Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
Published on December 20, 2006 By COL Gene In Politics

Now Bush says we need to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps. WHY did it take him over 6 years to do what he said was needed in 2000? I agree that we need a much larger military and we need to have a crash replacement of most of the equipment that has been destroyed in Iraq. Now we need to develop a plan to achieve that objective.

The fact is that we have had to increase the enlistment and reenlistment bonuses significantly to just maintain the all volunteer force at the current levels. What will it take to add another 120,000 or more to the Army and Marine Corps?

Like it or not if the security needs continue to increase, there is a very real question as to how we educe enough young people to provide the needed troops for an all-volunteer Armed Force? It is a matter of both at WHAT COST and CAN THE LARGER FORCE BE SUSTAINED?

Comments (Page 4)
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4 
on Dec 26, 2006
Drmiler

There is NOTHING to retract. MOST of the funding for our schools comes from State and Local Taxes and is not the reason the Federal Budget deficit. If we ENDED all Federal Education spending we would still have a major annual Budget Deficit! Things like the Iraq War and PORK plus the loss in revenue from the tax cuts have created the deficit. If we had the $250m Billion in lost revenue from the tax cuts, and the $150 Billion we are spending in Iraq and the $30 Billion on Pork we would be a lot closer to a balanced budget!
on Dec 26, 2006
In 2000 when the budget was balanced we were spending a similar amount on Education by the Federal Government.


I can't remember a time since President Johnson screwed up the budget that is has been balanced. You say the budget was balanced in 2000. Where did you get your data? The data I have for 2000 shows an estimated budget loss not a balance. And since the President did nothing for or against the economy other than one tax increase that ended up killing the economy all we seem to be seeing is the results from the Reagan tax cuts paying themselves off. Below is a copy of part of the federal budget written by the Clinton administration.

Table II-1. RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUS
Dollar amounts in billions)
Estimates

2000
Receipts 1,883.0
Outlays 1,765.7
Surplus 0.0
On-Budget Deficit(-) -12.2


I could not get the table to show up correctly so I truncated it.
on Dec 27, 2006
My son is disabled and receives Food Stamps. He receives the grand sum of $660 per month from SS Disability and gets $70 per month for Food Stamps. If you believe either the amount he receives from Food Stamps or disability is lavish you must be living in a different country then the United States.


OK, I am going to have to ask you to READ my comments, not summarize them. If you had, you would have noticed this qualifier:
(for families, not individuals), and saved yourself the embarrassment of a really, really stupid reply. I was referring to the amount for FAMILIES, which I can tell you from experience is FAR too high.

Stop picking and choosing what you want to see. I was not addressing the food stamp totals for individuals (although I still don't believe in the food stamp program in general), but was referring to the "top end" totals, which could use some trimming.
on Dec 27, 2006
Drmiler

There is NOTHING to retract. MOST of the funding for our schools comes from State and Local Taxes and is not the reason the Federal Budget deficit. If we ENDED all Federal Education spending we would still have a major annual Budget Deficit! Things like the Iraq War and PORK plus the loss in revenue from the tax cuts have created the deficit. If we had the $250m Billion in lost revenue from the tax cuts, and the $150 Billion we are spending in Iraq and the $30 Billion on Pork we would be a lot closer to a balanced budget!


You're an idiot, and you can't read either. Nowhere did I or you (for that matter) mention it was the cause of the fed deficit. Your statement was it had "nothing" to do with it"!
on Dec 28, 2006
Per usual when you start losing the battle, you cut and run!
on Jan 24, 2007
Now Bush says we need to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps. WHY did it take him over 6 years to do what he said was needed in 2000?


Because the Congress did not want to spend the money for more troops. The result is we don't have enough. The Congress sets the troop levels not the President. Congress does not need the Presidents permission to raise troop levels they can ammend the law and increase it any time they want.

You "say" you were a colonel in the Army so you should know this already making your aritcle a lie. You sir are a political hack.
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4