• 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!

We Have House Democrats To Thank For Trump's War Budget$

H. E. Panqui

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
664
Reaction score
90
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We Have House Armed Services Committee Democrats To Thank for Trump's Horrific War Budgets - Antiwar.com Original

We Have House Armed Services Committee Democrats To Thank for Trump’s Horrific War Budgets
by Ruth E. Kastner Posted on August 11, 2020

I recently discovered the extent to which Democrats routinely vote for Republican policies and expenditures at the committee level. Such enabling committee-level "yes" votes often fly under the radar, since members of Congress who cast these damaging votes often vote "no" on the House or Senate floor. They then point to their "no" floor votes as evidence of their ostensible opposition to the policy that they just encouraged and enabled by their much more powerful committee "yes" vote.

In the House, a floor vote is only one of about 435, while a committee vote packs a much more powerful punch. For example, the Democratic complement of the House Armed Services Committee is only 31, as one can discover upon visiting the HASC website. (The GOP complement is 26.) Among the smiling faces of these Democratic committee members is Ro Khanna, a self-described "progressive." Khanna has an active presence on social media and in email communications, where he touts his antiwar stance and his staunch opposition to "endless war" and excessive military spending.

The problem? All 31 of these smiling Democrats routinely vote in the HASC for Trump’s wasteful, saber-rattling Pentagon budgets. This includes the most recent exorbitant and highly controversial $741 billion budget as contained in the FY2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Many Democrats have railed against excessive military spending by Trump, in particular during a public health crisis in which many Americans have been laid off, lost their employer-based health care, and face eviction during a deadly pandemic that has already killed over 150,000. While desperately needed aid to working Americans is being held up by a GOP Senate, these 31 Democrats just voted to advance Trump’s military budget to the floor with the amount unchanged and with nearly every provision that Trump wanted. They did the same the previous year, FY2020. Yet ironically, most GOP members of the HASC opposed last year’s Pentagon budget based on their disagreements with Democratic committee members’ amendments. This shows how readily the Democratic majority could have stopped Trump’s hugely excessive Pentagon budget in its tracks had they wished to do so. GOP members feel free to vote to hold up their own President’s budget in committee if they disagree with certain provisions of the Democratic majority. Yet Democratic members seem unwilling to put even temporary brakes on a Trump military budget, even as members of his own party feel free to do so.
 

Dayton3

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
12,687
Reaction score
1,937
Location
Smackover, AR.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
We Have House Armed Services Committee Democrats To Thank for Trump's Horrific War Budgets - Antiwar.com Original

We Have House Armed Services Committee Democrats To Thank for Trump’s Horrific War Budgets
by Ruth E. Kastner Posted on August 11, 2020

I recently discovered the extent to which Democrats routinely vote for Republican policies and expenditures at the committee level. Such enabling committee-level "yes" votes often fly under the radar, since members of Congress who cast these damaging votes often vote "no" on the House or Senate floor. They then point to their "no" floor votes as evidence of their ostensible opposition to the policy that they just encouraged and enabled by their much more powerful committee "yes" vote.

In the House, a floor vote is only one of about 435, while a committee vote packs a much more powerful punch. For example, the Democratic complement of the House Armed Services Committee is only 31, as one can discover upon visiting the HASC website. (The GOP complement is 26.) Among the smiling faces of these Democratic committee members is Ro Khanna, a self-described "progressive." Khanna has an active presence on social media and in email communications, where he touts his antiwar stance and his staunch opposition to "endless war" and excessive military spending.

