Who Won Final Presidential Debate?

There's really no explaining things to FastGoon. That's what makes him so entertaining.

If I ever need you as a teacher,

. . . please shoot me!

The point that President Obama made in the final debate was that the military evolves and what matters most is the capability of its assets more than the number. It remains that military technology has not evolved enough to enable one ship to cruise in two disparate oceans or seas: so in the end, the number of sea going vessels does matter, so Odumbo ignorantly deflected with his inane comparison. It remains that Odumbo's inane comparison was factually wrong: U.S. servicemen still use bayonets.

The US already spends more than any other nation on defense. BOGUS COMPARISON!

That should be obvious to any objective mind, but Romney wants to suck up to the military by spending more on it even when they have not asked for it.

President Obama understands that we as a nation need to get our economic house in order.

Full economic recovery needs to be our priority right now, not spending more on an already bloated military.President Cleveland used Military Keynesianism to ease the suffering of tens of thousands during the Panic of 1893 -- and he built the "Great White Fleet" that Teddy Roosevelt would later make famous. Cleveland managed to get a tangible return for the money he spent, unlike Odumbo.

. . . For those that missed the point, our soldiers no longer use bayonets. Those things are relics of the past. WRONG!


Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

As a fraction of the GDP, the U.S. spends less on defense than at least eight other countries. Furthermore, there are at least six countries that possess numerically superior military forces.

As a fraction of the GDP, the U.S. spends less on defense than at least eight other countries. .
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/p...tumn/sharp.pdf

IfUS GDP continues its long-termupward trajectory, as it has done in
remarkable fashion since the end ofWorldWar II, then tying defense spending
toGDPbasically amounts to using overallwealth creation to justify ever-larger
defense budgets. If the American economy doubles in size, should American
taxpayers be required to double the Pentagon’s budget as well? Should future
generations spend three times more on defense just because they are three
timeswealthier? The answer is a resounding “no.” Intelligent defense planning
relies on requirements, tradeoffs, and a thorough evaluation of risk, notGDP, to

determine need.

. Furthermore, there are at least six countries that possess numerically superior military forces.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Don't forget the numerically superior Injuns!

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/p...tumn/sharp.pdf

IfUS GDP continues its long-termupward trajectory, as it has done in
remarkable fashion since the end ofWorldWar II, then tying defense spending
toGDPbasically amounts to using overallwealth creation to justify ever-larger
defense budgets. If the American economy doubles in size, should American
taxpayers be required to double the Pentagon’s budget as well? Should future
generations spend three times more on defense just because they are three
timeswealthier? The answer is a resounding “no.” Intelligent defense planning
relies on requirements, tradeoffs, and a thorough evaluation of risk, notGDP, to

determine need.




Don't forget the numerically superior Injuns! Another bogus comparison. Native Americans -- just like Europeans -- were never united.
Originally Posted by WTF

WTF, you are ignoring labor costs as a factor in a rising military budget. Volunteer servicemen are paid more today -- incentivized -- than they were during WWII. Labor wages are higher today than they were during WWII. A rising GDP mirrors increased wages which mirrors increased costs: it's circular and inseparable unless you want to completely outsource U.S. military technology, production and service to China or Vietnam. The Romans did that in Germany, and you can see where that got them.

Yeah, them Injuns are gonna invade the US and shoot us all dead with them bows and arrows of theirs!

You think they could use some bayonets? We've got more than we know what to do with!

The fact is that the USA already spends too much on defense.

We already spend more than any other country and have more than enough ships and planes to defend ourselves.

Yet, in spite of this, Mitt Romney wants to spend more!

. . . President Obama is wise to trim spending on defense if this country is ever going to get its economic house in order.

The fact is that the USA already spends too much on defense.

We already spend more than any other country and have more than enough ships and planes to defend ourselves.

Yet, in spite of this, Mitt Romney wants to spend more!

. . . President Obama is wise to trim spending on defense if this country is ever going to get its economic house in order. Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

The Heritage Foundation asserts, "the [Odumbo] administration set a goal of slashing the defense budget, and then crafted a strategy justifying such draconian cuts." Romney's proposed "increase" mostly reflects a military budget without Odumbo's "cuts". Regarding what the military asked for, until very recently the the navy claimed it needed 313 vessels to meet its current mission requirements -- under Odumbo that number magically dropped to 300. Even so, the navy still does not have 300 operational vessels. And this is what the U.S. is defending in relation to other countries:

[IMG]http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/548*425/sack102412.jpg[/IMG]

The US already has the strongest military in the world.

I think everyone except Romney and IB know that.

What the US really needs is to improve its economy.

You do that by spending your money wisely and not buying more superfluous weapons.

. . . What part of common sense do you not understand?

The US already has the strongest military in the world.

I think everyone except Romney and IB know that.

What the US really needs is to improve its economy.

You do that by spending your money wisely and not buying more superfluous weapons.

. . . What part of common sense do you not understand?

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

And how did the U.S. become the "strongest military in the world" FastGoon? It certainly didn't happen with a budget like the one Odumbo proposes. The Chinese are currently manufacturing state of the art weapons systems; it's no time for the U.S. to sit idly by and allow them the opportunity to catch up. You have the mentality of Aesop's hare thinking you can take a nap and still retain the lead.