Small Government, Eh? House Passes $601 Billion Defense Budget (1 Viewer)

[cstu]

Despite the DOD wanting cuts, the House passes the bill anyway.

Defying Pentagon, House backs $601 billion defense bill that spares favored weapons

Article by: DONNA CASSATA , Associated Press
Updated: May 22, 2014 - 5:40 PM


WASHINGTON — The House defied the Pentagon on Thursday, overwhelmingly backing a $601 billion defense authorization bill that saves the Cold War-era U-2 spy plane, military bases and Navy cruisers despites warnings that it will undercut military readiness.

A White House veto threat — reiterated just hours before the vote — had little impact in an election year as lawmakers embraced the popular measure that includes a 1.8 percent pay raise for the troops and adds up to hundreds of thousands of jobs back home. The vote was 325-98 for the legislation, with 216 Republicans and 109 Democrats backing the bill.

Hours later, the leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee announced the completion of its version of the bill that backs several of the Pentagon proposals while breaking with the administration on some weapons.

Most notably, the Senate panel "created a path to close Guantanamo," said the committee's chairman, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., a long-sought goal of President Barack Obama. Under a provision of the bill, the administration would have to produce a comprehensive plan for transferring terror suspects from the U.S. naval facility in Cuba that would be subject to a congressional vote.

The Senate panel backed the administration on some personnel benefits and a 1 percent pay raise for the military, while breaking with the administration by sparing the A-10 Warthog close-support plane and an aircraft carrier.

Certain to frustrate the administration was a provision that would authorize the military to train and equip vetted Syrian rebels battling forces loyal to President Bashar Assad.

The Senate bill must be reconciled with the House version.

Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, defended his House bill and rejected the suggestion that the measure was a "sop to parochial interests," arguing it makes "the tough decisions that put the troops first."

But the panel's top Democrat, Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state, complained that the House rejected the Pentagon's cost-saving proposals and came up with no alternatives.

"We ducked every difficult decision," Smith said.

With the ending of two wars and diminishing budgets, the Pentagon had proposed retiring the U-2 and the A-10, taking 11 Navy cruisers out of the normal rotation for modernization and increasing out-of-pocket costs for housing and health care.

Republicans, even tea partyers who came to Congress demanding deep cuts in federal spending, and Democrats rejected the Pentagon budget, sparing the aircraft, ships and troop benefits.

An increasingly antagonistic White House issued a veto threat on Monday, and Chief of Staff Denis McDonough reinforced that message in a private meeting with House Democrats on Tuesday morning. Late Wednesday, the White House issued another veto threat over restrictions in the bill on President Barack Obama's ability to transfer terror suspects from the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The full-throated message had little influence.

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., highlighted her vote for the bill and its importance to her home state, where more than 150,000 have defense or defense-related jobs. Her colleague, Rep. Ron Barber, D-Ariz., praised the A-10 Warthog, which trains in Tucson.

In committee, Rep. Jim Bridenstine, R-Okla., a former pilot and tea party favorite elected in 2012, spared three of seven AWACS aircraft based at Tinker Air Force Base in his home state.

The House engaged in a spirited debate over post-Sept. 11 laws and practices, and whether they are overly broad and still viable nearly 13 years after the terror attacks. Lawmakers pressed to sunset the authorization given to the president to use military force, to end the indefinite detention of terror suspects captured on U.S. soil and to close the U.S. naval facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The House rejected all three amendments to change current law.

To address the pervasive problem of sexual assault in the military, the bill would change the military rules of evidence to prohibit the accused from using good military character as defense in court-martial proceedings unless it was directly relevant to the alleged crime.

The "good soldier defense" could encompass a defendant's military record of reliability, dependability, professionalism and reputation as an individual who could be counted on in war and peacetime.

Overall, the legislation would provide $495.8 billion for the core defense budget, $17.9 billion for energy programs within Pentagon spending and $79.4 billion for the war in Afghanistan and other overseas operations.

 

[Jeff Vader]

Yea, but if they didn't pass it the DOD would have had to open a gift shop.

 

[Jeff Vader]

The House engaged in a spirited debate over post-Sept. 11 laws and practices, and whether they are overly broad and still viable nearly 13 years after the terror attacks. Lawmakers pressed to sunset the authorization given to the president to use military force, to end the indefinite detention of terror suspects captured on U.S. soil and to close the U.S. naval facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The House rejected all three amendments to change current law.

I hate them, sometimes. I really do.

 

[Gr00vus]

But I feel so secure.

 

[RCon]

Yea, but if they didn't pass it the DOD would have had to open a gift shop.

