This is a FOX News article.

The Difference between Reps and Dems:

Under the current stereotypes, Republicans are for huge military while Democrats are for huge social spending. Neither of these is exactly right, but let's just operate under these principles for the sake of argument.

Here is the difference between Republicans and Democrats:

When was the last time Democrats suggested cutting spending to any part of their social programs?

When social spending is in question, everything is "vital." Even a reduction in the rate at which benefits are increasing is usually shouted down with "the end of so and so as we know it!" With social spending, all you hear is “more, more, more” from the left.

Now the right and it's military: The Pentagon is recommending 33 bases be closed, and their roles be realigned. What are they doing? Trying to cut costs. Trying to make everything as efficient as a government bureaucracy can. I respect it.

Liar liar pants on fire!
Bill Clinton was responsible for historic reforms to WELFARE.
In any case, I applaud these base cuts.
The military budget is very bloated and many of these bases are pure pork barrel.

They can do a heck of a lot more than cut a few - extremely small bases (I think the number of employees at one base, at least is less that 2 dozen). Its gonna take a lot more than that to convince me that the Pentagon is honestly trying to cut costs in any meaningful way.

This could just as easily be caused by restructuring, anyway - no need for cost cutting motives.

I can see your point expat, but it is at least a step in the right direction. Let's hope they put the left foot in front of the right foot and turn a small step into a stride. Who knows, maybe they'll learn to walk.

TQ:
Bill Clinton was responsible for what? Welfare Reform?
I don't think you can say that a president who vetoes something twice is responsible for a thing.
Ever heard of Contract for America and the Republican sweep of the house in '95?
They were the ones with the ideas on welfare then, just as they are the ones with ideas about SS now.

I do agree that a lot of this is pork barrel stuff, but at least it's going.

TQ, as usual, once again my friend you are a Euro short and 50 miles off target as to the veracity of you claims.

Visa V Welform and Clinton:

Politically, welfare reform is perhaps the most conspicuous example of how President Clinton adopted – some say co-opted – parts of the Republican agenda. Historically, Democrats had defended the old welfare system against GOP attacks.
Clinton defined himself as a centrist Democrat in his 1992 campaign in part by promising to "end welfare as we know it." After the Republican takeover of Congress, he fended off certain GOP welfare provisions but ultimately signed a bill that liberal members of Congress considered much too cruel to the poor

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...are/welfare.htm

When the GOP gained control of Congress in 1994, overhauling the nation’s welfare system was at the heart of its reform agenda. President Clinton finally signed the welfare reform bill into law in 1996 after vetoing similar legislation twice. The key reason why many former welfare recipients are leading independent lives today is clear: individuals are required to work for their benefits. Under the old system, welfare families could expect a lifetime of cash assistance without engaging in constructive activities of any kind.

http://edworkforce.house.gov/issues/109th/...are/summary.htm

You see Clinton being the grandstander he is, had little choice, as he knew if he vetoed the bill it would pass and given that it was attached to another absolutely needed to pass appropriations bill, I believe, he had little choice but take credit for something a Democratic controlled Congress would have never passed.

Remember Newt Gingrich Hillary, presidential hopeful buddy with amazingly shared values at least today, it was that Republic Group with Dick Armey that lead the way to welfare reform not Clinton.

Visa V Base Closing or as is the Reality Realignment of forces and capabilities:

hmmm! lets see, at this high point of political hyperbolic on the subject the best case Defense can posture is less than 2 billion a year savings over 20 years.

An amount of savings which we both know will not be there in the end.

This is a strategic and tactic realignment of support that is 70% of all the Military to up the number of the now 30% combat arms.

I suspect when it is done, the Stryker component of the combat arms aspect of the militray will increase to say 38% maybe 40 % and Cold war designed support will correspondently decrease as a percentage of the military.

With 14,000 combat troops to be realigned from overseas, 11,000 of which will go to FT Bliss Texas outside El Paso and the next largest group to the State of Washington, they are just shifting personnel and civilian jobs from one place and adding most to another.

I surmise the money for Defense will just go up not down for some time to come.

That is all!

I agree that the money for defense will go up, not down. However, it is reducing wasteful spending. The money that we are spending will now be spent a little more wisely.