennis about cutting the Pentagon budget when we're in the middle of difficulty with terror attacks."

-- Howard Dean, 6/22/2003

[TLM]

59. As I said, Dean said he did not agree with Kucinich's policy...

He has not ruled out Pentagon cuts, which is rather clear from the rest of his statement, but I can't find a rainbow/push forum transcript anywhere to post the rest of what he said on the subject.

If anybody has it, please post or link?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

52. Does BB's Post #47 Answer Your Concern?

If he's satisfied your threshold question, I would love to hear your commentary on the actual issue at hand. Thanks!

DTH

[TLM]

61. No, he cited the very statement I mentioned....

where Dean took issue with Kucinich's cut first and ask questions later policy. I think that statement is more about Dean disagreeing with Kucinich's method of cutting the pentagon budget, not the idea of pentagon cuts at all.

Although from what I have seen, Dean's wants to redirect a lot of current defense spending to domestic needs, which accomplishes the redirection of the money, without opening him up to attacks of being soft on defense.



Dean:
“I think it would be foolish to reduce spending on defense at a time when we’re under threat. I disagree with the President about what those threats are, but here’s what we need money for: we need money to buy the uranium and plutonium stockpiles of Russia, which this president is not doing. We need money to change our oil policy. We need to inspect the 98% of cargo containers that come into this country uninspected. We need money to give to the states to help them in homeland security. So I think cutting our defense and homeland security budgets is a mistake. I would reallocate it in a different way than the president does because I don’t think the president has defended this country as much as he’s talked about.”

[returnable]

53. Kick

I would really like to see this question answered, too.

[Larkspur]

54. Dean is the anti-Iraq-War candidate

He never said that he was a pacifist. He will use the US military to defend the US and her allies when attacked but not to secure oil reserves for Halliburton's profits.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

55. But Isn't It Better to Cut the Military Budget to Fund Domestic Programs?

As General Clark has said, the Pentagon is a want machine, it is set up to want. I agree with his stance that there is some room to make cuts, don't you? Isn't his stance on at least this one issue preferable to Howard Dean's?

DTH

[Capn Sunshine]

60. So you're telling me GENERAL CLARK WOULD CUT THE DEFENSE BUDGET??????

*cough**cough* bullshit*cough**cough

[Julien Sorel]

63. He has stated as much.

But I just figured out why Dean won't need to: he'll use some of that extra cash he raises through internet donations to fund the military budget. You know, 600 million? Besides, Clark will never run for office, so this is merely moot, anyway.

Bullshit is, indeed, a topic of some expertise for you.

[nolabels]

70. Stated a lot of things just like * , who he claims he can replace

Please tell us more pie in the sky jokes. Frankly, Joe is more credible than this Charlton. Replacing one lie with another is no solution

Bush's Broken Campaign Promises
http://www.failureisimpossible.com/needtoknow/campaignslogans.htm

http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/brokenpromises/
Bush's Broken Promises

"You can't say one thing and do another." — George W. Bush, 10/31/00

During the presidential campaign and his first year in office, George W. Bush made a number of promises affecting American families, but he has failed to keep them. From breaching the Social Security lockbox to making it harder for middle class families to pay for college and leaving out millions of seniors from his prescription drug proposal, Bush has made a habit out of saying one thing and doing another. Here is a catalogue of Bush's broken promises revealed in his FY 2003 budget and in other key policy areas. In contrast to Bush's failures, Democrats have a strong record of progress on these issues.

Summary of Bush's Broken Promises
Deficit
Bush said his tax cut would not cause deficits, even in a bad economy.

Bush's FY 2003 budget posts $106 billion deficit, the first deficit since 1997. The budget will return to balance in 2005, at the earliest. Learn more »

Social Security
Bush said Social Security Trust Fund would remain in a lockbox.

Bush breached the Social Security Trust Fund and is on schedule to spend $1.65 trillion of it over the next ten years. Learn more »

National Debt
Bush promised to pay down a record amount of the national debt.

Bush not only failed to pay down the national debt, he has been forced to request a $750 billion increase in the debt limit. Learn more »

Education Reform
As part of the bipartisan education reform, Bush promised to spend more money on education.

Bush budget cut funding from his own "No Child Left Behind" law and provided the smallest education funding increase in seven years. Learn more »

Pell Grants
Bush promised to increase the maximum Pell Grant award, thereby increasing access to higher education.

