• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tea Party Budget Tactics Are Hitting The Military Hard

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Yes Right Wingers who want to deny who is responsible for the shut down.. this is Conservative Forbes.

Tea Party Budget Tactics Are Hitting The Military Hard - Forbes
10/01/2013 @ 10:52AM

Only hours before the federal government began its partial shutdown at midnight on Tuesday, Congress passed a law assuring that military personnel will get checks promptly when their next payday rolls around on October 15 — even if there are still no appropriations for the new fiscal year. But that doesn’t mean military families will be untouched by the shutdown. The stateside commissaries where they buy food are closed. Most government-funded travel has been suspended. Services provided by civilian federal workers will be disrupted. Even death benefits for warfighters killed in action might be delayed.
[.......]
The vast warfighting machine that the nation spent trillions of dollars building up after 9-11 is rapidly running down, a victim of partisan bickering in which the once staunchly pro-defense Republican Party has become the biggest threat to U.S. military preparedness. That’s a title that GOP partisans gleefully attached to the Democrats after Vietnam, but most Republicans in the House now seem to have higher priorities than keeping the joint force trained and equipped.
[........]
So when Republican proponents of the Tea Party agenda in the House speak in glowing terms about disrupting federal funding mechanisms — “We’re very excited,” says Michelle Bachmann (R-MN), “It’s wonderful” says John Culberson (R-TX) — we ought to see their enthusiasm for what it is. It is ideological fervor fed at the expense of America’s warfighters.
Those warfighters are more likely to die in future conflicts because funding for training and technology was cut, and their families are more likely to suffer in the near term for lack of support. The good news is that once legislators in both parties realize that is what’s happening, the Tea Party movement is likely to lose its momentum.
 
Oh well, if FORBES says it all conservatives must agree. :mrgreen:

Perhaps conservatives aren't the follow along puppies liberals are and are willing instead to think for themselves. And btw, if our military forces are "rapidly running down" what the hell has the president and the democratic senate been doing the last six years?
 
Oh well, if FORBES says it all conservatives must agree. :mrgreen:

Perhaps conservatives aren't the follow along puppies liberals are and are willing instead to think for themselves. And btw, if our military forces are "rapidly running down" what the hell has the president and the democratic senate been doing the last six years?

Why, exactly what the GOP Congress has been doing. Enjoying the feast of privilege. Decorating their offices. Flying to Paris to strengthen our international relationships. Writing books. Making $30K speeches.
 
Oh well, if FORBES says it all conservatives must agree. :mrgreen:

Perhaps conservatives aren't the follow along puppies liberals are and are willing instead to think for themselves. And btw, if our military forces are "rapidly running down" what the hell has the president and the democratic senate been doing the last six years?

More like lemmings. Not one Republican in the House had the courage to break with the Tea Party's scorch earth policy.

And you're actually arguing that conservatives "think for themselves". BWHHAHAHHAHAHH!
 
More like lemmings. Not one Republican in the House had the courage to break with the Tea Party's scorch earth policy.

And you're actually arguing that conservatives "think for themselves". BWHHAHAHHAHAHH!

You have precious little room to talk on that last, you're known for your slavish regurgitation of anti GOP memes.
 
More like lemmings. Not one Republican in the House had the courage to break with the Tea Party's scorch earth policy.

And you're actually arguing that conservatives "think for themselves". BWHHAHAHHAHAHH!
Well HOJ, when it comes to doing what's right you know that the GOP is going to be patriotic and support our warfighters... mean insurance companies. :roll:
 
Well HOJ, when it comes to doing what's right you know that the GOP is going to be patriotic and support our warfighters... mean insurance companies. :roll:

Wrong party there - Obama met with the insurance companies early on and gave them whatever they wanted from the deal. Did it closed door too, that's why for a while there Pelosi thought a single payer option was on the table and had to quickly backtrack.
 
Wrong party there - Obama met with the insurance companies early on and gave them whatever they wanted from the deal. Did it closed door too, that's why for a while there Pelosi thought a single payer option was on the table and had to quickly backtrack.

That's because conservatives were unwilling to engage with the process and help challenge the corporate establishment in Washington.

It is sort of like the Mass Effect 3 endings:

You can (1) destroy the Establishment but America dies, (2) merge with the Establishment, or (3) overpower and control the Establishment.

(3) was a locked option, (1) was not really an option at all, so we went with (2).
 
Tell us more about how life is like a space video game.
 
That's because conservatives were unwilling to engage with the process and help challenge the corporate establishment in Washington.

It is sort of like the Mass Effect 3 endings:

You can (1) destroy the Establishment but America dies, (2) merge with the Establishment, or (3) overpower and control the Establishment.

