Defense Spending Cuts Popular With Voters: Poll

Defense Spending Cuts Popular With Voters: Poll

New survey data released on Monday show that voters from both parties support large cuts to the Pentagon budget, dealing a potential blow to Republicans who have sought to make reduced defense spending a campaign headache for President Obama.

The survey, conducted by the Program for Public Consultation, the Stimson Center and the Center for Public Integrity, revealed that 80 percent of voters in districts represented by Democrats and 74 percent in Republican districts wanted lower defense spending.

While Democratic districts supported larger cuts than their Republican counterparts, the latter still said they would slash defense spending by 15 percent. Such a reduction would leave the Pentagon budget almost $97 billion lower than this year's level.

Under the budget deal passed in 2011, the Department of Defense will face $500 billion in across-the-board cuts, known as sequestration, starting next year, unless Congress is unable to unable to agree on a different plan. Politicians of both parties, along with defense officials, have sharply criticized the potential cuts, with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta calling them a "goofy meat ax approach." But the one-year cut favored by voters in the survey was much larger than the one mandated by sequester, which would require the Pentagon to shed about $50 billion annually for 10 years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/1 ... f=politics

Gee, it's so hard to "deal a potential blow to Republicans who have sought to make reduced defense spending a campaign headache for President Obama", when the majority of voters from BOTH parties agree that reducing the spending is a great idea...

(Insert standard John Boehner line about "...what the American people want..." here: _______________________________________________)

It's truly amazing how that man can be so wrong so much of the time about what the "American people" want... I guess it's time to replace him as Speaker...(even if it does make him cry...)

I think Americans logically don't see a enemy looming on the horizon. Time to bring back Oceania as the enemy? I mean China.

Personally I think China will be making island grabs from Vietnam, the Phillipines, and Japan, but do we think we can stop it? Especially without putting boots on the ground? Diplomacy and threatening a trade war might be more valuable weapons in this fight than 12 carrier groups stationed in Asia.

I don't think the Defense contractors have to worry, since when has congress worried about what is popular with the voters? We got Obamacare didn't we? LOL

FredHayek wrote: I think Americans logically don't see a enemy looming on the horizon. Time to bring back Oceania as the enemy? I mean China.

Personally I think China will be making island grabs from Vietnam, the Phillipines, and Japan, but do we think we can stop it? Especially without putting boots on the ground? Diplomacy and threatening a trade war might be more valuable weapons in this fight than 12 carrier groups stationed in Asia.

You have mentioned a reduction in the # of carrier battle groups a # of times. I do not have a problem with that as long as it is calibrated for the demands that civilian management expect to place on it plus a surge capability. Stretch it too far and it will break.


http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/ ... onger?lite
"By NBC News’ Jim Miklaszewski and Courtney Kube

The Pentagon is sending the aircraft carrier USS John Stennis to the Persian Gulf region four months ahead of schedule as tensions rise over Iran’s nuclear program.

Follow @NBCNewsUS

An eight-month deployment will be twice as long as originally planned, defense officials told NBC News on Monday."



http://hamptonroads.com/2009/05/lawmake ... es-reports

"By Dale Eisman
The Virginian-Pilot
© May 4, 2009
WASHINGTON

Amid reports that Navy inspectors found six ships unfit for their missions last year, some members of Congress are pressing the service to reconsider a decision to shroud its most detailed inspection reports."

American public: Reverse NIMBY's? We need to cut defense spending but don't close my local base or shut down my county military contractor.

Carrier groups? I realize to put one carrier group in action, you need 1.5 backup ones essentially, one in transit to the action point, and one getting refitted and updated.

So the question becomes, where do we actually need carrier groups? I think we only need (1) in the Phillipines for China and the rest should be based out of US ports and these can steam to crisis zones as needed.

Any other places we think need carrier groups as the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan wind down?

LOL, way above my pay grade. 7'th fleet is out of Japan, at least when I was there. We projected power long before ships from Hawaii or conus could get there.

A carrier is fast but is limited to the speed of its escorts.

It is axiomatic among sailors that when something goes down in the world the first words out of the Presidents mouth are, "where is the nearest carrier battle group".

FredHayek wrote: American public: Reverse NIMBY's? We need to cut defense spending but don't close my local base or shut down my county military contractor.

Carrier groups? I realize to put one carrier group in action, you need 1.5 backup ones essentially, one in transit to the action point, and one getting refitted and updated.

So the question becomes, where do we actually need carrier groups? I think we only need (1) in the Phillipines for China and the rest should be based out of US ports and these can steam to crisis zones as needed.

Any other places we think need carrier groups as the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan wind down?

Understand that it takes a while for a carrier group to reach a point halfway around the world, but maybe our Presidents just need to say more often, we aren't going to deploy a carrier group to the Persian Gulf just to piss off the Iranians.

FredHayek wrote: Understand that it takes a while for a carrier group to reach a point halfway around the world, but maybe our Presidents just need to say more often, we aren't going to deploy a carrier group to the Persian Gulf just to piss off the Iranians.

Fred they are not there to piss off the Iranians, they are there cause we still have alot of troops in the region especially in Kuwait. Somewhere in the number of around 4000. The fact that Iran keeps threating to close the straits is another reason.

Currently there is 11 supercarriers. The USS ENTERPRIZE is on its last deployment and will be retired. The Gerald R Ford is due to commission in 2015 and is the lead of a new class of supercarriers. The John F Kennedy is sked for 2020. So when you figure that at least two carriers are usually in upkeep and maintenance at any one time, then there are at least 4 deployed around the world, two in transit go to relieve two that are deployed and then the surge carriers. What I remember is the deployment areas were the Med, Indian Ocean, Persian gulf, Western Indian Ocean, Western Pacific, Atlantic. Then you have the duty carriers for new pilots,

And no other nation on the planet has more than one carrier group and Britain is going to shut down all carrier operations. Britannica, once queen of the seas, will soon not have a single carrier.

Fred what Britan is doing is selling thier old carriers, the two new ones the HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH due out in 2016 and the HMS PRINCE OF WALES is due out in2018, they are the future of the British Navy. They will have all the latest and greatest equipment onboard.