A $14 billion (8%) increase in spending.

$527 billion total. What did I estimate it would be? 526? Dang. Off by a billion.

The Obama administration has given the Pentagon a $527 billion limit, excluding war costs, for its fiscal 2010 Defense budget, an Office of Management and Budget official said Monday.

If enacted, that would be about $14 billion more than the $513 billion allocated for fiscal 2009 (PL 110-329), including military construction funds, and it would match what the Bush administration estimated last year for the Pentagon in fiscal 2010.

And as I expected, the $584 billion draft “budget” that the yahoos on Fox News used to scream “Cut!” was a political ploy meant to put Obama in a difficult position rather than a realistic budget assessment.

The $527 billion figure is “what the Bush people thought was the right number last February, and that’s the number we’re going with,” said the OMB official, who declined to be identified. “The Joint Chiefs did that to lay down a marker for the incoming administration that was unrealistic. It’s more of a wish list than anything else.”

Defense budget experts have said the draft by the Joint Chiefs, which was never publicly released, was designed to pressure the Obama administration to drastically increase Defense spending or be forced to defend a reluctance to do so.

And if no one else is reading this thread I have no doubt someone will blather the Fox News mantra again on some other thread.

I am not disputing at all what you say the conventional wisdom was during the time, I am just curious if it is actually true.

Tell me when was the last time the MSM decried the failure of a sitting Democrat to adequately fund our military – yet they did during the latter half of Carter’s presidency, and they documented it. So this is one-time I’ll trust their judgment over manipulatable gov numbers.

I am not disputing at all what you say the conventional wisdom was during the time, I am just curious if it is actually true.

I mean I can see if this would basically lead to an effective flatline in funding, but it seems something else to say he cut it.

But your post still does not explain why the military suddenly became so underfunded when its funding went up form what it was in 1976 and increased each year.

A simple case of enough being too little: As a PS teacher, I’ve served on one committee after another that has had to go back & redo its next year’s projected budget because of shortfalls in the amount of expected increases in state-fed ed funds and grants; thus while we receive nominal increases in our funding, it’s often barely enough to cover current expenses plus inflation and we are left short in meeting planned purchases for new texts and tech.

Similarly, Carter underfunded the military by cutting the amount of expected increases, resulting in budgets that contained only nominal funds to meet the baseline needs of our armed services plus inflation and/or unexpected expenses, but not enough to invest in R&D tech and additional equipment purchases.

Our military was left weak and vulnerable because of these spending cuts, and they were cuts, just like the ones Obama is proposing now.

Which is why Chancellor’s, Cronkite’s, and Reasoner’s newscasts all contained nearly nightly reports on America’s “window of [military] vulnerability.”

Hamburger is on sale for $2.99 per pound (not per serving) and I suppose I’ll just make chili for dinner. Kidney beans are on sale too, for $.50 can. For $5.00, I can have dinner for four. Now where can I get Wagu beef for $2.99 pound

Have you ever added just a touch (and I mena be real judicious) of cinnamon to chili? It adds a certain something, a background note, that is really diffcult to place unless you know what it is. I highly recommend it.

But again, if you do, add just a wee pinch (like an 8th to a quarter of a tsp for a batch you would make with about 3 or 4 lbs of meat.)

I get your point. And its still valid. But MM makes it seem worse than it is.

We’re supposed to eat pork and beans, but Obama has that special $100 per serving steak. (How many servings per pound? Two? Three? Does that make $200-3300 per pound? I can afford prime rib only when it’s on sale.)

You responded with this:
No that was just another subtle tactic MM uses to distort things. She starts out by assuming the absolute upper price range for that beef (many wagyu cuts are much cheaper) saying its $100/lb but them that magically gets transformed to $100 a serving later on.

My comment to you:
Where can I find Wagu steak in my price range? I buy beef on sale and cannot afford prime rib except for holidays.

I don’t think you understand the point I was making. Lowering temperatures, saving on fuel, etc. is for the masses, not the ruling class.

The ruling class, now headed by Obama, reminds me of Louis the XIV,the Sun King. Louie and Marie lived in another world, completely protected from the masses and surrounded by bowing and scraping syncopants and apologists.

That’s the point I was making. Well… gotta leave. Hamburger is on sale for $2.99 per pound (not per serving) and I suppose I’ll just make chili for dinner. Kidney beans are on sale too, for $.50 can. For $5.00, I can have dinner for four. Now where can I get Wagu beef for $2.99 pound?

So no, I don’t accept your source or your premise that Republicans were less effective at rebuilding the military; I was there.

I never said this. Nothing close. But your post still does not explain why the military suddenly became so underfunded when its funding went up form what it was in 1976 and increased each year. I guess this is what I am asking.