Bush froze Pell Grant limit below his promised level. Learn more »

LIHEAP
Bush promised to "fully fund" LIHEAP (the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program).

Bush's budget cut LIHEAP by $300 million. Learn more »

Medicare
Bush pledged to provide Medicare prescription drug coverage for all seniors.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that Bush's plan would cover only 6 percent of Medicare beneficiaries. Learn more »
(snip)

[TLM]

64. Not really... I prefer Dean's position.

Dean position is stronger, and accomplishes more.


Clark is saying we might cut this or that... Dean is saying we need to redirect that spending to domestic needs and to prevent real threats.

Does Clark disagree with this position?


“I think it would be foolish to reduce spending on defense at a time when we’re under threat. I disagree with the President about what those threats are, but here’s what we need money for: we need money to buy the uranium and plutonium stockpiles of Russia, which this president is not doing. We need money to change our oil policy. We need to inspect the 98% of cargo containers that come into this country uninspected. We need money to give to the states to help them in homeland security. So I think cutting our defense and homeland security budgets is a mistake. I would reallocate it in a different way than the president does because I don’t think the president has defended this country as much as he’s talked about.”

[Julien Sorel]

67. I always love watching people contradict themselves.

You have twice denied that Dean said he wouldn't cut military spending; now you talk about 'redirecting,' and post a link where Dean specifically abjures cutting ... military spending. What a shock. Of course, you lack the intellectual honesty or self-respect to admit you were wrong.

At any rate, Clark has said he will cut military spending. Dean has said he wouldn't. Clark's opinion on this issue seems more valid to me than Dean's, although I freely admit Dean's omniscience in most matters.

You still aren't answering the big question (and if you do try to answer, please don't screw up this time): Dean wants to balance the budget, without cutting military spending. How is he going to do that without cutting public spending? And if he wants to cut public spending while keeping the military budget intact, what kind of 'progressive' is that?

[TLM]

73. You are trying to blur terms here to create contradictions...

First off, as I pointed out Dean's position is not against cutting the pentagon budget. He simply does not agree with Kucinich's methods or timing. You are taking statements from Dean saying that it would be a bad idea to make cuts during war time, and trying to spin it as if he's against cuts ever period.

And you accuse me of lacking intellectual honesty?

Secondly, all defense spending is not military spending. Defense spending can be done completely outside of the military or the military industrial complex with which Clark is so inseparably ingrained as a 4-star general.

Dean would cut military spending, that quote I just posted shows that. He would move funds to domestic defense needs, among other areas, which do not involve the military or military contractors. So stop trying to blur the two together to facilitate attacks, it is a cheap and desperate ploy.


"Dean wants to balance the budget, without cutting military spending. How is he going to do that without cutting public spending? "

First by getting rid of Bush's tax cuts that caused the budget problem in the first place, and also by redirecting that military spending to domestic spending on public issues that have a national defense role like first responders.

As I said Dean's position is stronger because it accomplishes the reallocation of funds for domestic needs, while avoiding the attack that he's soft on defense.

[Julien Sorel]

81. It's not a question of 'period.'

He said he wouldn't reduce spending while we're under threat of terrorism, which is essentially forever. It's a meaningless qualifier.

Secondly, all defense spending is not military spending. Defense spending can be done completely outside of the military or the military industrial complex with which Clark is so inseparably ingrained as a 4-star general.

Defense spending is defense spending; moreover, you are now trying to pretend Dean said things he didn't. I laid out the budget quite simply: there is defense spending, and there is public spending. Dean has said he refuses to cut defense spending; however he 're-allocates' it, he still can't make defense spending public spending. It's having your cake and eating it, too. I realize, again, that this is something Dean can do that others can't -- one of the things that makes him 'new and different,' but convincing the public of that might be another story -- they know better.

Dean would cut military spending, that quote I just posted shows that. He would move funds to domestic defense needs, among other areas, which do not involve the military or military contractors. So stop trying to blur the two together to facilitate attacks, it is a cheap and desperate ploy.