The problem? All 31 of these smiling Democrats routinely vote in the HASC for Trump’s wasteful, saber-rattling Pentagon budgets. This includes the most recent exorbitant and highly controversial $741 billion budget as contained in the FY2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Many Democrats have railed against excessive military spending by Trump, in particular during a public health crisis in which many Americans have been laid off, lost their employer-based health care, and face eviction during a deadly pandemic that has already killed over 150,000. While desperately needed aid to working Americans is being held up by a GOP Senate, these 31 Democrats just voted to advance Trump’s military budget to the floor with the amount unchanged and with nearly every provision that Trump wanted. They did the same the previous year, FY2020. Yet ironically, most GOP members of the HASC opposed last year’s Pentagon budget based on their disagreements with Democratic committee members’ amendments. This shows how readily the Democratic majority could have stopped Trump’s hugely excessive Pentagon budget in its tracks had they wished to do so. GOP members feel free to vote to hold up their own President’s budget in committee if they disagree with certain provisions of the Democratic majority. Yet Democratic members seem unwilling to put even temporary brakes on a Trump military budget, even as members of his own party feel free to do so.

Good for the Democrats. The defense budget needs to be much higher but it's a start.
 

Glitch

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
17,453
Reaction score
7,889
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
We Have House Armed Services Committee Democrats To Thank for Trump's Horrific War Budgets - Antiwar.com Original

We Have House Armed Services Committee Democrats To Thank for Trump’s Horrific War Budgets
by Ruth E. Kastner Posted on August 11, 2020

I recently discovered the extent to which Democrats routinely vote for Republican policies and expenditures at the committee level. Such enabling committee-level "yes" votes often fly under the radar, since members of Congress who cast these damaging votes often vote "no" on the House or Senate floor. They then point to their "no" floor votes as evidence of their ostensible opposition to the policy that they just encouraged and enabled by their much more powerful committee "yes" vote.

In the House, a floor vote is only one of about 435, while a committee vote packs a much more powerful punch. For example, the Democratic complement of the House Armed Services Committee is only 31, as one can discover upon visiting the HASC website. (The GOP complement is 26.) Among the smiling faces of these Democratic committee members is Ro Khanna, a self-described "progressive." Khanna has an active presence on social media and in email communications, where he touts his antiwar stance and his staunch opposition to "endless war" and excessive military spending.

The problem? All 31 of these smiling Democrats routinely vote in the HASC for Trump’s wasteful, saber-rattling Pentagon budgets. This includes the most recent exorbitant and highly controversial $741 billion budget as contained in the FY2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Many Democrats have railed against excessive military spending by Trump, in particular during a public health crisis in which many Americans have been laid off, lost their employer-based health care, and face eviction during a deadly pandemic that has already killed over 150,000. While desperately needed aid to working Americans is being held up by a GOP Senate, these 31 Democrats just voted to advance Trump’s military budget to the floor with the amount unchanged and with nearly every provision that Trump wanted. They did the same the previous year, FY2020. Yet ironically, most GOP members of the HASC opposed last year’s Pentagon budget based on their disagreements with Democratic committee members’ amendments. This shows how readily the Democratic majority could have stopped Trump’s hugely excessive Pentagon budget in its tracks had they wished to do so. GOP members feel free to vote to hold up their own President’s budget in committee if they disagree with certain provisions of the Democratic majority. Yet Democratic members seem unwilling to put even temporary brakes on a Trump military budget, even as members of his own party feel free to do so.

You understand that committee votes do not enact laws, right? All an affirmative committee vote does is allow the legislation to be scheduled for a floor vote. It is the floor vote by individual members that determines whether or not the legislation becomes law, not the committee vote.

Furthermore, every budget passed by Congress in the last 10 years (including 6 of Obama's years as President) has been with a veto-proof majority. Neither Obama nor Trump has had any say in the federal budget for the last decade.
 
Last edited:

H. E. Panqui

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
664
Reaction score
90
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Good for the Democrats. The defense budget needs to be much higher but it's a start.

...how come you republicrats $pend so much for 'defense'?!

...i thought you ?trumpkin conservatives were 'small government constitutionalists'...... :elephantf
 

Dayton3

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
12,687
Reaction score
1,937
Location
Smackover, AR.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
...how come you republicrats $pend so much for 'defense'?!

