Why Mitt Romney Will NEVER Be President

Let's get this straight. President Obama is spending trillions of dollars on ineffective, wasteful economic stimulus packages, and trillions of dollars more to socialize health care, and is hoping to pass some sort of costly capvulnerable measure, but he didn't think twice about making America more vulnearable in order to trim a relatively paltry $1.75 billion from the defense budget? How does that make any sense? Constitutionally speaking, one of the president's top priororties is to defend our country, not turn it into a socialist wealth-fare state. What's more , by scrapping the F-22's, he's saving a meager one-third of 1 percent of the 2010 defense program.
This is profound military blunder..why? The Heritage Foundation reports, " Russia is expanding its fighter forces more now than at any other time since the end of the Cold war. The Russia plan to field 300 su-Fullback strike aircraft by 2020 and an additional 300 sukhoi pak fifth-generation fighters" Likewise, China is ramping up to purchase of additional attack jets. How, then could any America president purchase of additional attack jets. How, then,could any America president think it was good idea to cut our radar-evading F-22's?
What's more We didn't hear a peep out of Gates and Mullen when Obama surrendered our anti-missle defense shield in poland and the Czech Republic or when Congress cut back on funding for future combat systems--an essential program that enables the U.S. Armyto modernize its equipment and strategies. We didn't hear a word of protest from them overthe recently announced "almost 20% cut in the dedicated forces they could allocate to respond to a weapon of mass destruction attack on U.S. soil...
We're talking about our very survival as a nation. Why won't these men stand up to radical president who continues to impoverish the military and compromise the ability for America to defend herself against those who would want to wipe us off the face of the earth? make no mistake about it. The trickle up poverty here is the wakening of America's capacity to defend of a compound, possibly toward a weapon cache in another location.
Tell me that isn't crazy...Tell me that's not a formula for disaster. Why must our men hold their fire? Isn't killing the enemy the whole point? Not so, as this reporter goes on to explain:
NATO and Afghan military officials say killing militants is not the goal of a 3-day-old attack to take control of this Taliban stronghold in southern Afghanistan. The more important focus is to win public support. If we're intent on playing with the enemy as some sort of goodwill gesture, where does that leave our troops? in short, we have a military that's about as threatening as a candy striper passing out flowers to the sick. As Captain Sam Rico, of the Divison's 4-25 field Artillery Battalion, put it, " You ge shot at but can do nothing about it. You have to see the person with the weapon. it's not enough to know which house the shooting's coming from". Why must our soldiers fight with such oppressive handicaps in the heat of a battle? All in the name of winning ' Public Support"? That's an outrage!!

Well, I'm not sure all of that is true: 1) Congress would be the entity that spent what was spent since Obama took office, except for whatever small portion thereof his administration had been authorized by them to spend in advance, and for half of that time there's been a Republican majority in the House, where all spending bills arise. 2) The stimulus packages (which Obama did enthusiastically support), while not ushering in an economic boom, did halt the loss of 750,000 jobs per month as we had at the tail end of the Bush administration, and reverse the ongoing implosion of the auto industry and Wall Street he inherited from his predecessor. 3) The health care law will actually save at least $109 Billion, according to newly-revised CBO figures post-SCOTUS ruling, and the amount it will save the U.S. economy in the form of a reduced number of medical bankruptcies and all the financial hardship (contraction) that accompanies such things, will be tremendous.

You seem to know a good deal about world military technology and spending (kudos to you for that), and of course America should maintain a viable defense, but cuts in the defense budget do not automatically translate into a weaker defense. Ron Paul has made the case, for instance, that the 900+ foreign bases the U.S. maintains, and all the so-called 'preemptive' activities the U.S. conducts and threats it makes to other nations only serve to render Americans less safe, and also that so much of what they are labeling 'defense' spending is in reality military (offensive) spending. There's a big difference between the two, I think, and we need to keep that distinction clear in our minds.