This is actually awful. You are saying defense spending can be public spending at the same time, and then accuse me of 'blurring' the two? Money spent on defense can't be spent on education. Money spent on defense can't be spent on transfer payments. Money spent on defence can't be spent on social security. Money spent on defense can't be spent on improving the infrastructure. It's a simple accounting reality: they are two different columns in the spending books. Dean has repeatedly stated he won't touch the defence column -- period. Whether he 're-directs' the money to this or that sector of the defence budget, he's still spending it on defense, not on the public.

First by getting rid of Bush's tax cuts that caused the budget problem in the first place, and also by redirecting that military spending to domestic spending on public issues that have a national defense role like first responders.

The budget problems were caused by a poor economy, not tax cuts.
rescinding the tax cuts will only put a dent in the deficit. Dean himself actually acknowledges this fact. The rest of this paragraph is simply rhetoric, and already dealt with -- you can't spend the same money twice.

As I said Dean's position is stronger because it accomplishes the reallocation of funds for domestic needs, while avoiding the attack that he's soft on defense.

And as I have demonstrated, this is fantasyland thinking.

[TLM]

83. You continue to try and hide behind blured terminology...

"He said he wouldn't reduce spending while we're under threat of terrorism, which is essentially forever. It's a meaningless qualifier."

I disagree with the premise that we'll always be under threat of terrorism. In fact a few significant policy changes, such as the oil policy reform Dean suggests would go a long way to eliminating that threat.

But then that wouldn’t do anything to support your attacks, would it?


"Defense spending is defense spending;"

You are now saying defense spending instead of military spending. Why the sudden change in terminology if you were correct in the first place?

"moreover, you are now trying to pretend Dean said things he didn't."

Such as?


" I laid out the budget quite simply: there is defense spending, and there is public spending. Dean has said he refuses to cut defense spending;"

No he said it is foolish to do so in a time of war, not that he refuses to do so. You continue to try and spin Dean's position as being against any kind of cut ever, period. When in fact all he has said is that he doesn't think it would be a good idea right now.

Why the need for this spin?

" however he 're-allocates' it, he still can't make defense spending public spending."

If the money goes from being spent on some mini-nuke project or star wars and is redirected to a domestic use such as port inspections or first responders, thus freeing up public funds which would have been used for those things, is that not the same net result?

"This is actually awful. You are saying defense spending can be public spending at the same time, and then accuse me of 'blurring' the two? "

No I am accusing you of blurring defense spending and military spending. Defense spending can be public spending... if it is spent on public resources that have a role in national defense. Police and firefighters are public, and if defense funds were used to get police and firefighters better ready to deal with an attack, that would be an example of defense funds being spent on public needs.

If the defense budget can pay for R&D for weapons to fight oil funded terrorists, why can't it be used for R&D for synthetic or recycled oil? It is a great way of getting things done by making them part of national defense.

"Money spent on defense can't be spent on education."

No but it can be spent on things which draw funds from state budgets, like police and firefighters. Thus freeing up funds that can be used for education.

"Money spent on defense can't be spent on transfer payments. Money spent on defence can't be spent on social security."

Again... see the above statement. Defense spending can be redirected to fund things which are currently drawing funds from state and local budgets, thus freeing up funds for other things.

"Money spent on defense can't be spent on improving the infrastructure. "

Actually I would think that it could... you'd just need a national defense excuse for it. Certainly in terms of our transportation, shipping, airports, and power grid, there is an argument to be made that their poor condition could pose a threat. And given the fact that our oil money funds our enemies, there is an argument to be made that reforming our oil policy is a big national defense issue.

"It's a simple accounting reality: they are two different columns in the spending books. Dean has repeatedly stated he won't touch the defence column -- period. Whether he 're-directs' the money to this or that sector of the defence budget, he's still spending it on defense, not on the public."

I’d be a lot more comfortable with your opinions on defense spending, if you could spell defense. And exactly how do you figure that defense spending redirected to domestic defense needs that directly benefit the public and free up public funds, isn't achieving the same net result?

"The budget problems were caused by a poor economy, not tax cuts."

Bush borrowed against the projected surplus for the tax cut. That is exactly what created the deficits. What planet have you been on the last three years? There was like a trillion bucks in tax cuts… the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would more than cover the current deficits. Are you confusing the deficit with the debt?

The economy tanked because Bush, like all republicans, pushed a trickle down economic model that caused a recession, creating numerous buying opportunities for his corporate pals.


"rescinding the tax cuts will only put a dent in the deficit. Dean himself actually acknowledges this fact."