Wait, this would be a bad thing? I'm certain we could find some terrorists that would appreciate a gift of a nice, fresh bunker-buster or two.

 

[Ilov80s]

My brother in law was an officer in the Navy and worked directly under an Admiral. He always said that they had more money to spend than they knew what to do with. They would ask for less and get more. How many other operations have this "problem"?

 

[Gopher State]

Wow, only 1.8 percent pay raise, I don't think I have every gotten less then 5 percent a year. They put their life on the line, I only sit behind a desk

 

[Ilov80s]

Wow, only 1.8 percent pay raise, I don't think I have every gotten less then 5 percent a year. They put their life on the line, I only sit behind a desk

You get an annual 5% raise? Must be nice.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

We need a healthy defence budget when we go around sticking our nose in everybody else business.

 

[Politician Spock]

But I feel so secure.

Confident and dry too.

 

[Gawain]

Wow, only 1.8 percent pay raise, I don't think I have every gotten less then 5 percent a year. They put their life on the line, I only sit behind a desk

Hiring? I also am skilled at desk-sitting. Sometimes I even walk to the water cooler or coffee machine.

 

[TheAristocrat]

Wow, only 1.8 percent pay raise, I don't think I have every gotten less then 5 percent a year. They put their life on the line, I only sit behind a desk

Hiring? I also am skilled at desk-sitting. Sometimes I even walk to the water cooler or coffee machine.

I can do that and basic math.

 

[lakerstan]

Politicians are like magicians. They'll have everyone think we are headed for socialism via mis-direction when their true aim is to strengthen the oligarchy we already have in place. How about using that extra money in the VA?

 

[Sand]

Politicians are like magicians. They'll have everyone think we are headed for socialism via mis-direction when their true aim is to strengthen the oligarchy we already have in place. How about using that extra money in the VA?

Not commenting about the DoD budget, but the VA has plenty of money. The problem was perverse incentives leading to fraud and criminally negligent homicide.

 

[datonn]

Wow, only 1.8 percent pay raise, I don't think I have every gotten less then 5 percent a year. They put their life on the line, I only sit behind a desk

So when the people who put their lives on the line say that they can live with less, and would prefer that certain antiquated programs/weapons be cut, we switch into "we know better than you" mode and shovel the money into the furnace even faster?

Cue some bald eagles and the Blue Angels soaring overhead, giving rousing speeches while talking about patriots and freedom, before that stench of hypocrisy hits folks' nostrils and makes them gag. Smaller government my ###.

 

[timschochet]

I don't blame the Congress. They're merely reflecting the public attitude. If a congressman votes for serious cuts in his own district, he's going to lose the next election: it's that simple.

The American public can talk all it wants about how we need to cut spending, but that's only on stuff that doesn't affect THEM. "Don't touch my Medicare!" on Tea Party posters- that tells the story. Nobody really wants anything cut.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Is there a bigger myth in American politics is the idea that Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility.

 

[humpback]

Is there a bigger myth in American politics is the idea that Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility.

Right up there with the Dems caring about the "little guy".

 

[Insomniac]

Is there a bigger myth in American politics is the idea that Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility.

Right up there with the Dems caring about the "little guy".

The Republicans are the party of Big Business. The Democrats are the OTHER party of Big Business.

 

[jon_mx]

I don't blame the Congress. They're merely reflecting the public attitude. If a congressman votes for serious cuts in his own district, he's going to lose the next election: it's that simple.

The American public can talk all it wants about how we need to cut spending, but that's only on stuff that doesn't affect THEM. "Don't touch my Medicare!" on Tea Party posters- that tells the story. Nobody really wants anything cut.

There you go again, generalizing the opposing opinion in your arrogant way. Obviously you know what everyone thinks who doesn't agree with your viewpoint that there is no solution to out of control government spending. You could not be more wrong on your view of American opinion.

 

[Rayderr]

Despite the DOD wanting cuts, the House passes the bill anyway.

Can't the DoD just not spend the money?

 

[Ned]

Despite the DOD wanting cuts, the House passes the bill anyway.

Can't the DoD just not spend the money?

Invisibility cloaks, here we come.

 

[Sand]

Is there a bigger myth in American politics is the idea that Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility.

And yet the thought of true fiscal conservatives (i.e. Tea Party types) throws liberals into conniption fits. Funny how that works. Scream one way, scream the other. Such effing hypocrites.

I hope Ted Cruz runs for President just to see people melt down.

 

[timschochet]

I don't blame the Congress. They're merely reflecting the public attitude. If a congressman votes for serious cuts in his own district, he's going to lose the next election: it's that simple.

