- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
In addition to the original cuts Obama wants to cut another 500 billion making the total cuts if enacted almost a trillion dollars..........what part of that do you not understand my left wing friend?
Seriously?....pretty much everyone in this thread is calling you out for inaccuracy, ignorance, lies, and pure bull****....and your reply is to debase someone for misspelling a name?
Dayum....pure fail, on an epic scale.
Believe it or not my left wing friend the military defend this country against attack.........They actually protect people like you who want to tie their hands behind their backs......
Uhh i cant find a source on that. I can find the original 487 billion he agrees with but i cant find the additional 500 billion. Can you find that for me NAvy or did you just make up that?
Do you have any right wing friends...so far its me Wolin and ikari are your friends..lol
Seriously?....pretty much everyone in this thread is calling you out for inaccuracy, ignorance, lies, and pure bull****....and your reply is to debase someone for misspelling a name?
Dayum....pure fail, on an epic scale.
I already posted a link to it........
NP's source is probably Limbaugh...an "anti-American" , IMO.Uhh i cant find a source on that. I can find the original 487 billion he agrees with but i cant find the additional 500 billion. Can you find that for me NAvy or did you just make up that?
You posted a link that showed Panetta supported Obama's recommendation on trimming military spending by $487 billion over ten years, but opposed the additional $500 billion in required cuts under the sequestration agreement forced by the GOP during their opposition to raising the debt ceiling.
Its very ironic that you are now complaining about cuts under the agreement forced by the GOP, without even being aware, apparently, that your own party brought it about.
Nice!
NP's source is probably Limbaugh...an "anti-American" , IMO.
After we bring back all of our military from our absolutely foolish foreign adventures (will we ever learn) , the budget can be cut..and, it will be cut.
As to the $20000 caskets which may have cost $900...I do not believe this....too absurd....but, little doubt in my mind, anti-Americans are becoming rich in these adventures....
The GOP can force nothing in the senate.............they don't have the votes to do it and even if they did Reid would not let it come to the floor for a vote.............Obama got 487 billion....he wants almost a trillion.......
Yeah, but this is America you're talking about. Being a dick is practically encoded into our DNA.
1. Sure, some of the costs are being laid upon the insurance companies and medical care providers...but who ends up paying those costs? Answer, the public. It's no different than raising taxes.
2. Medical costs are not designed to go down as a result of Obamacare...no matter what flavor of koolaid Obama, Pelosi and Reid are selling.
3. Those examples are a drop in the bucket of waste, fraud and abuse the government continues to pour our taxpayer money into.
4. No, a better place to start would be reducing or eliminating USELESS agencies and departments. The Defense Department is necessary.
the dem interpretation of the constitution is designed to kill it
I already posted a link to it........
Yeah, but this is America you're talking about. Being a dick is practically encoded into our DNA.
Believe it or not my left wing friend the military defend this country against attack.........They actually protect people like you who want to tie their hands behind their backs......
Yeah, but this is America you're talking about. Being a dick is practically encoded into our DNA.
No...I called YOUR little thing a drop in the bucket...you know, that drop you used to justify your attack on a Constitutionally mandated responsibility of the federal government. Meanwhile, you totally ignore the unmandated elephant in the room: aggregate entitlement spending. Try scaling THAT back first. Then we can see about defense.
Since you obviously know noting about the budget sequestration agreement forced by the GOP when they blocked the debt ceiling increase, here is some background for you so you can make more intelligent points:
"Last summer, Congress passed the Budget Control Act (BCA), raising the federal debt ceiling and pledging to cut budget deficits by at least $2.1 trillion from 2012 to 2021. Of that, cuts of $900 billion were included in the BCA — with half from defense. Congress then created a “supercommittee” of 12 of its members to achieve the remaining $1.2 trillion of deficit reduction through more spending cuts or tax increases.
Sequestration aimed to promote agreement by creating an alternative that seemed worse: automatic cuts in defense and non-defense spending. The theory was that the fear of sequester would so upset Republicans (against deep defense cuts) and Democrats (against domestic cuts) that they would negotiate a more acceptable package. By the same logic, Congress would then approve the supercommittee’s plan.
Wrong. The supercommittee didn’t agree, and Congress didn’t vote. With hindsight, this is unsurprising, because the sequester is not neutral. Though defense spending represents 19 percent of the budget in 2012, it would absorb half the cuts. Moreover, many entitlements (Social Security, Medicaid) were excluded from cuts. As supporters of domestic spending, Democrats had less reason to fear sequester. Similarly, the sequestration imposed no automatic tax increases; this appealed to Republicans. And because sequestration itself wouldn’t start until 2013, failing to agree in late 2011 had little political fallout.
So: The sequestration now scheduled for next January means about another $500 billion in military cuts over the decade. These are in addition to the $487 billion in defense reductions already in the BCA and billions of earlier cuts ordered by former defense secretary Robert Gates, who ended some major programs including the F-22 stealth fighter. Nor do these cuts count the automatic reductions occurring from withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan. Even without sequester, defense spending is estimated to fall to 13 percent of the budget in 2017."
Budget sequestration would be a dagger to defense - The Washington Post
I want to see the people that defend us home defending it, not policing other countries that don't need it, trying to rebuild countries that are hopeless to rebuild, and fighting wars for other countries because they don't have a military budget. Our military does far less with much much more than they did in WWII, Korean, or Vietnam War and I'm fine with that but they don't need to continuously do it just to do it.
Obama is doing that....the sad part is because he did not finish the job we will be back in 10 years and lose many more lives.........
Give me a break.....The Obama Budget was defeated 99-0.........The GOP has a budget but it has been tabled by Reid............He knows if he puts it to a vote it will pass even with dems voting for it...
How is wanting to get the budget in the military in control, something several Libertarians want as well make me a constitutional threat? I have said in several threads before I believe the entitlement spending is out of control as well. It needs to be toned down to spending levels similar to that of what they were back in 1996. A good place to start would be to merge SNAP and WIC into one program, whereas you are restricted to what you must have, and for people of a certain age and health to meet certain milestones to have continued entitlements. Eitherway you try to slice it, our military and intelligence community is ridiculious. Our intelligence community alone is so ineffective and bureaucratic the "scary Obamacare" pales in comparison to the wildest lies you have been fed by your mouthpiece masters.
Dude...do you have a persecution complex? I don't think I ever said you were a "constitutional threat", did I?
So...you've admitted that entitlement programs need to be dealt with. Good. Personally, I don't think you go far enough, though. SNAP and WIC are minor compared to the amount of money spent in other entitlement programs. I guess you really don't want to deal with the enormous government spending...unless we can take it away from the military, that is.
"Admitted" why is it that I either have to be a huge asshole for one thing, or a huge asshole for another? Why can't I just be a normal guy with a level head and some common sense? There is a lot more other than WIC and SNAP those are just the easiest examples to explain. These are all incredibly complicated programs that also use state funds as well, whereas the military simply uses federal funding. I think the department of labor, agriculture could all stand to use some cuts, whereas all parts of the government could be made more efficient.
And yet...you keep harping on the military. Heck, military spending isn't even on-topic.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?