Re: Campaign Economics--Real Deal

Paul Calvi wrote:
> 
> That's mostly a lot of hooey if you ask me. Russia NEVER spent that
much
> (as a % of GNP) on defense. Just think about it, it's impossible. They
> didn't spend that much during WW2. Also, as I said, the U.S. has spent
> about 5% GNP since Korea. We've never dipped to 2%. Perceptions of
Carter
> were certainly bad but in reality his military spending was about the
same
> as Reagan's, as a % of GNP, although more in actual dollars. The U.S.
Navy
> had more ships at the end of Carter's last term than at the end of
> Reagan's. One big thing that did happen under Reagan (that had nothing
to
> do with him) was that the military underwent a reform. Under Carter,
the
> military was still suffering the after effects of Vietnam whereas it
got
> its sh** together again under Reagan (as seen in Desert Storm).
> 
> Paul
> 
> At 11:24 PM 5/5/97 -0700, you wrote:
> 
> 
> -----
> Paul J. Calvi Jr.
> tanker@rahul.net
> 
> "Objective, Offense, Mass, Economy of Force, Maneuver, Unity of
Command,
> Security, Surprise, Simplicity"
> 
> 15SEP16

Well, First off, I don't want to seem stuck up or a "know-it-all".  I am
neither.  What I said was what I heard from a tv reporter. (some of who
either distort facts, or don't have the facts to beging with).	This
might explain the figures.  

Also, the U.S. military during carter's presidency was limited in
funds.	they had trouble scraping up the cash to maintain what they
had...In some cases, crewmen were "jury-rigging" things to keep them
going.	The b-52 fleet at the time was at it's worst.  only a third of
the b-52's could fly.  the rest were out of commision for maintenance
problems.

One reporter (dan rather I think..) was trying to do a report from a
b-52 in the air...they had to try three planes before they found one
that could fly.

Donald Hosford