House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal

House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Musicmystery -> House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/19/2012 10:37:49 AM)
This shit really angers me. It's not in the President's budget. It's not in the Defense Department's budget--in fact, they say this move "endangers the carefully crafted defense budget." But the "conservative" house, showing their true colors lie not with fiscal responsibility but with feeding on public money for their initiatives, is attempting to force an INCREASED military budget no one but they want. The House voted 299-120 for the fiscal 2013 spending blueprint that authorizes money for weapons, aircraft, ships and the war in Afghanistan — $642 Billion — more than Obama and congressional Republicans agreed to last summer in the clamor for fiscal austerity. For the endless Washington talk of dealing with the nation's debilitating debt, the bill outlines a base defense budget of $554 billion, including nuclear weapons spending, plus $88 billion for the war in Afghanistan and counterterrorism efforts. In one of the most telling votes about the fractures within the GOP, the House rejected appeals from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the business community, traditional Republican allies. Republicans crafted a bill that calls for construction of a missile defense site on the East Coast that the military opposes, bars reductions in the nation's nuclear arsenal and reaffirms the indefinite detention without trial of suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens captured on American soil. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=152978017

Yachtie -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/19/2012 11:00:02 AM)
fr No surprise. Typical Neo-Con. Only the east coast? [8\|]

TrekkieLP -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/19/2012 1:19:20 PM)
Well, OF COURSE they increased it. That way, when the Senate brings it back to what was agreed to, and requested, they can yell about the Democrats cutting defense.

Musicmystery -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/19/2012 1:24:49 PM)
Yeah. Of course, they also broke their spending promise, and they're defying the Defense Department, not supporting it. Oh, and making sure Americans can be arrested on U.S. soil and held indefinitely. So much for the "strict constructionist" take on the Constitution.

SadistDave -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/19/2012 8:22:07 PM)
Would you be referring to the presidents budget that was so ridiculous that even his own party didn't give it a single "yes" vote? What was that vote? 99-0? The presidential budget that failed to get a single vote in a a Congress controlled by his own party budget? Is that the budget you're carrying on about? The left is very quick to claim that the Republicans broke the deal by passing a defense bill, but NPR didn't have the balls to mention the fact in their article that the Bamster's proposed budget was going to add something like 6.4 trillion dollars in new deficits over the next 10 years. To conservatives it sure sounds like it was the president that broke any austerity agreement by proposing something that adds new deficits to the budget... Of course libs don't seem to understand that because it doesn't fit the narrative they're trying so hard to manufacture. -SD-

Musicmystery -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/19/2012 8:31:15 PM)
Nope. I'm referring to this: Republicans crafted a bill that calls for construction of a missile defense site on the East Coast that the military opposes, bars reductions in the nation's nuclear arsenal and reaffirms the indefinite detention without trial of suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens captured on American soil. Looking at just the defense part--forcing a defense system the military doesn't even want is not merely wasteful and frankly theft from taxpayers, but also arguably LESS safe, as it's money the Defense Dept. would have spent elsewhere on better initiatives. As for the NPR crack--I knew someone who whine about that, congratulations--it's an AP piece; I merely cited it from NPR's posting. Had you bothered to look, instead of just rip into a knee-jerk criticism, you'd have known that. But whatever ranting you want to do about the President's budget, and perhaps well-deserved, it doesn't change the crap reported here. Suddenly, the House thinks we're back in the good old days of the Cold War. Ah, the missile contracts then... Nice to know they're going to fix Obama's deficits by spending even more money. That'll show him. Why aren't the Teas going ballistic over this? Isn't that what they pretended to go to Washington to do?

farglebargle -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/19/2012 8:33:14 PM)
Why are they passing 'defense' bills, when we're not at war with anyone, and we have no need to deploy forces outside of the United States? Didn't anyone ever tell them that the ENTITLEMENTS the military suppliers enjoy aren't sustainable?

Arturas -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/19/2012 10:29:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Why are they passing 'defense' bills, when we're not at war with anyone, and we have no need to deploy forces outside of the United States? Didn't anyone ever tell them that the ENTITLEMENTS the military suppliers enjoy aren't sustainable? Current event update. North Korea and Iran will have nuke missles about the time this system is ready to defend the U.S. If it were up to the President, we would lack a defense from these nuclear armed rogue countries and we would depend on Russia to support our space program. Oops, I must have forgot, we do depend on Russia to supply our space needs. Nice. But, It's okay. We can reverse this real soon.