Really, care to cite that quote?

"The rest of this paragraph is simply rhetoric, and already dealt with -- you can't spend the same money twice."

You ask for answers, then avoid them. If we’re not going to respond to rhetoric, then there’s nothing in your post that is worthy of response, as you’ve posted nothing but rhetoric.


"And as I have demonstrated, this is fantasyland thinking."

You've demonstrated that all you have to offer in support of Clark are attacks on Dean. And when called on it, you have to dodge and backpedal.

I guess your positions, like Clark's, are still under construction.

[Julien Sorel]

85. -----------------------

You are now saying defense spending instead of military spending. Why the sudden change in terminology if you were correct in the first place?

In honest discussion, the two are used interchangeably. 'Honest discussion' being the operative words.

No he said it is foolish to do so in a time of war, not that he refuses to do so. You continue to try and spin Dean's position as being against any kind of cut ever, period. When in fact all he has said is that he doesn't think it would be a good idea right now.

Dean said what he said. It doesn't need to be 'spun.' Instead of me debating you over what Dean meant, read the transcripts from the infamous Russert interview, where Russert raked him over the coals on this exact topic. Dean didn't try any nonsense about 'I'm going to cut the military budget one day.' Instead, he hemmed and hawed about Social Security, and when cornered, retreated into the same airy kind of empty rhetoric you use.

No I am accusing you of blurring defense spending and military spending. Defense spending can be public spending... if it is spent on public resources that have a role in national defense. Police and firefighters are public, and if defense funds were used to get police and firefighters better ready to deal with an attack, that would be an example of defense funds being spent on public needs.

Back to the same nonsense. You're trying to double count defence spending, and it can't be done. It's simply a fact of accounting. As soon as you start spending money on police, it stops becoming defence spending. Get it?

I’d be a lot more comfortable with your opinions on defense spending, if you could spell defense. And exactly how do you figure that defense spending redirected to domestic defense needs that directly benefit the public and free up public funds, isn't achieving the same net result?

Nice swipe -- except that 'defence' is the English version of our 'defense,' and I use the two interchangeably. As for me, I'd feel more comfortable about your views on defence if didn't continue trying to pretend spending money on firefighters is really defence spending. One more attempt at penetrating: if the feds used the Army to quell a riot, would the money spent be considered military spending, or public spending when it was charged to the budget? I already know the answer -- it's military spending. It happened in the 60s on more than one occasion.

No but it can be spent on things which draw funds from state budgets, like police and firefighters. Thus freeing up funds that can be used for education.

You repeat this incessantly; it's been dealt with -- too many times to count.

Bush borrowed against the projected surplus for the tax cut. That is exactly what created the deficits. What planet have you been on the last three years? There was like a trillion bucks in tax cuts… the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would more than cover the current deficits. Are you confusing the deficit with the debt?

The economy tanked because Bush, like all republicans, pushed a trickle down economic model that caused a recession, creating numerous buying opportunities for his corporate pals.

No, they wouldn't, and you are again revealing ignorance. Here's Dean, trying to defend himself against Russert in the infamous interview:

Russert: But, Governor, if you don’t go to near Social Security or Medicare or Defense and you have a $500 billion deficit, if you’re not going to raise taxes $500 billion to balance the budget, where are you going to find the money? Which programs are you going to cut? What do you cut? Education? Health care? Where?
Dean: Here’s what you do. As a veteran of having to do this, because this is what I did in Vermont, Social Security, you fix actuarially. It’s just like an insurance policy. Right now there’s— eventually, in the middle of the 2020s you’re going to see more money going out than coming in. You’ve got to fix that. We’ve talked a little bit about how to do that. Maybe you look at the retirement age going to 68. Maybe you increase the amount that gets—payroll tax—I’m not in favor of cutting benefits. I think that’s a big problem.

It's an acknowledgement that rescinding the tax cuts won't do it. Notice, by the way, the flopping around as he runs from bad solution to bad solution.

By the way, I'd suggest you do some reading on what caused the budget deficit. Here, I 'gotta link' for you:

http://www.ombwatch.org/budget/pdf/cbo_percentages.pdf

Half the deficit was caused by tax cuts. Obviously, then, the other half wasn't.

You've demonstrated that all you have to offer in support of Clark are attacks on Dean. And when called on it, you have to dodge and backpedal.

I guess your positions, like Clark's, are still under construction.

As I've said before of chez Kool-aid, better 'under construction' than what passes for 'construction' in Dean's world. Dean is either going to cut public spending, he's going to raise taxes, or he's going to keep running Bush's deficits barring another Clinton economic recovery -- and Dean has fronted no plans that would allow for that. He's a conservative who supports civil unions for gays.

[TLM]

86. So do you have anything but personal attacks and rhetoric?

You are now saying defense spending instead of military spending. Why the sudden change in terminology if you were correct in the first place?


"In honest discussion, the two are used interchangeably."

No, in uninformed discussion the two are used interchangably... in an informed discussion one would know that defense spending is not all going to military applications. Now I understand that bluring the two to try and spin Dean as being all for more military spending might help you try to sofen the war monger hawk image of General Clark, but lets not act as if it is anything close to honest.


No he said it is foolish to do so in a time of war, not that he refuses to do so. You continue to try and spin Dean's position as being against any kind of cut ever, period. When in fact all he has said is that he doesn't think it would be a good idea right now.


"Dean said what he said."

Which seems to have little or nothing to do with what you claim he said.

"It doesn't need to be 'spun.'"

Then stop spinning it.


"Instead of me debating you over what Dean meant, read the transcripts from the infamous Russert interview, where Russert raked him over the coals on this exact topic."

You mean where he brought up Dean quote about cutting defense along with raising the SS age? Oh wait that part doesn't help your attacks, so ignore it and stick to the meme you're supposed to spew this week.


"Dean didn't try any nonsense about 'I'm going to cut the military budget one day.'"

You lie and say Dean has made this rock solid set in stone statements that he'll never cut the pentagon budget no matter what ever, and I'm simply pointing out that you are spining what Dean has said which is basicaly that cutting defense in war time is a bad idea.


" Instead, he hemmed and hawed about Social Security, and when cornered, retreated into the same airy kind of empty rhetoric you use."

So when you spin is shot down, you run to try and hide behind Russert's? That's kind of sad.


No I am accusing you of blurring defense spending and military spending. Defense spending can be public spending... if it is spent on public resources that have a role in national defense. Police and firefighters are public, and if defense funds were used to get police and firefighters better ready to deal with an attack, that would be an example of defense funds being spent on public needs.

"Back to the same nonsense. You're trying to double count defence spending, and it can't be done. It's simply a fact of accounting. As soon as you start spending money on police, it stops becoming defence spending. Get it? "

No it doesn't. If you take pentagon budget funds and redirect them to domestic needs, they are still pentagon funds being spent on national defense issues. However, the benefit of that defense spending is felt domesticaly.

Sticking your head in the sand and crying because it doesn't fit your spin, won't change the fact that the net result of Dean's defense spending policy has a fiscal benefit domestically.


I’d be a lot more comfortable with your opinions on defense spending, if you could spell defense. And exactly how do you figure that defense spending redirected to domestic defense needs that directly benefit the public and free up public funds, isn't achieving the same net result?


"Nice swipe -- except that 'defence' is the English version of our 'defense,' and I use the two interchangeably. As for me, I'd feel more comfortable about your views on defence if didn't continue trying to pretend spending money on firefighters is really defence spending."

If firefighters are first responders to a terroist attack, then they are serving a national defense role, and as such can be funded, at least in part, by funds for national defense. I do not see what you have such a hard time understanding about this?


"One more attempt at penetrating: if the feds used the Army to quell a riot, would the money spent be considered military spending, or public spending when it was charged to the budget? I already know the answer -- it's military spending. It happened in the 60s on more than one occasion."

What does that have to do with the topic at hand... of course funds for troops actions, (and I think you mean national guard, not army)are paid for by the military budget... what's that got to do with anything?

What Dean is talking about is redirecting defense funds to domestic security needs... paying for public services like police and firefighters, which has a net benefit to the public. If the DOD sends states money to prep their first responders, that's still defense spending... eventhough it directly funds a domestic public service and frees up state funds.



No but it can be spent on things which draw funds from state budgets, like police and firefighters. Thus freeing up funds that can be used for education.

"You repeat this incessantly; it's been dealt with -- too many times to count."


Again when you stick your head in the sand, it does nothing to refute the points of my argument.



Bush borrowed against the projected surplus for the tax cut. That is exactly what created the deficits. What planet have you been on the last three years? There was like a trillion bucks in tax cuts… the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would more than cover the current deficits. Are you confusing the deficit with the debt?

The economy tanked because Bush, like all republicans, pushed a trickle down economic model that caused a recession, creating numerous buying opportunities for his corporate pals.

"No, they wouldn't, and you are again revealing ignorance. Here's Dean, trying to defend himslef against Russert in the infamous interview:

Russert: But, Governor, if you don’t go to near Social Security or Medicare or Defense and you have a $500 billion deficit, if you’re not going to raise taxes $500 billion to balance the budget, where are you going to find the money? Which programs are you going to cut? What do you cut? Education? Health care? Where?
Dean: Here’s what you do. As a veteran of having to do this, because this is what I did in Vermont, Social Security, you fix actuarially. It’s just like an insurance policy. Right now there’s— eventually, in the middle of the 2020s you’re going to see more money going out than coming in. You’ve got to fix that. We’ve talked a little bit about how to do that. Maybe you look at the retirement age going to 68. Maybe you increase the amount that gets—payroll tax—I’m not in favor of cutting benefits. I think that’s a big problem.

It's an acknowledgement that rescinding the tax cuts won't do it. Notice, by the way, the flopping around as he runs from bad solution to bad solution."

No it isn't. That's Russert trying to spin repealing the Bush tax cuts as a tax increase. Read the quote, "if you’re not going to raise taxes $500 billion to balance the budget." Care to cite exactly where Russert had already prefaced this question with the tax cuts being repealed?

You're really getting desperate in your attacks here.


"By the way, I'd suggest you do some reading on what caused the budget deficit. Here, I 'gotta link' for you:

http://www.ombwatch.org/budget/pdf/cbo_percentages.pdf

Half the deficit was caused by tax cuts. Obviously, then, the other half wasn't."


LOL! You didn't even read this report, did you?

"For 2004, this represents a $279 billion deterioration in the budget outlook (see Table 1). A detailed breakdown of the CBO data shows that 48% of the budget deterioration that occurred between March and August was due to legislative changes affecting revenue (see Table 2). At just over 16 percent of gross domestic product, revenue is now at its lowest level in 40 years.1

In addition, only 14% of the deterioration for 2004 was due to changes in non-military expenditure legislation (see Table 3). Defense spending was responsible for 19%, and the remainder was due to technical changes. Economic changes accounted for none of the deterioration."

Half the deficit was caused by tax cuts, and the rest by the war spending, and non-military spending changes (read corporate welfare).

NONE was caused by economic changes.



You've demonstrated that all you have to offer in support of Clark are attacks on Dean. And when called on it, you have to dodge and backpedal.

I guess your positions, like Clark's, are still under construction.


"As I've said before of chez Kool-aid, better 'under construction' than what passes for 'construction' in Dean's world."

Yep... can't defend CLark being half assed about this, so attack Dean for haivng too much info on his site.


"Dean is either going to cut public spending, he's going to raise taxes,"

He's rolling back the Bush tax cuts... are you trying to spint that as raising taxes as Russert did? Is Clark against rolling back the Bush tax cuts?

"or he's going to keep running Bush's deficits barring another Clinton economic recovery -- and Dean has fronted no plans that would allow for that."

He most certainly has, starting with returning the tax structure to the levels set under clinton.

"He's a conservative who supports civil unions for gays."

And Clark is a war criminal who said he'd be republican if Rove had returned his calls. You want to play the BS mud slinging game, we can, and you'll lose.

[Julien Sorel]

87. Same song, different verse.

No, in uninformed discussion the two are used interchangably... in an informed discussion one would know that defense spending is not all going to military applications. Now I understand that bluring the two to try and spin Dean as being all for more military spending might help you try to sofen the war monger hawk image of General Clark, but lets not act as if it is anything close to honest.

What about this discussion marks you as 'informed?' You don't understand the definitions; you can't make a clean point -- you can't even spell 'blurred.' (what is 'blured?'). If you want to call yourself 'informed,' be my guest -- but I know better. By the way, why do you think it's called the 'military-industrial complex,' and not the 'defence-industrial complex?' Food for thought. Don't choke on it, though. ;-)


You're really getting desperate in your attacks here.