...i thought you ?trumpkin conservatives were 'small government constitutionalists'...... :elephantf

To the former, to prepare the U.S. for the next major war.

To the latter, never when it comes to defense.
 

H. E. Panqui

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
664
Reaction score
90
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
To the former, to prepare the U.S. for the next major war.

To the latter, never when it comes to defense.

...it's not really 'defense' though...hint: more smedley butler, much much less ruse limbo...

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
From a speech (1933)

I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
From a speech (1933)
 

Dayton3

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
12,687
Reaction score
1,937
Location
Smackover, AR.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
...it's not really 'defense' though...hint: more smedley butler, much much less ruse limbo...

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
From a speech (1933)

I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
From a speech (1933)

A cynical opinion from 87 years ago holds no weight with me.
 

H. E. Panqui

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
664
Reaction score
90
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A cynical opinion from 87 years ago holds no weight with me.

...nothing much has changed as to motivation$...you know that if you honestly understood 'Who creates our money and how do they do it?'.... but, of course, you are worse than merely ignorant [you falsely believe you 'know']... as is every republicrat i know...
 

Uncensored2008

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
4,747
Reaction score
951
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
...how come you republicrats $pend so much for 'defense'?!

...i thought you ?trumpkin conservatives were 'small government constitutionalists'...... :elephantf


Why do Communists use ad hom so heavily?

Trump is the first president since Reagan to start no new wars. Yet the Communists attack him. Mattis tried to FORCE him into a war in Syria - but Trump refused - and the little Goebbels attacked him for NOT starting a war. I thought the party press opposed war? Nah, the little Goebbels of MSNBCNN - NYWAPOHuffyPooTIMES are just demagogues who slander and libel the president regardless of what he does.
 

H. E. Panqui

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
664
Reaction score
90
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why do Communists use ad hom so heavily?

Trump is the first president since Reagan to start no new wars. Yet the Communists attack him. Mattis tried to FORCE him into a war in Syria - but Trump refused - and the little Goebbels attacked him for NOT starting a war. I thought the party press opposed war? Nah, the little Goebbels of MSNBCNN - NYWAPOHuffyPooTIMES are just demagogues who slander and libel the president regardless of what he does.

:toilet:

...if i had to label myself, i'm a minarchist... the difference in the $ize and $cope of government advocated by ?your stinking ['capitalist'] republicans and the ['communist'] democrats is so puny that only a republicrat fool would quibble...
 

Glitch

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
17,453
Reaction score
7,889
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
A cynical opinion from 87 years ago holds no weight with me.

It was also a completely different US when Maj. Gen. Bulter was fighting. He fought for the United Fruit Company in Nicaragua during the "Banana Wars" of the 1920s, and that shaped his opinion. He certainly didn't feel that way when he fought in the Spanish-American War in 1898, or in the Boxer Rebellion of 1900, or in Vera Cruz Mexico in 1914, or in Haiti in 1915, or during WW I. His opinion began to change during the 1920s when he fought in Nicaragua, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, and China again in 1927.

He is still one of only 19 people ever to be awarded two Medals of Honor, and that makes him worthy of listening to what he has to say.
 
Last edited:

H. E. Panqui

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
664
Reaction score
90
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You understand that committee votes do not enact laws, right? All an affirmative committee vote does is allow the legislation to be scheduled for a floor vote. It is the floor vote by individual members that determines whether or not the legislation becomes law, not the committee vote.

Furthermore, every budget passed by Congress in the last 10 years (including 6 of Obama's years as President) has been with a veto-proof majority. Neither Obama nor Trump has had any say in the federal budget for the last decade.

...you do understand the democrats control the house and the majority composition of house committees, right?

... as to 'neither obomba nor trump', you do understand that all of these stinking republicrat politicians are bankster-approved puppet$, go-alongs, etc., right?
 

Uncensored2008

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
4,747
Reaction score
951
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
:toilet:

...if i had to label myself, i'm a minarchist... the difference in the $ize and $cope of government advocated by ?your stinking ['capitalist'] republicans and the ['communist'] democrats is so puny that only a republicrat fool would quibble...


Small minds label people.

I come from Twitter, where I had over 50,000 followers prior to the July 4th purge. Now I'm on Parler with over 5,000 followers.

I speak to issues, concepts, parties. I don't worry about individual drones of the Marxist hive. I'm not interested in getting in flame wars. Our nation faces extinction from an enemy that is waging civil war, which the democrats view as a Marxist revolution (which is determined by whether they win.) America faces a choice in November - elect the radical Marxists of Beijing Biden and have China control America, or Trump and the Americans live and the Constitution survives another 4 years.
 

Integrityrespec

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
20,120
Reaction score
8,727
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We Have House Armed Services Committee Democrats To Thank for Trump's Horrific War Budgets - Antiwar.com Original

We Have House Armed Services Committee Democrats To Thank for Trump’s Horrific War Budgets
by Ruth E. Kastner Posted on August 11, 2020

I recently discovered the extent to which Democrats routinely vote for Republican policies and expenditures at the committee level. Such enabling committee-level "yes" votes often fly under the radar, since members of Congress who cast these damaging votes often vote "no" on the House or Senate floor. They then point to their "no" floor votes as evidence of their ostensible opposition to the policy that they just encouraged and enabled by their much more powerful committee "yes" vote.

In the House, a floor vote is only one of about 435, while a committee vote packs a much more powerful punch. For example, the Democratic complement of the House Armed Services Committee is only 31, as one can discover upon visiting the HASC website. (The GOP complement is 26.) Among the smiling faces of these Democratic committee members is Ro Khanna, a self-described "progressive." Khanna has an active presence on social media and in email communications, where he touts his antiwar stance and his staunch opposition to "endless war" and excessive military spending.

The problem? All 31 of these smiling Democrats routinely vote in the HASC for Trump’s wasteful, saber-rattling Pentagon budgets. This includes the most recent exorbitant and highly controversial $741 billion budget as contained in the FY2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Many Democrats have railed against excessive military spending by Trump, in particular during a public health crisis in which many Americans have been laid off, lost their employer-based health care, and face eviction during a deadly pandemic that has already killed over 150,000. While desperately needed aid to working Americans is being held up by a GOP Senate, these 31 Democrats just voted to advance Trump’s military budget to the floor with the amount unchanged and with nearly every provision that Trump wanted. They did the same the previous year, FY2020. Yet ironically, most GOP members of the HASC opposed last year’s Pentagon budget based on their disagreements with Democratic committee members’ amendments. This shows how readily the Democratic majority could have stopped Trump’s hugely excessive Pentagon budget in its tracks had they wished to do so. GOP members feel free to vote to hold up their own President’s budget in committee if they disagree with certain provisions of the Democratic majority. Yet Democratic members seem unwilling to put even temporary brakes on a Trump military budget, even as members of his own party feel free to do so.

This is because most voters on both sides don't know what their representatives vote for or against. The voters only know what the representatives or the media happen to tell them.
 

Glitch

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
17,453
Reaction score
7,889
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Why do Communists use ad hom so heavily?

Trump is the first president since Reagan to start no new wars. Yet the Communists attack him. Mattis tried to FORCE him into a war in Syria - but Trump refused - and the little Goebbels attacked him for NOT starting a war. I thought the party press opposed war? Nah, the little Goebbels of MSNBCNN - NYWAPOHuffyPooTIMES are just demagogues who slander and libel the president regardless of what he does.

Unless you count Grenada. And technically, the US is still at war with Afghanistan. President Trump is doing his best Obama impersonation by surrendering to the Taliban, but be assured, Trump is indeed a war-time President and has been since the day he was sworn into office.
 

Glitch

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
17,453
Reaction score
7,889
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
...you do understand the democrats control the house and the majority composition of house committees, right?

... as to 'neither obomba nor trump', you do understand that all of these stinking republicrat politicians are bankster-approved puppet$, go-alongs, etc., right?

It takes both houses of Congress to enact a law. Democrats control the House and Republicans control the Senate. Furthermore, in order to pass Congress with a two-thirds majority it requires the cooperation of both Democrats and Republicans in both houses. Neither party and neither house as a two-thirds majority. To present the President with ten veto-proof budgets in a row takes unprecedented cooperation by both parties.
 

Bullseye

All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
42,829
Reaction score
14,966
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
...how come you republicrats $pend so much for 'defense'?!

...i thought you ?trumpkin conservatives were 'small government constitutionalists'...... :elephantf
Conservatives are for small government; Republicans generally only pay conservatism lip service during elections.
 

Uncensored2008

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
4,747
Reaction score
951
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Unless you count Grenada. And technically, the US is still at war with Afghanistan. President Trump is doing his best Obama impersonation by surrendering to the Taliban, but be assured, Trump is indeed a war-time President and has been since the day he was sworn into office.

Concept is "start."

Afghanistan was started by Dubya. (technically started by radical Islam)

Grenada wasn't a war, a one day action driving Cuba out of universities full of Americans (needs to be done domestically). Hey, I wonder if Fauci got his MD from the Grenada school? That would make all sorts of sense...
 

Uncensored2008

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
4,747
Reaction score
951
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It takes both houses of Congress to enact a law. Democrats control the House and Republicans control the Senate. Furthermore, in order to pass Congress with a two-thirds majority it requires the cooperation of both Democrats and Republicans in both houses. Neither party and neither house as a two-thirds majority. To present the President with ten veto-proof budgets in a row takes unprecedented cooperation by both parties.


The Americans have a VERY slim majority in the Senate. It doesn't get much to get weasels like Willard Romney or Collins to vote with the Communists.

Chairman Pelosi rules the House with an Iron Fist, per the direction of her master, Xi.
 

H. E. Panqui

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2014
Messages
664
Reaction score
90
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Conservatives are for small government; Republicans generally only pay conservatism lip service during elections.

...was reagan a 'conservative'?.. because he signed virtually every $pending bill put before him by 'the liberals' on the way to a doubling of the budget and a tripling of the debt in his 8 stinking years as chief bankster puppet... ;)
 

Bullseye

All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2018
Messages
42,829
Reaction score
14,966
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
...was reagan a 'conservative'?.. because he signed virtually every $pending bill put before him by 'the liberals' on the way to a doubling of the budget and a tripling of the debt in his 8 stinking years as chief bankster puppet... ;)
He was also a Republican and a politician; those three attributes often conflicted and he was pragmatic.
 

Glitch

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
17,453
Reaction score
7,889
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
...was reagan a 'conservative'?.. because he signed virtually every $pending bill put before him by 'the liberals' on the way to a doubling of the budget and a tripling of the debt in his 8 stinking years as chief bankster puppet... ;)

I explained that in a prior post. President Reagan made a deal with Speaker of the House Tip O'Neal. The deal was that Reagan would not veto the House Democrats desire to increase social spending, if the House Democrats would give him the increases in defense spending that he wanted.

The net result of that deal was that it almost tripled the National Debt in an 8 year period, and we got a substantial increase in defense (despite not having any declared wars during that period) and a substantial increase in social spending. House Democrats began gutting defense in 1990, and House Republicans (after taking over in 1994) would gut social spending in 1995 with the Welfare Reform Act (which didn't become law until 1996 because of Clinton's vetoes).

Eventually the House Republicans, under Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, would balance the budget in FY99, and have a $124 billion surplus in FY00. After that, however, everything went to sh*t, and it has only gotten worse.
 
Top Bottom