Given the ongoing cuts to the military, he'll soon be calling on the Girl Scouts.
Not with this GOP House writing Appropriation bills led by Isolationist/Pacifist TEAs.You think Obama could pull that off ?
What are your thoughts on the Presidents speech about ISIS?
The House of GOP writes all appropriation bills.
Thought you might have known that .
I hate it when your daddy reads a speech off a teleprompter
He looked so bored and like he would have rather been on the golf course where he belongs so he can do no further damage to this country..
The House of GOP writes all appropriation bills.
Thought you might have known that .
Not with this GOP House writing Appropriation bills led by Isolationist/Pacifist TEAs.
And thanks go to Bush-43 for not listening to his Father about "voo-doo" economics .
I commend the Administration for all the efforts they have taken thus-far, however I find it very hard to trust most of Obama's speech tonight. Campaigns and outsmarting ISIS are nice thoughts, and while I don't hope for us to begin another war, it's unrealistic to think that won't become of this situation. I don't want to be lied to, and i'm tired of having a president that dances around the main issues.
I'm not aware of that, but I am aware that the 2011 BCA could cut funding to that level....is this what you are talking about?I'm aware that the WH proposed a $415 billion (DoD) budget.
I'm not aware of that, but I am aware that the 2011 BCA could cut funding to that level....is this what you are talking about?
The worst president in history keeps getting worse.
The community organizer is WEAK.
Obama said in his speech that "we are safer today" I almost ha:lamod a stroke.
.
I'm not aware of that, but I am aware that the 2011 BCA could cut funding to that level....is this what you are talking about?
The Middle East is the Arab League's problem and it's time we stop pimping out our military to them. If they want bodies to throw at their enemies then they can choose them from among their own citizenry instead of ours.
False, the Obama WH has submitted a budget every year.No ... the WH, as it is supposed to do every year and failed to do for the first 4 years of the Obama administration, submits a proposed budget.
You missed, since you could not show your $415B...but more importantly, you missed that this budget needs to be in compliance with the 2013 BBA...which everyone knows...is Ryan and Murray's baby....AND....well...you left a few things out....This budget is then used as a guideline for what the Executive Branch thinks they need to do the job. The House creates the appropriations bills, which either reflect the President's wishes or modify it for what they think is needed, based on inputs from the various government agencies. The Senate is then, though they've failed for the past 5 years, supposed to review the House version, suggest changes where they think appropriate. This is where budgets have gone to die.
So, in this case (2015), we have:
1) The WH submitted a proposed budget ( The Budget | The White House ) that recommended $415 billion for Defense (you have to go in and strip the numbers down to operational vs. administrative costs to get to that number). For purposes of discussion, we'll assume that the $495 billion (the overall total) was all operations. (I have no confidence that the WH intended to cut government bureaucrats to get the cost down). Included in that budget were significant cuts to personnel monies - things like cutting commissaries, raising the co-pay on TriCare for veterans, etc. - as well as holding the reimbursement on subsistence and housing allowances (even though the costs of both had gone up), and capping the service pay raise at 1%.
2) The Department of Defense also does a budget exercise which is floated up to the House. In that submission, they asked for what they thought they needed to meet the military mission.
3) The House looked at both proposals and settled on $600 billion for DoD activities. This was based on maintaining the service member benefits, as well as funding important operations and systems.
4) The Senate, once again acting as lap dogs for the President, held to the $495 billion limit. They did this by keeping the service member benefits in place, but cutting the overall size of the military and stopping some new system acquisitions. They were advised by the WH that some of these elements were not needed since we were no longer at war, and, in addition, changed the baseline definition of the mission of the military (a long and convoluted description of which I can provide if you are interested). Suffice it to say, we no longer are as dominant a force as we were three years ago. It was this maneuver that enabled the President to pretend he cut DoD costs, while maintaining our security postures. Those of us in the business would STRONGLY disagree (more on that also, if you wish).
5) In order to get a budget passed, the House acquiesced on the $495 billion limit, recognizing that they had protected the troops. (Clearly, they recognized that stalling the budget - for any reason - was not a politically viable solution.)
Does that answer your question, or did I miss?
I'm jaded. All I can think about the presidents speech is that his supporters and those that were previously against military action are now about to become gods of war, and those that are his detractors are about to clamor for wisdom, patience, exit plans, strategies, and congressional approval to act.
Yes--that's what GOP House member BARTON from Texas said today--we're safer now than after 9/11 on Bush's watch."We are safer today" :lamo
The President should act as clearly outlined in the Constitution. Only Congress can declare war. Every time a President takes the nation to war without a formal declaration from Congress Americans and especially military Americans, get ****ed over. It needs to be discussed in Congress and debated and the public must have the opportunity to be involved and to provide input to their representatives and it needs to go to a roll call vote. Congress must assume the burden.
The American People should know that a US commitment will escalate, that there will be further real losses of personal freedom. The American People must understand that the nation will sacrifice and that the sacrifice will be shared. They must understand that there will be long term financial sacrifices.
The rah, rah, send Johnny off to war - as long as it's not me or mine - crap has to end.
Writing a blank check to fight terror is like writing a blank check to fight the War on Drugs. How's that working out?
Mr. Obama continues to walk softly and carry a big stick, which ISIL is about to get thumped by.
Like I just told Nimby, I have seen our air campaign along with indiginous forces doing the fight on the ground work in Laos until we were forced to stop bombing and the Royal Lao were worse fighters than the Iraqi. It also worked in Afghanistan during the initial war, Afghani, the Northern Alliance troops fighting on the ground and our air power drove the Taliban out of Afghanistan. The thing is you must trust the troops on the ground to do their thing and do it well.
If ISIS or ISIL or plain IS moved towards Baghdad if we were serious we could put an armada in the air and with all that flat country there wouldn't be much left of the force that advanced on Baghdad. But are we willing to do something like that ala WWII or would it be pin pricks in fear of killing civilians and damaging structures like Mosques? I don't know.
As for killing al-Baghdadi, I haven't the faintest idea how that would effect the whole ISIS situation.
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?