Yes, yes, yes. Nice one. Like 'correcting' me on spelling. But not a point, of course.

What Dean is talking about is redirecting defense funds to domestic security needs... paying for public services like police and firefighters, which has a net benefit to the public. If the DOD sends states money to prep their first responders, that's still defense spending... eventhough it directly funds a domestic public service and frees up state funds.

At it again. Now you're actually being specific -- and wrong. This is a shell game. If the DoD sends money to the states, it's actually a transfer payment coming from the feds to the states, and therefore not really part of the federal budget, let alone the military budget. It's reducing the military budget without calling it that. 'Gotta link' where Dean says he'll do this? Or will it be another of the good Dr's vague remarks which you will interpret for him?

You lie and say Dean has made this rock solid set in stone statements that he'll never cut the pentagon budget no matter what ever, and I'm simply pointing out that you are spining what Dean has said which is basicaly that cutting defense in war time is a bad idea.

Nice putting words in my mouth. Dean himself put the military budget off-limits with the caveat of 'while we are under threat of terrorist attacks,' which is an indeterminate date. Budget and spending are now, not at some far off date in the future. For the purpose of making policy, Dean is working with a fixed military budget for the indefinite future. Show me, by the way, where I said 'no matter what, ever.' You can't. But of course, the integrity to admit you're making it up isn;t there. That would be twice.


Sticking your head in the sand and crying because it doesn't fit your spin, won't change the fact that the net result of Dean's defense spending policy has a fiscal benefit domestically.

Gee, everything is spin, spin, spin. but I'm the one who makes personal attacks. Just repeating your opinion, by the way. I suppose if you do it enough times, that makes it come true.

LOL! You didn't even read this report, did you?

"For 2004, this represents a $279 billion deterioration in the budget outlook (see Table 1). A detailed breakdown of the CBO data shows that 48% of the budget deterioration that occurred between March and August was due to legislative changes affecting revenue (see Table 2). At just over 16 percent of gross domestic product, revenue is now at its lowest level in 40 years.1

In addition, only 14% of the deterioration for 2004 was due to changes in non-military expenditure legislation (see Table 3). Defense spending was responsible for 19%, and the remainder was due to technical changes. Economic changes accounted for none of the deterioration."

Yep, I skimmed through the report too quickly. However...

The point is to show that rescinding Bush's tax cut alone will not eliminate the deficit -- which that resource does. There is now a structural deficit in place which can only be bridged by an additional increase in taxes (beyond merely rescinding Bush's tax cuts), a reduction in public spending (Howie says he like guns, so the military is off-limits), a sustained period of economic growth, or (most likely) a combination of the above. Failed attempts at sophistry notwithstanding, Dean has indicated which side of that fence he comes down on -- and it isn't cutting military spending. That leaves growth (chimerical), or public spending. I know what a real Democrat would choose. I know what Howard says he would choose. The two aren't the same.

And Clark is a war criminal who said he'd be republican if Rove had returned his calls. You want to play the BS mud slinging game, we can, and you'll lose.

LOL.

[Capn Sunshine]

62. Clark was there and in charge

WHEN THE PENTAGON LOST 3 TRILLION DOLLARS.

Can he help us find it? It would really help.

PS that figure is just for the 16 months Clark was a 4 star atthe Pentagon.

figures reveal thus far the Pentagon is unable to account for over twice that figure.

So tell me, can he help with this, or did he not have a clue what was going on on his watch?

[TLM]

65. Oh ouch... i did not realize Clark was the guy in charge...

when the pentagon was spending all that money they can't account for.

Shit, should we even consider letting that guy near a defense budget?

Then again, maybe he knows exactly where the wasteful spending is, because he helped put it there?


Clark is starting to look more and more like the DLC's "Break glass in case of Dean" candidate.

[Julien Sorel]

68. I love the smell of desperation in the morning.

Clark was never in charge of the Pentagon budget. In fact, no military person is; budgeting is handled by civilians. Try again -- this time with feeling.

[Bertrand]

71. excellent point, Billy

i still cant understand why supporters of other candidates have to attack rivals to the point that they will overlook elementary civics to throw their venom. It's disgusting.

[diamondsoul]

75. Not all of us do, Bertrand.

I happen to have a great deal of respect for Clark, despite supporting Kucinich. The charge leveled in the post Billy replied to is just incredibly ignorant.

It's sort of like suggesting the Maitre'De at a four star restaurant has some control over what the Chef decides to serve. Um, free clue, they DON'T! Clark had NO control over where the funds went, nor probably any information to that affect. He could request funds for specific purposes as commander of our European forces, and that was it. If they said no, he had to go back and say "Well, folks, we can't perform this operation because we don't have the funds.".

There is one thing about Clarks candidacy that is painfully evident- that is civilians do NOT understand military heirarchy in any way shape or form. I guess that would explain why so many are absorbed in the delusion that military service is somehow a "cushy" job in peace-time.

[TLM]

76. So are you saying that since he was not in charge of the budget...

that means he had nothing at all to do with spending, tracking, or accounting for the massive amounts of money that went missing under his watch?

He may not have been the one to decide how much money the pentagon was given... but once that money was given to the pentagon, what role did Clark play in the handling of that money?

It begs the question… how can we now trust Clark to clean up the mess in the pentagon, when he couldn’t clean up that mess when he was a top level guy in the pentagon?

[Julien Sorel]

80. Sorry, *You* made the charge; *you* prove it's true.

It's called the burden of proof, and it's squarely on your shoulders. Your attempt to change the subject is noted, however.

[TLM]

82. Well I see you couldn't answer my questions...

For someone who was just flaming others for not answering your questions, you certianly changed your tune the second some questions were asked about your guy.

[nolabels]

77. This does not escape the fact that it was his lifelong employer.

So what are you stating here, he knows nothing of the DOD, so should not be held accountable in any way? Does this not kind of blow the cover that he was so successful in the military, with the management and everything?

So this means he should be given a greater responsibility to do others things because it was them other people he had no control over but yet he did nothing about it because it was not his job or he is not capable because wasn’t his job and was not authorized.

Sounds more like big blue wall of silence that happens to people in most the police forces when they are at the bottom ranks. Yet that does not square because he was in the top ranks of the hierarchy.

So, really which one is it, he knows nothing about it? he does not know how really broke it is? or he knows and is not speaking?. Some people are not being real honest, I wonder

[diamondsoul]

72. WHAT in blue blazes are you talking about?!

Clark has NEVER been "in charge" anywhere in the Pentagon! He most assuredly was never in charge of Pentagon spending or there wouldn't BE any "missing" funds!

Do yourself, your candidate, and everyone else a favor and please know your facts before you level ridiculous charges like this one. Clark was "in charge" of a SINGLE leg of military operations- AUSAE, was it? (Supporters please correct me, I'm awful with the anacronysms!*LOL*) In any case, that's a FAR cry from calling the shots on ALL Pentagon spending, or even having the information to raise a stink about ALL Pentagon spending.

[Donna Zen]

78. What I don't understand

Is why I have posted the the link to J Marshall's thread and no one who supports Dean or Clark seems to be interested in the following:

But on this point Dean's position has evolved too. In that same Face the Nation interview, when asked whether there were conditions under which he might favor war, Dean said ...

My question is not that we may not have to go into Iraq. We may very well have to go into Iraq. What is the rush? Why can't we take the time to get our allies on board? Why do we have to do everything in a unilateral way?

...

My problem is not whether we're going to end up in Iraq or not. Saddam Hussein appears to be doing everything he can to make sure we do go into Iraq. My problem is, it is important to bring in our allies.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/sept0303.html

The point here is if one actually read about Dean's position rather than dreaming it up, the reality if very different that his supporters would have us think. Or prehaps they don't want to know Dean's position.

[TLM]

79. Dean has not been the one trying to present himself as anti-war.

In fact he has said many times that he is not anti-war, he is anti-war for no good reason.

The folks who have been trying to brand him as anti-war far out leftist fringe loony are the same folks now having a fit about how Dean has changed his position or flip flopped because their labels didn't stick.


And now they are going back to hypothetical questions about there being any situation where Dean might support war in Iraq, and trying to act as if that means Dean was all for the war in Iraq. Dean was real clear that certian things would need to take place to justify war with Iraq, and those things did not happen.

[blm]

89. Because they can't admit the inconsistencies of Dean on Iraq.

However, when the clips of Dean contradicting himself are shown in an ad, then what will they do? They'll scream that he is being smeared and pay no attention to the fact that Dean is on TAPE contradicting himself.