I thought we were suppose to be cutting debt? Cancel The title field is required!

1. Melvin Waldron

   

   43 posts
   
   5/19/2012 1:05 PM

   Sorry to cut and paste but thought it was interesting for discussion.
   
   Mel
   
   House passes $642 billion defense spending blueprint
   
   
   Republicans ignore past budget-cutting agreements, approve $8 billion increase
   By Donna Cassata
   
   Associated Press
   
   WASHINGTON — Ignor­ing a White House veto threat, the Republican­controlled House ap­proved a $642 billion de­fense budget Friday that breaks a deficit-cutting deal with President Ba­rack Obama and restricts his authority in an elec­tion- year challenge to the Democratic commander in chief.
   
   The House voted 299-120 for the fiscal 2013 spending blueprint that authorizes money for weapons, aircraft, ships and the war in Afghanistan — $8 billion more than Obama and congressional Republicans agreed to last summer in the clamor for fiscal austerity.
   
   Insisting they are stronger on defense than the president, Republi­cans crafted a spending bill that calls for construc­tion of a missile defense site on the East Coast that the U.S. 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.
   
   The divisive GOP pro­visions will have a short shelf life, as the Demo­cratic- controlled Senate is likely to scrap many of them and stick to the spending level in the defi­cit- cutting agreement.
   
   Defense Secretary Le­on Panetta met privately last week with senators to argue for the president's proposed budget, a blue­print the Pentagon says is based on a new military strategy focused on Asia, the Mideast and cyber­space as the nation emerg­es from two long wars.
   
   The Senate Armed Ser­vices Committee crafts its version of the budget next week.
   
   The House bill is not only a political salvo against the president, who nevertheless gets high marks after the killing of Osama bin Laden and suc­cess in the war on terror, but also a reflection of the stranglehold the defense industry has on Congress.
   
   Weapons, aircraft car­riers and jet fighters mean jobs back home, and law­makers are loath to cut funds for the military, the biggest government pro­gram outside entitlements like Medicare and Social Security.
   
   In a political shot on the House floor, Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, ac­cused Democrats of "tak­ing all of the jobs out of the military."
   
   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.

   
   Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
   
   
2. Melvin Waldron

   

   43 posts
   
   5/20/2012 9:05 AM

   What? Nobody has anything to say about this article? Seems pretty balanced to me, seems to show both sides point of views? I have to admit it shows the hypocrisy of the Republicans, what with always claiming President Obama doesn't listen to his military advisers? Seems they don't need a budget this big according to what they are saying. And the line about taking all the jobs out of the military???? Same thing has been done out of all levels of government. I do understand the individual legislators fighting for their little piece of the pie when it's important to them back in their own districts, but I would have expected tea-party backed Republicans to vote no on this bill. I'm going to have to check how my guy voted. I will admit the democrats in congress aren't doing much either.
   
   I just don't get it, heck even China has to buy some old Russian Cruiser or Battleship to turn into an Aircraft Carrier, nobody can hold a candle to our military technology and weapons systems, yet we want to keep pouring money into that? How about money for the electronic surveillance and other resources that can help against our current threat? Oh and let's not raise any taxes to pay for it......
   
   Mel

   
   Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
   
   
3. Keith Lamb

   

   3 posts
   
   5/20/2012 10:05 AM

   I'm sure there are a few out there that will respond with some type of misspelled, incoherent, barely intelligible rambling that I'm sure in their twisted little corner of heaven make sense after a few drinks of their parties oenomel.
   
   Me? Just another example that the dysfunction that exists is inherently non partisan. A game of ego and who can feed their constituents the honey dew consistently enough to draw attention away from them and their part in the dysfunction. Makes them believe that a Congressman is smart, but Congress is stupid. A slick endeavor that keeps the incumbent hands clean while he is actually turning tricks right in front of us. You get the idea.......

   
   
   
   
4. McCallum David K

   
   5/21/2012 6:05 AM

   Well stated Keith........will try to say something incoherent later today when I have more time.

