Political Party Effects

[Hopefulflyer389]

With the presidential debate going on tonight and the approaching elections, the following questioned popped in my head: does a specific political party have more effect over the other on the Air Force? I.e. Budgets, Leadership,  etc. 

Edited September 27, 2016 by Hopefulflyer389
Removed quibbling.

[matmacwc]

Yes, in general it's pretty easy to figure out who benefits the military more.  The military, in general, does supports one party over the other.  This, of course is my 30000 foot officer view of the whole thing.  I do know things change (read:allegiances) around the O-6/O-7 rank due to internal politics.

Edited September 27, 2016 by matmacwc

[nsplayr]

I think unless you have someone like John McCain running, who has VERY detailed knowledge of and biases for/against specific AF programs, it's all very broad-brushed generalities.

In terms of budgets and leadership, look at each candidate's proposals re: the DOD budget and their foreign policy views in general and judge for yourself.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/foreign-policy-and-defeating-isis/

Both parties (as you asked it) or more specifically both current candidates would have a large effect on the US military as a whole in their future role as Commander in Chief, so I'm not sure one would have "more" of an effect than the other.

Edited September 27, 2016 by nsplayr

[pawnman]

5 hours ago, Kiloalpha said:

These two are actually terrible examples for their parties. Trump and Clinton excluded, the two parties place very different levels of importance on defense spending. Again, I'm speaking in generalities, but I've seen both in action. Historically, the GOP has been very hawkish on defense spending and has been more than willing to take up the fight in Congress to move strategic objectives at the urging of the Pentagon. Democrats are more measured, due to the fact they place a higher priority on social issues, education, etc. You have your big dogs like Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Jack Reed (D-RI) who have stepped up to push things related to defense, but it's the exception and not the rule. (See Vermont Air National Guard being named the first F-35 ANG squadron despite public outcry if you want to see political power flexed...)

Obviously these observations are not including times of war or when a particular defense program helps the home district, in which case they're all about it (no matter the party affiliation).

Which party was the one that suggested the BAH cuts again...?

[Snooter]

 I don't think the executive branch has the control everyone thinks they do.  Congress is in charge of funding and equipping the military.  Yes the President is the CiC, but short of authorizing military actions for certain National Security issues under Article II of the constitution and having veto power (which can be overridden by a 2.3's majority) all he can really do is lobby for funding by drafting his budget.  If you think that one of these candidates will in some way be a watershed event reference the past 8 years.  I still stand by my assertion that the beauty of our democracy is that it is slow, of course the Achilles heel of our democracy is that it is slow... 

[Disco_Nav963]

12 hours ago, Kiloalpha said:

Touché. This current administration also ended production of the Raptor. It can go back and forth until eternity, really. I was just speaking in generalities.

More like the Bush 43 administration effectively ended production of the Raptor. It was clearly dead in 2008 at a 183 jet fleet (thanks Bob Gates) and the House Republicans got $50M allocated to buy 4 more literally for the PR purpose of tagging Obama with the decision. Not that he gets any credit for falling for it, but the POTUS was not going to invest in a program his (Republican) secretary of defense opposed.

[tk1313]

8 hours ago, Disco_Nav963 said:

More like the Bush 43 administration effectively ended production of the Raptor. It was clearly dead in 2008 at a 183 jet fleet (thanks Bob Gates) and the House Republicans got $50M allocated to buy 4 more literally for the PR purpose of tagging Obama with the decision. Not that he gets any credit for falling for it, but the POTUS was not going to invest in a program his (Republican) secretary of defense opposed.

This is why I hate politics; I can never figure out where the bad decisions start/stop and who started what (plus, politicians just give me that bad gut feeling). As a broad brush approach, though, I think the "it's pretty easy to figure out which party benefits the military more" comment above was spot on...

[Seriously]

On 9/28/2016 at 10:31 PM, tk1313 said:

This is why I hate politics; I can never figure out where the bad decisions start/stop and who started what (plus, politicians just give me that bad gut feeling). As a broad brush approach, though, I think the "it's pretty easy to figure out which party benefits the military more" comment above was spot on...

"it's pretty easy to figure out which party benefits uses the military for PR purposes more" is more accurate.

Republicans lost their way after 9/11 when the party became a platform for businesses to profit through legislation.

[guineapigfury]

Guys I found an excellent poem online that might clarify this:

Republicans are Red.

Democrats are Blue.

Neither of them give a fuck about people like You.

[tk1313]

7 hours ago, Seriously said:

"it's pretty easy to figure out which party benefits uses the military for PR purposes more" is more accurate.

Republicans lost their way after 9/11 when the party became a platform for businesses to profit through legislation.

Oh, I'm not gonna get into the career politicians argument... But your post reminded me of the Louis Griffin 9/11 joke...

Edited October 2, 2016 by tk1313

[Hopefulflyer389]

On September 28, 2016 at 8:31 AM, tk1313 said:

This is why I hate politics; I can never figure out where the bad decisions start/stop and who started what (plus, politicians just give me that bad gut feeling). As a broad brush approach, though, I think the "it's pretty easy to figure out which party benefits the military more" comment above was spot on...

I believe this is where all of the "bad decisions start/stop".

 

[tk1313]

10 minutes ago, Hopefulflyer389 said:

I believe this is where all of the "bad decisions start/stop".

 

I've always leaned toward President hopefuls that either (1) have a distinct and honorable military background, or (2) prove that they will do whatever is in the best interest of our troops...

[Hacker]

This might help you determine who it is that determines the budget, who determines the National Security Strategy, who declares war, etc.

Hint: it isn't all the same office or branch of government.  Ultimately, who is in the Oval Office isn't as important as the branch that actually passes laws and spends tax money.

 

Edited October 3, 2016 by Hacker

[tk1313]

2 hours ago, Hacker said:

This might help you determine who it is that determines the budget, who determines the National Security Strategy, who declares war, etc.

Hint: it isn't all the same office or branch of government.  Ultimately, who is in the Oval Office isn't as important as the branch that actually passes laws and spends tax money.

 

I'm not ashamed for watching the whole thing... School house rock is awesome...