(3) was a locked option, (1) was not really an option at all, so we went with (2).

Nope, the closed door meetings between Obama and insurance company execs happenned very early on in the process while the bill was still being authored. He promised them no single payer.
 
Wrong party there - Obama met with the insurance companies early on and gave them whatever they wanted from the deal. Did it closed door too, that's why for a while there Pelosi thought a single payer option was on the table and had to quickly backtrack.
I'm not too sure about that. It took some real arm twisting to get those companies to sit down with Obama and talk. These companies can't be too wild about the "they can't turn you down" thing. ;)
 
Yes Right Wingers who want to deny who is responsible for the shut down.. this is Conservative Forbes.

Tea Party Budget Tactics Are Hitting The Military Hard - Forbes
10/01/2013 @ 10:52AM

LOL. The writer, Loren Thompson works for a company that only gets paid if the military is spending. He also is on record pushing the Expeditionary Fighting vehicle for when we invade Vietnam again. Same guy said in 2012 that everybody in the GOP was unsuited for higher office.

He is not part of Forbes, just a contributor. Easy to see why.
 
The House is at this very minute writing up individual bills to fund the military, DHS and so on... I am sure the Democrats will be quick to pass those in the senate and Obama will sign them into law... because they REALLY care about the military. Right?
 
The House is at this very minute writing up individual bills to fund the military, DHS and so on... I am sure the Democrats will be quick to pass those in the senate and Obama will sign them into law... because they REALLY care about the military. Right?

why pick and choose what parts of the government to keep open? why not fund all of the government.
 
Yes Right Wingers who want to deny who is responsible for the shut down.. this is Conservative Forbes.

well, firstly, those two items are largely unconnected. But lets' take a look.

Only hours before the federal government began its partial shutdown at midnight on Tuesday, Congress passed a law assuring that military personnel will get checks promptly when their next payday rolls around on October 15 — even if there are still no appropriations for the new fiscal year. But that doesn’t mean military families will be untouched by the shutdown. The stateside commissaries where they buy food are closed. Most government-funded travel has been suspended. Services provided by civilian federal workers will be disrupted. Even death benefits for warfighters killed in action might be delayed.

Pretty much if the spending is important, it's going forward.

Look. I was sent to Hawaii just last week to do a "site visit"; ie: to liaise with our Marines there, to do some work stuff, get some synergy and unity of effort going etc.... all stuff that could have been done (with a little more difficulty) over email. Why did I get sent? Literally the reason I got sent was because we had money we needed to spend.

So that is the kind of "travel" that is being suspended. The horror. :roll:

PCS is still funded, important trips are still funded, deployment and redeployment is still funded, separations are still funded...

The "ohmagerdohmagerd the military family sky is falling" hysteria is simply unsupportable. Even when I was stateside, we didn't shop for food at the Commissary - because Wal-Mart was cheaper.

We will start having significant problems in a few years once our mission set remains expanded but our assets to meet them are dramatically shrunk. But that is a result of Sequestration and budge cuts, not bickering over CR's.

[.......]
The vast warfighting machine that the nation spent trillions of dollars building up after 9-11 is rapidly running down, a victim of partisan bickering in which the once staunchly pro-defense Republican Party has become the biggest threat to U.S. military preparedness.

This is incorrect as the Democrats want to cut even more. However, the military cuts that are driving down the force are part of the regular reductions after a war and the particulars of Sequestration. Remember Sequestration? When Democrats insisted on large, unwieldy defense cuts because they assumed it meant so much pain for Republicans that Republicans would never allow it?

That’s a title that GOP partisans gleefully attached to the Democrats after Vietnam, but most Republicans in the House now seem to have higher priorities than keeping the joint force trained and equipped.
[........]

Yup. It's called "Fiscal Survival of the Nation".

So when Republican proponents of the Tea Party agenda in the House speak in glowing terms about disrupting federal funding mechanisms — “We’re very excited,” says Michelle Bachmann (R-MN), “It’s wonderful” says John Culberson (R-TX) — we ought to see their enthusiasm for what it is. It is ideological fervor fed at the expense of America’s warfighters.

Hm. It's Oct 2 here. As a warfighter I look around.... most stuff seems okay. My lawn needs cutting....

Those warfighters are more likely to die in future conflicts because funding for training and technology was cut, and their families are more likely to suffer in the near term for lack of support. The good news is that once legislators in both parties realize that is what’s happening, the Tea Party movement is likely to lose its momentum.

The bolded portion of this statement is true. More warfighters will die in future conflicts because we are not making the investments in gear and training now, just as more warfighters will die in future conflicts because the leadership that this administration has chosen to shape the post-war force seems intent on pushing out anyone who demonstrated that they were actually good at fighting.