   
   
   
   
5. Jon Gansen

   

   1 posts
   
   5/21/2012 1:05 PM

   Not quite the same news I have been reading. One of the reasons for the increase was medical for the military that has gone up from 19 billion in 2001 to 53 billion, panetta called for 35-140 dollars increase in premium. Veteran lobby has stopped that. Also there is a 1.7% increase in Military pay. But agree it is a election year and will be a lot of posturing on both sides.

   
   
   
   
6. Peter Bowman

   

   11 posts
   
   5/21/2012 11:05 PM

   Currently:
   House Repubs = 242
   House Dems = 190
   
   This vote = 299-120. Even if all 242 Repubs voted Yes, then at least 57 Dems agreed, correct?
   
   Mel, you are always looking for bipartisanship, getting along, reaching across the aisle, and compromise, right?

   
   
   
   
7. Melvin Waldron

   

   43 posts
   
   5/22/2012 7:05 AM

   Pete,
   
   You are correct, but I believe it was a Republican led bill to bring it to the floor for a vote. The democrats that voted yes probably have a dog in the fight in their districts.
   
   My point was here the Republicans blame democrats for the debt problem and yet when the president submits a budget for the military that the military is good with, the Republicans want to be the ones to spend more. So in my opinion they are no better, neither side is living in the reality that we all do, of course there are many voters that don't care and just listen to their guys spout BS and don't ask any questions and pull the lever based on a letter behind the name, heck half the time they probably don't even know the name.
   
   Mel

   
   Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
   
   
8. Dennis Cook

   

   1 posts
   
   5/22/2012 1:05 PM

   I'll chime in and hopefully say something coherent and spell it correctly.
   
   This is the kind of thing the government is supposed to spend money on. Military, law enforcement, and infrastructure. Hooray for the repubs and the Dems that voted on this bill. They know where the governments priorities are and where there focus should lie. We can't let overspending on entitlements and redundant programs let us stray from funding the things our tax dollars are meant for. Say all you want about cutting debt, but military is top priority for funding. Our problem is that entitlements have racked up so much debt that it makes the military harder to fund.
   
   There, that was coherent and so truthful, I would love to here someone else chime in and refute it.

   
   
   
   
9. Melvin Waldron

   

   43 posts
   
   5/22/2012 3:05 PM

   Dennis Cook said: I'll chime in and hopefully say something coherent and spell it correctly.
   
   This is the kind of thing the government is supposed to spend money on. Military, law enforcement, and infrastructure. Hooray for the repubs and the Dems that voted on this bill. They know where the governments priorities are and where there focus should lie. We can't let overspending on entitlements and redundant programs let us stray from funding the things our tax dollars are meant for. Say all you want about cutting debt, but military is top priority for funding. Our problem is that entitlements have racked up so much debt that it makes the military harder to fund.
   
   There, that was coherent and so truthful, I would love to here someone else chime in and refute it.

   
   
   Dennis,
   
   Maybe that is what George W. was thinking when he didn't budget the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, screw the debt, this is important and thus didn't put it in the budget.
   
   Now hear this...
   I can agree with what your are saying as the government is suppose to be spending money on what is important, and the military is important, but when the military commanders do not want a weapons system, tanks or a second engine in the newest fighter, that isn't any smarter spending of money then handing it over to some welfare family (they both will get spent into the economy though), heck at that point spend it on infrastructure, then those on welfare or unemployment might be able to get a job (I guess they could always sign up for the military?).
   
   Spending money on things that are not needed or wanted just because it's the military to me is just as stupid as any other spending, maybe even more so because when you look at the lobbying efforts of defense contractors and the profit they will make off it (hopefully my 457's are in defense companies). And to remind some of you, I support the military, they supported my dad after his 20 years of service and supported my mom another 19 after he passed away. I have friends who have made it a career, so I guess my deal is, if they want to spend money on the military, make sure it's going to the veterans who have served or other some other higher purpose. Not just to make defense contractors rich.
   
   Mel

   
   Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO