Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Obama Executes Three Dimensional Chess on Defense Budget

4 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Sal

Sal

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha .....

.... who coulda thought he would pull this off?


McCain and Thornberry directed their message to budget hawks in their own party who are unwilling to overturn the $1 trillion in cuts to the defense budget over 10 years known as "sequestration," which was imposed by the 2011 Budget Control Act (BCA) after lawmakers failed to agree on tax and spending reform.
Overturning the cuts would take an act by a Republican-controlled Congress, but there are many within the Republican Party who see sequestration as a valuable asset in their drive to cut government spending.

"Heaping nearly $1 trillion in cuts on the U.S. military while ignoring entitlements is not conservative fiscal policy and will not solve the problems of deficits and debt," the chairmen wrote.

Rather, the true drivers of debt are entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare — not defense spending, they wrote, adding that it is only 16 percent of federal spending and the lowest share since before World War II.

"There is nothing conservative or Republican about pretending that Washington can balance the budget by cutting defense spending. The new Republican majorities in Congress should not allow such reckless policy," they added.

"How can Republicans — the party of Ronald Reagan and 'peace through strength' — possibly justify a lower defense budget than that of President Obama?" they asked.

Under sequestration, the 2016 defense budget will be $500 billion. The White House has submitted a defense budget for $535 billion. McCain and Thornberry went further, arguing it should be $577 billion — the level planned before sequestration hit.

If the cuts aren't relieved by Oct. 1 or lawmakers don't find areas in the defense budget to cut, $35 billion would indiscriminately be cut from the budget by slashing an equal percentage from every Pentagon program.

McCain and Thornberry — two advocates of acquisition reform — acknowledged there is waste in the Pentagon's budget, but said "sequestration does not target Pentagon waste."

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/policy-strategy/235160-armed-services-chairmen-urge-fellow-republicans-to-reverse

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Sal wrote:Hahahahahahahahahahahaha .....

.... who coulda thought he would pull this off?


McCain and Thornberry directed their message to budget hawks in their own party who are unwilling to overturn the $1 trillion in cuts to the defense budget over 10 years known as "sequestration," which was imposed by the 2011 Budget Control Act (BCA) after lawmakers failed to agree on tax and spending reform.
Overturning the cuts would take an act by a Republican-controlled Congress, but there are many within the Republican Party who see sequestration as a valuable asset in their drive to cut government spending.

"Heaping nearly $1 trillion in cuts on the U.S. military while ignoring entitlements is not conservative fiscal policy and will not solve the problems of deficits and debt," the chairmen wrote.

Rather, the true drivers of debt are entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare — not defense spending, they wrote, adding that it is only 16 percent of federal spending and the lowest share since before World War II.

"There is nothing conservative or Republican about pretending that Washington can balance the budget by cutting defense spending. The new Republican majorities in Congress should not allow such reckless policy," they added.

"How can Republicans — the party of Ronald Reagan and 'peace through strength' — possibly justify a lower defense budget than that of President Obama?" they asked.

Under sequestration, the 2016 defense budget will be $500 billion. The White House has submitted a defense budget for $535 billion. McCain and Thornberry went further, arguing it should be $577 billion — the level planned before sequestration hit.

If the cuts aren't relieved by Oct. 1 or lawmakers don't find areas in the defense budget to cut, $35 billion would indiscriminately be cut from the budget by slashing an equal percentage from every Pentagon program.

McCain and Thornberry — two advocates of acquisition reform — acknowledged there is waste in the Pentagon's budget, but said "sequestration does not target Pentagon waste."

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/policy-strategy/235160-armed-services-chairmen-urge-fellow-republicans-to-reverse

According to PaceDog, the defense budget has already been "cut to the bone." He didn't serve in 1970s the Post-Vietnam military, so he doesn't know what "cut to the bone" truly represents.

Years ago, I was pretty much a defense hawk, but in my older years, I now see that with America spending 54% of the world's defense money, this is a huge waste. We have a big military that gets thrown into all sorts of conflicts all over the world. We have lost 100,000 men and women to warfare since WWII and our nation is not better off from it. We are a warlike nation, and the world would be a better place if we were not throwing military weight all over the place. The defense budget can easily be pared.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

KarlRove

KarlRove

I did serve in the post Nam era. That would be from 75- first Gulf War and still do

Sal

Sal

The prion disease that is eating away at the Teatard's brains is proving to be a match for the gluttonous appetite of the MIC.

Remarkable.

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

I don't know how many different "accounts" exist within the "military budget" but I do know that there are significant portions in black boxes as it were that not even members of Congress know the purpose of. It seems to me that there would be a lot of prioritizing with in these areas to make sure the most important issues were dealt with.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

KarlRove wrote:I did serve in the post Nam era. That would be from 75- first Gulf War and still do

I was referring to the late 1970s, Poindexter--before Reagan started beefing-up military spending.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum