Romney says that his plan to spend a minimum of 4 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, not including war funding, on the military would help reverse a "dangerous decline under the Clinton administration."
The TRUTH: The slowdown in military spending started during the Reagan administration. As a share of GDP, modern-era defense spending peaked at 6.2 percent in 1986, slowed to 5.6 percent in fiscal 1989, the last Reagan budget year, and drifted steadily down to bottom out at 3 percent in fiscal 2001.
And that is approximately where it is today.
Can Romney supporters explain this 'dangerous decline'?
2007-11-14 03:00:04 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Latest tallies have the Mess in the Middle East costing us nearly 2 TRILLION DOLLARS...2 trillion.
It's so obscene that we are borrowing money from China to fund this war.
Lets bring our boys home and start taking care of America before we continue to fail at taking care at the rest of the world.
Ron Paul 2008
2007-11-14 04:01:52 · answer #1 · answered by ducktown10 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are some charts on the power-point graph that are based on Congressional Budget Office Figures. Your statement is accurate up to 2001. However, today it is slightly over 4%. Most of the decline can be attributed to the fall of the Soviet Union, which decreased the amount needed for defense. Most of the liberal answers are dubitable nonsense from a group to lazy or ignorant to look up the facts before engaging keyboard.
Personally, I don't like any of the crooks running. Romney is the Republican equivalent of Hillary Clinton when it comes to flip-flopping.
2007-11-14 03:32:58 · answer #2 · answered by Return of Bite My Shiny Metal... 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Let us look at your paper TRUTH in the real world. Defense spending peaked in 1986? Do you think maybe the Cold War had something to do with this? Slowed in 1989? Perhaps the end of the Cold War was the reason for reduced military spending. And you say it drifted steadily down under the Clinton Administration. Could this possibly be explained by Clinton's closing of military bases and reduction of military personnel?
Military spending fell 0.6% under Reagan because of the end of the Cold war. It fell 2.6% under Clinton because he hates the military.
When we look at your TRUTH under an historical prospective it turns out to be not the TRUTH but a distortion.
So sorry contestant number 3. As a parting gift please take my disdain for your pathetic attempt to discredit the Republican party.
2007-11-14 03:48:22 · answer #3 · answered by bill j 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Military spending was high when we had the USSR to worry about. It could have easily invaded Europe and then we would have had to have another war. Once the USSR dissolved there was no need to have an army there to defend against an attack that would never come. It would have been a complete waste of money. Kind of like putting up military bases along the Canadian border to protect against an attack like during the French and Indian Wars. Its true you need to spend something to keep a military, and you should pay your soldiers well and equip them well, but there is no reason to waste money, its the lifeblood of the economy. Ironically, it was supporting a huge, oversized military that bankrupted the USSR and put them out of business. We don't want to follow that example.
2007-11-14 03:06:35 · answer #4 · answered by jxt299 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
I'll explain it. The accusation is utterly false and Romney probably knows it. But Republicans have been accusing the Democtats of weakening National Defense since Jimmy Carter (it was not true then-- he INCREASED Defense Spending) as a means of getting votes, so much so that the constant repetition has given it the sound of truth. For many people, the "truth" is whatever they want to believe.
2007-11-14 03:04:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 4⤋
Does Romney have supporters?
2007-11-14 03:30:49 · answer #6 · answered by Gaia 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The largest decline was during Clinton's admin. He called it the peace dividend.
2007-11-14 03:30:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
lets bring all the troops back home then they can stretch those dollars even farther
Ron Paul 08
2007-11-14 03:40:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Only when they figure out we are not stupid and are capable of checking the facts. But then Bushwacker lied and he is still in office.
2007-11-14 03:11:38 · answer #9 · answered by industrialconfusion 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
republican thoughts:
" I can lie and cause damange. The chances are pretty good that i'll get caught lying... in that case i'll apologize...
if i DON'T get caught that's great... because the damage is done...
if i DO get caught...it's still okay..because the damages has already been done."
2007-11-14 03:11:49 · answer #10 · answered by sam f 4 · 3⤊ 3⤋