Musicmystery -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/19/2012 10:40:03 PM)
quote: we would lack a defense from these nuclear armed rogue countries How?

erieangel -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/19/2012 10:44:26 PM)
So how will an east coast missile defense shield defend us against Iran or N. Korea? The shield on the west coast doesn't work. Regardless, I trust the generals to tell us what the country needs for its defense not a bunch of politicians.

Arturas -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/19/2012 10:56:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel So how will an east coast missile defense shield defend us against Iran or N. Korea? The shield on the west coast doesn't work. Regardless, I trust the generals to tell us what the country needs for its defense not a bunch of politicians. But that depends on what General you talk to. The Army, not so much. The Aerospace Command, who is responsible for our defense in this regard, is totally for this shield. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_WHlI9AVd2dbBpIq8rdM8NP "In pulling the plug on the Bush missile-defense plan in Eastern Europe last month, the White House came up with a new architecture based on a new evaluation of existing intelligence on the Iranian ballistic-missile threat... Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_WHlI9AVd2dbBpIq8rdM8NP#ixzz1vO2lBVpi ...Unfortunately, the US Air Force estimates that Tehran could have an ICBM by 2015 -- an assessment the Pentagon is now hoping may be on the early side. Of course, intelligence estimates can be wrong; an Iranian ICBM could be here sooner than 2015. ...But the Obama administration thinks that if the Iranian ICBM comes online before the land-based SM-3s are developed and in place, the West Coast, Bush-era missile-defense sites give us some breathing room. Not really. The West Coast missile-defense architecture was designed to protect us against North Korea's nuke and missile threat, not Iran's -- hence the development of a similar system in Eastern Europe. Worse yet, President Obama decided to reduce the number of West Coast interceptors from 40 to 30, which would limit the capability to take out incoming ICBMs, because several interceptors would be fired at each missile to ensure a kill. "

Musicmystery -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/19/2012 10:59:19 PM)
This is why NATO wants to build a missile defense system containing Iran--which makes FAR more sense than on our coasts, economically and in terms of domestic defense. Like erie, I'd rather listen to the defense department than politicians on this matter. It was politicians that got us going after non-existent WMD, and it was politicians telling us the war would be on the cheap, in and out. Meanwhile, trillions later.....

Arturas -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/19/2012 11:08:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery This is why NATO wants to build a missile defense system containing Iran--which makes FAR more sense than on our coasts, economically and in terms of domestic defense. Like erie, I'd rather listen to the defense department than politicians on this matter. It was politicians that got us going after non-existent WMD, and it was politicians telling us the war would be on the cheap, in and out. Meanwhile, trillions later..... So. You feel comfortable with NATO someday building a defense shield and we depending on the Eurozone to cooperate in this indeavor and defend us. Interesting. How is that Eurozone doing in the cooperation department so far? I think that is a bit like not having a fire department and waiting on a town over in the next county to eventually build a fire station and buy fire trucks and then hope they will come to your aid even though you never will help them build it.

Arturas -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/19/2012 11:14:12 PM)
quote: Like erie, I'd rather listen to the defense department than politicians on this matter The Defense Department is run by politicians in the U.S. The Secretary of Defense is a politician appointed by a politician. As I posted above, the branch of the Armed Forces charged with Aerospace Defense recomends an east coast shield. Guess that makes you for the east coast shield. Guess I'll go to bed now so I can get up early and plan a bomb shelter in case Obama wins in November.

Musicmystery -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/19/2012 11:18:20 PM)
quote: The Defense Department is run by politicians in the U.S. The Secretary of Defense is a politician appointed by a politician. The Defense Department is run by military brass. It has civilian oversight. and yup, the Sec. of Defense is a politician. Look at the crap Rumsfeld fed us. For the rest--you do know we're part of NATO, yes? And yes, I favor practical approaches over star wars fantasies. It makes sense to have the fire truck near the fire, not send water pissing across the globe.