The underlined is not. You may have some minor problems (my Tuition Assistance package probably isn't going to be approved until something gets passed), but nothing is really going to threaten America's military families. Nor is either party of congress likely to A) be willing to admit what is happening or B) willing to reduce their support for cutting military spending if they do realize what's happening. Dramatically cutting military spending after a war in order to make room for social priorities and paying the price later by losing more guys like me is a long American tradition.
 
i'm at a loss as to the purpose of this thread..

are we supposed to be assigning blame to the GOP as the OP wants us to.. or are we supposed to be talking about the military feeling the pinch and Democrats pretending to care?
 
I stopped reading after you falsely claimed Forbes is a conservative he is a libertarian
You "stopped reading" early on, obviously.
Nor would it be wise to ignore content just because you want to Parse/Over-define Forbes, The Magazine, Not person.
If you're going to try and be clever with words, be more careful.

The person:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Forbes said:
[......]
Forbes entered the Republican primaries for President of the United States in 1996 and 2000, primarily running on a campaign to establish a flat income tax. He also supported the ideas of re-introducing 4 1/2% mortgages and term limits in 1996, but dropped both in 2000 (as they were minor planks in his overall platform).
[......]
Major issues Forbes has supported include free trade, health savings accounts, and allowing people to opt out 75% of Social Security payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts (PRAs). He supports traditional Republican Party policies such as downsizing government agencies to balance the budget, tough crime laws and support for the death penalty, and school vouchers. He opposes gun control and most government regulation of the environment, as well as drug legalization and same-sex marriage.[13] This last was despite his father's increasingly flamboyant gay lifestyle before his death.[14]
[......]
In his 2000 campaign, Forbes professed his support for Social Conservatism along with his supply-side economics. Despite holding opposite positions in 1996, for the 2000 campaign, Forbes announced he was adamantly opposed to abortion and supported prayer in public schools. The previous year Forbes had issued a statement saying he would no longer donate money to Princeton University due to its hiring of philosopher Peter Singer, who views personhood as being limited to 'sentient' beings and therefore considers some disabled people and all infants to lack this status. Steve Forbes was one of the signers of the Statement of Principles of Project for the New American Century (PNAC) on June 3, 1997.
"Libertarian" is never mentioned.
Nonetheless, he is without question from the Right side of the political spectrum. So your contentious reply was as empty as one would expect from someone who 'stopped reading... long ago.

The Magazine:
Forbes Magazine, Subscribe at the Conservative Magrack

http://www.Conservativebookstore.com/magrack/forbes-magazine.htm said:
Forbes Magazine has been keeping the nation's great entrepreneurs informed and solvent since before the Great Depression. Right on the money for over 80 years. Get Forbes Magazine!

The most Conservative business journal published today is Forbes Magazine.
Unabashedly practical and pro-capital Forbes Magazine brings you feature articles on up and coming companies, old and new money, CEOs, entrepreneurs, trends, industries, politics and more.
Ouch!
 
Last edited:
why pick and choose what parts of the government to keep open? why not fund all of the government.


Why should they behave any differently than the President? He has spent the last 4 1/2 years picking and choosing what laws he cares to enforce, and even what parts of the ACA he wants to implement. The Republicans have now offered him full funding of ALL the government except the ACA. He should take it.
 
there may be a way to end the shutdown, and get a clean spending bill from the house which can pass the senate and ultimately be signed by president obama. all the democrats have to do is get enough signatures to invoke a discharge petition and force a vote on a clean continuing resolution to fund the government, something the republican leadership in the house has been refusing to allow.

the beauty of a discharge petition is that it requires the signatures of a absolute majority of house members, which is 218. there are currently 200 democrats in the house, so all it would take to pass a discharge petition is 18 republicans, and 13 republican house members have been calling for passing a clean continuing resolution. all it would take is 5 more republicans to pass a discharge petition, force a vote on a clean continuing resolution bill, pass it in the house, pass it in the senate, and get it signed by President obama, and government shutdown crisis is over.
 
I'm not too sure about that. It took some real arm twisting to get those companies to sit down with Obama and talk. These companies can't be too wild about the "they can't turn you down" thing. ;)

Hence the mandate and the billions of dollars in subsidies that will be funneling into their pockets.
 
Hence the mandate and the billions of dollars in subsidies that will be funneling into their pockets.

Right, that's why they are refusing to insure people in many areas already. LOL.
 
Nope, the closed door meetings between Obama and insurance company execs happenned very early on in the process while the bill was still being authored. He promised them no single payer.

... that didn't contradict what I said at all. Republicans not engaging with the process happened simultaneously with Democrats beginning the process.
 
Back
Top Bottom