[cva66snipe]

Yea I know the savings would simply be operational. Makes even less sense to keep building FORD and decomming Washington. I have think that in the post-Reagan years both parties share a common {bipartisan} goal to destroy our military.

[lentulusgracchus]

I have think that in the post-Reagan years both parties share a common {bipartisan} goal to destroy our military.

The Republicans have traditionally been the proponents of "wooden-gun" defense, as witness their maladministration of the Armed Forces in the 1930's as the world hurtled toward war.

They just don't want to pay for anything, you see -- the Navy being an exception. They want a Great White Fleet to intimidate little banana republics with. Beyond that, anything involving heavy lifting and real expense -- no.

They want the budget cut and the savings remitted to their New York brokers, pronto.

But you're right, the Progs hate America getting in the way of jackbooted Communist armies.

[BroJoeK]

cva66snipe: "I have think that in the post-Reagan years both parties share a common {bipartisan} goal to destroy our military."

"Destroy" is a strong word.
The truth of the matter is that the US military budget, as a percent of GDP fell steadily from around 35% during World War Two to about 3% under President Clinton -- and that was the so-called peace dividend.

Under President Bush, with the War on Terror, total military rose back to just under 5% and is now still around 4%.

Of course we can expect that President O wants to reduce the military back to Clinton era levels, while still fighting numerous undeclared "kinetic actions".

And we can expect that the next Republican president (assuming it's not Paul) will restore the military to levels that make sense from the perspective of national defense.