farglebargle -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/20/2012 4:06:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Why are they passing 'defense' bills, when we're not at war with anyone, and we have no need to deploy forces outside of the United States? Didn't anyone ever tell them that the ENTITLEMENTS the military suppliers enjoy aren't sustainable? Current event update. North Korea and Iran will have nuke missles about the time this system is ready to defend the U.S. If it were up to the President, we would lack a defense from these nuclear armed rogue countries and we would depend on Russia to support our space program. Oops, I must have forgot, we do depend on Russia to supply our space needs. Nice. But, It's okay. We can reverse this real soon. They ain't gonna have any missiles that'll reach the United States, so I'm not going to lose any sleep. So, aside from advocating for continued entitlements to military contractors, you got anything?

farglebargle -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/20/2012 4:07:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: Like erie, I'd rather listen to the defense department than politicians on this matter The Defense Department is run by politicians in the U.S. The Secretary of Defense is a politician appointed by a politician. As I posted above, the branch of the Armed Forces charged with Aerospace Defense recomends an east coast shield. Guess that makes you for the east coast shield. Guess I'll go to bed now so I can get up early and plan a bomb shelter in case Obama wins in November. They're nitwits. You want to prevent anyone from attacking? Build a constellation of solar power satellites in orbit. Our friends get free electricity. Our enemies get the death-ray. I mean, we can shoot things down in the ascent phase.

Hillwilliam -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/20/2012 4:37:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Why are they passing 'defense' bills, when we're not at war with anyone, and we have no need to deploy forces outside of the United States? Didn't anyone ever tell them that the ENTITLEMENTS the military suppliers enjoy aren't sustainable? Current event update. North Korea will have nuke missles about the time this system is ready to defend the U.S. So, you're saying that N Korea will have nuke missiles about 2285? I'll agree with that. [sm=pullit.gif][sm=rofl.gif]

jlf1961 -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/20/2012 7:56:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Why are they passing 'defense' bills, when we're not at war with anyone, and we have no need to deploy forces outside of the United States? Didn't anyone ever tell them that the ENTITLEMENTS the military suppliers enjoy aren't sustainable? Current event update. North Korea and Iran will have nuke missles about the time this system is ready to defend the U.S. If it were up to the President, we would lack a defense from these nuclear armed rogue countries and we would depend on Russia to support our space program. Oops, I must have forgot, we do depend on Russia to supply our space needs. Nice. But, It's okay. We can reverse this real soon. What part of THE MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK, HAS NEVER WORKED AND HAS FAILED IN EVERY TEST do you NOT understand. Even the defense experts on the system say the whole premise is flawed. There has been ONE, repeat, ONE missile interception system that worked, and that was a laser mounted on a 747 but it had to be within 200 miles of the missile when launched. North Korea and Iran DO NOT HAVE the missile technology available to develop long range ballistic missiles. Nor do they have the ability to actually produce a significant number of warheads that are missile capable. Now considering that the US has 8000 nuclear weapons in its arsenal, and the REPUBLICANS also included new nuclear weapon development in their budget, something else the Defense Department has said is not needed, IF either country achieved a ICBM system, and they fired on the US, they would be nuked out of existence. Ever hear the term Mutually Assured Destruction? Well in the case of Iran and North Korea, we would survive with no problem, and they would be radioactive glass. By the way, there is no country in the world that would support or even consider supporting either country in a first strike. One last point concerning the Iranian Nuclear Program, it would seem that their top nuclear scientists seem to have a short life span. Personally I think that Israeli agents are eliminating them. AND, the Israeli government has made it well known that if Iran gets too close to developing a nuclear weapon, they will consider it a threat to their country and deal with it. Remember the Israeli raid on the Iraqi Nuclear Program when Iraq was working on its own nuclear program? I find it funny that the Republicans SCREAM about cutting spending and they will RAISE the defense budget by the same amount that they cut from other programs. That is not doing a fucking thing about the deficit. There is no longer a major power that threatens the US, the Russian Nuclear Weapons systems are outdated and more likely to explode in the silos or on the launch pads than actually hit their targets. The US has been IMPORTING enriched uranium and plutonium from Russia to fuel our reactors you morons, where do you think it came from, it came from RUSSIAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Musicmystery -> RE: House tries to INCREASE spending, breaks deficit-cutting deal (5/20/2012 8:11:19 AM)
quote: the US has 8000 nuclear weapons in its arsenal, and the REPUBLICANS also included new nuclear weapon development in their budget, something else the Defense Department has said is not needed How many nuclear weapons do they figure it takes? The weapons we have today are 200 more powerful than the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. Very few and the world would be inhabitable.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.296875E-02