Clark wants to cut defense spending?

[CTLawGuy]

Wouldn't that be just as bad in front of the voters as Dean's plan to "raise" taxes?

"You can't cut the defense budget in a time of war! What are you, some kind of commie?"

[Renew Deal]

1. Commies

[CTLawGuy]

2. haha

I knew it :tinfoilhat:

[Dookus]

3. good look with that argument....

most liberals want to cut Defense spending... just like Clark. He's a real liberal.

Clark will have a much better chance of doing it than any other candidate. You should be happy.

[CTLawGuy]

4. Im talking about the

Swing Voters you guys love so much when I say that. those same voters you so BRILLIANTLY say will never vote for Dean for wanting to get rid of Bushs entire irresponsible tax policy.

[maxr4clark]

9. Swing voters don't like deficits any more than liberals do

and when a military man says the military budget should be cut, people listen.

If Bush had proposed that subsidies to oil companies should be cut, people would have voted for it in a second.

If Dean says Vermont gets too much federal aid, he will be believed.

[CTLawGuy]

38. haha

and a war hero (mcGovern) cannot be an america-hating communist, because, come on, he's a war hero, and he won't lose 49 states.

[KittyWampus]

49. Listen UP Darboy, The Pentagon Misplaced Trillions of Dollars

"Rumsfeld casually admitted that the Pentagon had misplaced $2.3 trillion." (google it)
"The Pentagon misplaced $1.1 trillion in 2001 and refuses to reveal how much it lost track of in 2002."

All Clark would have to do is cite the OBVIOUS waste going on.

Trillions of dollars is NOT a bunch of contractors skimming off money to buy matching golf clubs and shoes in every possible color... it is more than if they all bought matching yachts...

Just so you know, the United States GDP is about 9 Trillion.

The Pentagon lost about a third of all the money the United States made.

[maxr4clark]

5. Not necessarily

The biggest pork in the defense budget are the weapons systems, like missile defense, that are legacies from fighting a Soviet threat and clearly don't help in the war on terrorism.

With Clark's background, he has the credibility to be believed when he says that there are parts of the Defense budget that are pork and should be cut even in time of war, while redirecting money to the right things. None of the other Democrats can be believed saying the same thing.

Didn't you get the memo? It isn't "What are you, some kind of commie?" anymore, but "What are you, some kind of terrorist?"

[CTLawGuy]

7. no

"Didn't you get the memo? It isn't "What are you, some kind of commie?" anymore, but "What are you, some kind of terrorist?""

I missed that memo...


but seriously, how can Clark get away with that among the swing voters, those same swing voters who "hate Dean" because of his tax policy?

[maxr4clark]

12. I don't think swing voters hate Dean because of his tax policy

I think swing voters hear Dean's primary platform as "Bush was wrong to go to war in Iraq", and either disagree or agree; and are looking for signs of what Dean might do if he were in charge. If Dean can get beyond defending himself against attacks from Kerry and Lieberman, we might even get a chance to hear what he might do.

Besides which, your argument doesn't quite make sense. A swing voter might be for decreasing government spending, as Clark is proposing to do by cutting the defense budget, AND be against raising taxes as Dean says is necessary; both end up with the government getting/spending less money. There are plenty of voters that want that.

Like many Clark supporters, I'm not anti-Dean; I'm just pro-Clark.

[xultar]

6. The pentagon budget is BLOATED, they need to start budgeting,

quit giving sweetheart deals to Rummy and Dick's friends.

They don't have to pay 4,000 for an ashtray on a f-16.

Trim the budget and make them make it work without comprimises in Nat'l security!

[CTLawGuy]

11. yes

and, the entire Bush tax cut was horrible fiscal policy. We need to repeal it all to restore fiscal and economic health in this country. Both our messages are reasonable to any thinking person, but you guys say Dean's message will ensure Dean's loss among swing voters. Why not Clarks? The neocons won't jump on him for "cutting our defense in a time of war?"

[Crunchy Frog]

29. It looks to me

that you are only looking at this issue as another Dean Clark pissing match. People are giving you very thoughtful answers, but you appear to only want to see who can piss the farthest.

Unlike you, I actually do think that cutting out waste in the military, and getting control over the MIC is an important issue. Many of us "commie" Clark supporters feel the same way.

Wow, the Clark supporters believe in progressive taxation and cutting the military budget and the Dean supporters don't. Just who are the real progressives here anyway? And I thought the Clark supporters were all supposed to be closet Republicans.:shrug:

[CTLawGuy]

34. no, I am not in a pissing match...

I am pointing out that swing voters will take offense at Clark's penchant for cutting the military, just like you claim they will for Dean's tax policy.

Its an attempt to coutner the argument that swing voter LOOOVE Clark but hate Dean...

[Crunchy Frog]

41. I havn't claimed

any such thing about Dean's tax policy. I don't think there is any way to know how it will really play out in the GE until it actually happens.

As for the rest of my post, I got a little carried away, as the current climate here is somewhat conducive to it. Nevertheless, I apologize.

I do however think you are missing some very valid points made by people responding to your question. Maybe we could all try to be a little more open minded about each others candidates, and try to acknowledge the good in all of them instead of just using every issue as an avenue for attack or defensiveness.

[Clark Can WIN]

42. Do you aregue that there are probably more moderate voters

who understand that the military budget has some serious pork than there are moderate voters who want to see their taxes go up?

I don't see anything here.

People will trust a general to cut waste in the military before they trust a Vermont "liberal" to raise their taxes.

[CTLawGuy]

43. a general

who was fired from his command?

furthermore, the same RW that has 70% of people believing Saddam did 9-11 will make sure Clark is seen as a defense cutting radical.

But then again, I'm sure they will trust someone who's balanced 11 budgets in a row, and CUT TAXES, if he says the "tax cuts" are bad fiscal policy and need to be gotten rid of.

[Clark Can WIN]

47. Have you read the DOD page on Clarks retirement?

No lipstick for that pig either.

If you actually believe that 70% of the populace will buy the argument that a 35 year career military is going to endanger the military with reckless cuts..........

but that same poplulace will somehow think think that having their paychecks cut by Deans tax policies will be great.........

then your kool-aid is too thick with sugar for me to penetrate and I am wasting my time here.

[CTLawGuy]

48. Dean tax policies are going to result

in tax relief at the state level, by restoring federal funds for homeland security, education, and other state aid, as well as getting rid of NCLB. And since states have more regressive taxes than the feds, this will help the middle class.

The Bush "tax cut" screwed the middle class by burdening the states and forcing them to raise taxes on the middle class. Its a tax shift that apparently, only the wiliest among us can understand.

and thanks for the kool-aid commnent. And thanks for stopping your drooling over the the shiny things on the general's shirt for one second to read my post.

[Clark Can WIN]

51. Hey no problem, now that Dean has officially prepared the griddle

for his next batch of waffles you can begin preparing your argument for hes NEW position on tax cuts and why it's not a 180 and how everybody knows that's what he's said all along.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/07/dean_may_support_middle_class_tax_cut/

[Crunchy Frog]

53. LOL n/t

[ModerateMiddle]

8. The Defense budget NEEDS cutting

Clark is not my preferred candidate at this point, but he is very strong in the #2 slot, and I would be proud to support him for President.

However, the Defense budget absolutely NEEDS attention, it needs accountability, and it NEEDS cutting.

Clark is the ONLY Dem candidate who can make this argument to the American people credibly.

[maddezmom]

16. the sweetheart deals for Dick Cheney

and Haliburton could definately be trimmed

[sandnsea]

10. He's a General, he can get away with it

There's a couple of things that make Clark a very strong candidate and this is one of them. He knows the Pentagon waste inside out and if he says the budget can be cut, he can back it up. That's one of the main reasons I like him as a President, he actually has the credentials to get a handle on our military budget. It's tough to argue with a General.

[CTLawGuy]

14. I was waitiing for that argument

Goerge McGovern was a military hero and he got away with nothing. You think, as a military hero, Mcgovern would know when we should and should not go to war. I mean come on, no one can question a military hero, and certainly no military heroes lose 49 states.


What makes you think ANYONE would give Clark a free pass. All 3 generals, who I know of, who were elected president, had won important wars recently before the election. Washington - the Revolutionary war, Grant - the Civil War, Eisenhower - WWII. I don't think Kosovo can live up to those other wars.

[maxr4clark]

20. there is a big difference

between being a "military hero" like Kerry or McGovern and a 35 year career in the military, ending as commander of more people than live in Vermont for NATO and leading the most successful and humane military campaigns ever as a general.

The difference is directly relevant to knowing what to cut in the military budget.

[CTLawGuy]

23. when did clark work IN the pentagon??

did he ever RUN the pentagon? You think I would have HEARD of him before this year if he was such an important guy in the pentagon. He ran the kosovo operation, one slice of the pentagon, which cannot be compared to winning all of WWII or winning the Civil War.

[maxr4clark]

25. He worked in the Pentagon as a strategist for the Joint Chiefs of Staff

...and he was NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, which is more relevant to the question at hand: how well he knows how the military spends its money.

The Pentagon is a big place, merely working there does not confer any knowledge of the military budget. Being directly involved with the JCS and being in the other positions that Clark has does, however.

You're barking up the wrong tree.

[KittyWampus]

50. Clark Also Worked In The Office Of Management & Budget

Letter Report from Office of Management and Budget 1976 Director James T. Lynn calls Clark "the most capable White House Fellow I have ever known during my seven years in Washington." Clark served as a White House fellow for a year.

[sandnsea]

30. No, Clark IS a General

Right now. Retired General. Your comparison could be made for Kerry, except he has continued to do so much for veterans. But Clark served his country for 30 years and automatically has more credibility than any other candidate in matters of defense. It will be very difficult for the right to attack him for being soft on defense, unpatriotic, etc. They'd look silly trying, even to their own right wing constituency.

[Skwmom]

13. Clark is the only one who can get the waste and fraud out

of the defense budget because no one is going to be able to successfully attack him as being weak on defense.

[CTLawGuy]

15. see post 14

NT

[bowens43]

39. Your statement isn't IMO correct

Whether or not a person can be successfully attacked as being weak on defense (and Clark has no advantage over the other candidates in this area) has nothing to do with the ability of the president to get rid of waste and fraud in the defense budget. The two have nothing to do with each other. The president does not control spending, congress does. Congress, especially a republican congress, will continue to fund pork.

[OKNancy]

17. It's a "Nixon to China" kind of thing

not too hard to understand really. Clark has the creds to do it and not be painted anti-military. Simple.

[CTLawGuy]

18. then,

as a governor whose state is in good fiscal shape, doesn't Dean have creds to reverse Bush's fiscal policy of irresponsible tax cuts?

[OKNancy]

22. No

besides, I thought the subject was military cuts. If Dean proposes cuts in the military he will lose whatever moderate support he already has. He should just keep quite about that for now.

[CTLawGuy]

24. no the subject is,

how can clark criticize Dean for promoting something swing voters dont like when he does it himself?

Dean does not propose cuts in the military. But he has balanced 11 budgets before. which apparently does not give him credibility on fiscal issues. Not the same credibility that Clark has on pentagon spending issues for being a General. :eyes:

[maxr4clark]

35. Plenty of Americans have balanced their budget

at home, and that doesn't give any of them credibility to balance the Federal budget. Dean's record of balanced budgets in Vermont is a very strong point in Dean's favor, but no, I don't think most voters think it translates into automatically being able to balance the Federal budget. :eyes:

In contrast, Clark's particular positions in the military give him the credibility to suggest cuts to the military budget in time of war.

[CTLawGuy]

37. hogwash

Vermont has spending, wasteful spending, a tax averse populace, a legislature, elections for governor. Experience with these things are sufficient for knowing politically how to balance the budget.

Most Americans at home arent balancing other people's money with the prospect of being fired from their job, and having to convince a body of both friendly and not so friendly people with their own interests to go along with it. Nice try though.

[ModerateMiddle]

28. throwing the baby out with the bath water

Yes, much of the Bush tax cuts were terribly irresponsible, especially the ones this past year. However, several aspects of the tax cuts were particularly helpful in stimulating the economy, and those are the tax cut repeals that Dean gets hammered on and will continue to get hammered on throughout the primaries and into the general election if Dean is nominated.

Gephardt's argument of "why would we support ANY of Bush's tax cut?" is equally ludicrous. Folks know the difference between an increased child credit, the marriage penalty, the 10% bracket and the tax cuts that millionares got.

[CTLawGuy]

32. to pay for these "good things"

Bush slashed aid to states, pell grants, funding for No Child Left Behind, and funding for Homeland security. States were forced to raise less progressive taxes to make up the difference. Therefore, the middle class gets a little money from the feds, but has to pay a lot more for services because the feds shortchanged them. Its better to take that money back and fund our schools, fund pell grants, fund HOMELAND SECURITY for goodness sakes! than to give someone a policy that amounts to a tax increase for them.

The middle class didnt get a tax cut, it got screwed. Dean, being a state governor, is in the best position to know. Im sure if clark can use his credibility to deflect right wing attacks on defense spending cuts, which won't be let up just because hes a general, then Dean can use his too.

[Rowdyboy]

19. Apples to oranges

Are you saying one can't support tax credits for the middle class AND reduced defense spending? If so, I'd love some of what you're smoking.

Cutting fat out of the military does not equate to ending tax credits to the middle class. Two totally separate issues with no real link.

[CTLawGuy]

21. wow, read post again please

im not saying the issues are substantively linked. In simple terms,


Swing voters hate X and Y.

Dean proposes X, Clark says swing voters hate X and Dean will lose.

Clark proposes Y.

How can clark criticize Dean for choosing X, if he chooses Y?

[Crunchy Frog]

26. Yes, and I believe

that Wes Clark is the only person running who would be able to accomplish this. It is part of getting the MIC under control. Huge amounts of money is spent on wasteful programs that contribute nothing to our defense and only enrich contractors. Clark is the only one who has the credentials and the expertise to even dare to touch this. And unlike any other president, they would not be able to tag him with the soft on defense bullshit.

"You can't cut the defense budget in a time of war! What are you, some kind of commie?"-He is the only one who could credibly stand up to these charges because that is his area of expertise, and he can and will call people out on their bullshit if they try to pull that on him.


Getting the MIC under control is one of the big reasons for my support of Clark.

[CTLawGuy]

27. Does Dean's

11 balanced budgets give him credibility on fiscal issues to shield him from criticism of reversing Bush's fiscal policy?

[ModerateMiddle]

31. Let's compare

Vermont's budget, which is shored up by an influx of federal dollars and Vermont, with a population under a million people - with a federal government which has to include foreign aid and monetary policy for a nation of approx 250 million people...

What works in Vermont ain't necessarily going to work in the nation as a whole, and the average American can figure that out.

Clark has 34 or so years working intimately with the military, or at least the Army. He knows where the bloat is.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

[CTLawGuy]

33. the military

is a microcosm for america :eyes: :crazy:

NEXT

[Crunchy Frog]

44. I honestly have no idea

how it will play out with the average voter in the general election. It depends on how effectively he is able to communicate it to the voters, and how much they value long term deficit reduction over short term tax increases. Given the generally short attention span of the American people, and their tendency to want instant gratification, I have some doubts, but there is really no way to tell until it actually plays out in the election.

I'm sorry if I can't give you a clearer answer, I don't know how to predict the future.

[Clark Can WIN]

36. It has credibility coming from a general that it would not carry from

a politician. Everybody knows that the military has too much pork. I think the country would trust someone who's spent time on the inside to root some of that waste out.

[CTLawGuy]

40. the right wing

will paint Clark as wanting to cut defense in a time of war. Just like they will paint Dean (and everyone who wants to roll back one penny of bush's tax cut) as a tax raiser. If there is hope for clark to combat that and win, then stop saying there is no hope for Dean to combat being called a tax raiser.

[Clark Can WIN]

45. Good luck finding anyone who does not understand that the military

does, on occasion, waste some serious money. This is not difficult to understand as it has been illustrated to us all many times. I would wager that even the majority of your garden variety walking around republicans understand that the military has waste. You just can't put lipstick on this pig.

People do not like hearing that their taxes are going up. Not new. I will not stop saying that Dean has no hope as a tax raiser because I believe it to be true. The wailing and knashing would be deafening. That "your taxes haven't really been cut" garbage might work on those who have drunk the kool-aid but it's going to land like a lead fart in churgh on the general populace. Everytime I hear that argument from him he has to prop it up with property taxes and college tuition which is pretty damn weak especially when you consider exactly how few people in the general population are doing both at this time. People do understand that with Dean their paycheck would get smaller. That is real, that is tangible.

[JVS]

46. Grabbing guns and leaving the military weak?

Swing voters my butt!

[Nashyra]

52. Let the right wing at him for defense spending

He will run circles around them explaining the waste and how the defense budget could be trimmed and giving more to the military families instead of putting it into the pockets of cronies. And yes this is an argument Clark can win, while because of Dean's own choices that were not wrong he can not win.(this particular argument, I refuse to follow the Dean can't win mantra though I think it will be a tougher fight for him against *) Clark is the right candidate to take on the Military industrial complex because he knows how it works and he has credibility when it comes to the issue of defense. Sorry darboy but this is a direct result of choices that candidates made in the past. Dean would have been a viable candidate against perhaps Gore? or before 9-11, because even though we know how the RW has politicized 9-11 there is no dispute about the fact that the majority of Voting Americans believe the issue of War on Terrorism. Lucky us along comes a Dem that can go toe to toe with them and he is a liberal to boot.