The American public can talk all it wants about how we need to cut spending, but that's only on stuff that doesn't affect THEM. "Don't touch my Medicare!" on Tea Party posters- that tells the story. Nobody really wants anything cut.

There you go again, generalizing the opposing opinion in your arrogant way. Obviously you know what everyone thinks who doesn't agree with your viewpoint that there is no solution to out of control government spending. You could not be more wrong on your view of American opinion.

Really? If I am generalizing here, then please tell me specifically in what way I am wrong about the public? Are you suggesting that the public will go along with spending cuts that might affect them personally?

 

[jon_mx]

I don't blame the Congress. They're merely reflecting the public attitude. If a congressman votes for serious cuts in his own district, he's going to lose the next election: it's that simple.

The American public can talk all it wants about how we need to cut spending, but that's only on stuff that doesn't affect THEM. "Don't touch my Medicare!" on Tea Party posters- that tells the story. Nobody really wants anything cut.

There you go again, generalizing the opposing opinion in your arrogant way. Obviously you know what everyone thinks who doesn't agree with your viewpoint that there is no solution to out of control government spending. You could not be more wrong on your view of American opinion.

Really? If I am generalizing here, then please tell me specifically in what way I am wrong about the public? Are you suggesting that the public will go along with spending cuts that might affect them personally?

Yes, and they have before. Ross Perot helped educate the public back in 1994 and he forced both sides to get on-board. The American people will get behind a solution that has everyone pulling their weight and making shared-sacrafices.

 

[timschochet]

I don't blame the Congress. They're merely reflecting the public attitude. If a congressman votes for serious cuts in his own district, he's going to lose the next election: it's that simple.

The American public can talk all it wants about how we need to cut spending, but that's only on stuff that doesn't affect THEM. "Don't touch my Medicare!" on Tea Party posters- that tells the story. Nobody really wants anything cut.

There you go again, generalizing the opposing opinion in your arrogant way. Obviously you know what everyone thinks who doesn't agree with your viewpoint that there is no solution to out of control government spending. You could not be more wrong on your view of American opinion.

Really? If I am generalizing here, then please tell me specifically in what way I am wrong about the public? Are you suggesting that the public will go along with spending cuts that might affect them personally?

Yes, and they have before. Ross Perot helped educate the public back in 1994 and he forced both sides to get on-board. The American people will get behind a solution that has everyone pulling their weight and making shared-sacrafices.

What specific spending cuts did Ross Perot inspire? And please don't bring up welfare reform; most of the public isnt on welfare so that's easy. Provide an example of a spending cut that the public approved which affected them.

 

[joffer]

Is there a bigger myth in American politics is the idea that Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility.

And yet the thought of true fiscal conservatives (i.e. Tea Party types) throws liberals into conniption fits. Funny how that works. Scream one way, scream the other. Such effing hypocrites.

I hope Ted Cruz runs for President just to see people melt down.

If the only thing the Tea Party was about was true fiscal responsibility, they 'd be a LOT more popular

 

[StrikeS2k]

Is there a bigger myth in American politics is the idea that Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility.

And yet the thought of true fiscal conservatives (i.e. Tea Party types) throws liberals into conniption fits. Funny how that works. Scream one way, scream the other. Such effing hypocrites.

I hope Ted Cruz runs for President just to see people melt down.

If the only thing the Tea Party was about was true fiscal responsibility, they 'd be a LOT more popular

At the grassroots and local levels it is what most Tea Party organizations are about, bearing in mind that the "Tea Party" is not an organized political party but a loosely tied together network of individual local organizations. Unfortunately, national politicians with no real ties to the ideals of the Tea Party have coopted the term for political gain. Who'd of thunk a politician would do something sleazy like that?

 

[lod01]

Nothing wrong with spending $ when you can print it yourself. Keeps the engine running.

 

[NCCommish]

Politicians are like magicians. They'll have everyone think we are headed for socialism via mis-direction when their true aim is to strengthen the oligarchy we already have in place. How about using that extra money in the VA?

Not commenting about the DoD budget, but the VA has plenty of money. The problem was perverse incentives leading to fraud and criminally negligent homicide.

Actually the Congress cut billions from the VA just before they decided a war in Iraq sounded fun. The VA has funding issues.

 

[jon_mx]

I don't blame the Congress. They're merely reflecting the public attitude. If a congressman votes for serious cuts in his own district, he's going to lose the next election: it's that simple.

The American public can talk all it wants about how we need to cut spending, but that's only on stuff that doesn't affect THEM. "Don't touch my Medicare!" on Tea Party posters- that tells the story. Nobody really wants anything cut.

There you go again, generalizing the opposing opinion in your arrogant way. Obviously you know what everyone thinks who doesn't agree with your viewpoint that there is no solution to out of control government spending. You could not be more wrong on your view of American opinion.

Really? If I am generalizing here, then please tell me specifically in what way I am wrong about the public? Are you suggesting that the public will go along with spending cuts that might affect them personally?

Yes, and they have before. Ross Perot helped educate the public back in 1994 and he forced both sides to get on-board. The American people will get behind a solution that has everyone pulling their weight and making shared-sacrafices.

What specific spending cuts did Ross Perot inspire? And please don't bring up welfare reform; most of the public isnt on welfare so that's easy. Provide an example of a spending cut that the public approved which affected them.

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 froze non-discresionary federal spending to $547 billion for 5 years, while it had previously been growing at a rate of about 5 percent per year. It is those type of freeze and reducing the growth of government that is a critical start and it worked. I am not sure why we don't go back to a wildly successful tactic.

 

[NCCommish]

Is there a bigger myth in American politics is the idea that Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility.

And yet the thought of true fiscal conservatives (i.e. Tea Party types) throws liberals into conniption fits. Funny how that works. Scream one way, scream the other. Such effing hypocrites.

I hope Ted Cruz runs for President just to see people melt down.

If the only thing the Tea Party was about was true fiscal responsibility, they 'd be a LOT more popular

At the grassroots and local levels it is what most Tea Party organizations are about, bearing in mind that the "Tea Party" is not an organized political party but a loosely tied together network of individual local organizations. Unfortunately, national politicians with no real ties to the ideals of the Tea Party have coopted the term for political gain. Who'd of thunk a politician would do something sleazy like that?

Funny every time I see some grassroots tea party spectacular it seems they are much more worried about "them" whoever thy might be today than anything else. The Tea party is at this point pretty much an astroturf operation to fulfill the Kochs wishlist.

 

[jonessed]

Is there a bigger myth in American politics is the idea that Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility.

And yet the thought of true fiscal conservatives (i.e. Tea Party types) throws liberals into conniption fits. Funny how that works. Scream one way, scream the other. Such effing hypocrites.

I hope Ted Cruz runs for President just to see people melt down.

If the only thing the Tea Party was about was true fiscal responsibility, they 'd be a LOT more popular

At the grassroots and local levels it is what most Tea Party organizations are about, bearing in mind that the "Tea Party" is not an organized political party but a loosely tied together network of individual local organizations. Unfortunately, national politicians with no real ties to the ideals of the Tea Party have coopted the term for political gain. Who'd of thunk a politician would do something sleazy like that?

It's also not true. Fiscal responsibility requires shared sacrifice and this country isn't ready for that. Everybody wants cuts until it's their programs being cut.

Things are going to have to get a lot worse before we see fiscal responsibility creep into the mainstream.

 

[jonessed]

Is there a bigger myth in American politics is the idea that Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility.

And yet the thought of true fiscal conservatives (i.e. Tea Party types) throws liberals into conniption fits. Funny how that works. Scream one way, scream the other. Such effing hypocrites.

I hope Ted Cruz runs for President just to see people melt down.

If the only thing the Tea Party was about was true fiscal responsibility, they 'd be a LOT more popular

At the grassroots and local levels it is what most Tea Party organizations are about, bearing in mind that the "Tea Party" is not an organized political party but a loosely tied together network of individual local organizations. Unfortunately, national politicians with no real ties to the ideals of the Tea Party have coopted the term for political gain. Who'd of thunk a politician would do something sleazy like that?

Funny every time I see some grassroots tea party spectacular it seems they are much more worried about "them" whoever thy might be today than anything else. The Tea party is at this point pretty much an astroturf operation to fulfill the Kochs wishlist.

Oh no! Not the boogie men!

 

[timschochet]

Is there a bigger myth in American politics is the idea that Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility.

And yet the thought of true fiscal conservatives (i.e. Tea Party types) throws liberals into conniption fits. Funny how that works. Scream one way, scream the other. Such effing hypocrites.

I hope Ted Cruz runs for President just to see people melt down.

If the only thing the Tea Party was about was true fiscal responsibility, they 'd be a LOT more popular

At the grassroots and local levels it is what most Tea Party organizations are about, bearing in mind that the "Tea Party" is not an organized political party but a loosely tied together network of individual local organizations. Unfortunately, national politicians with no real ties to the ideals of the Tea Party have coopted the term for political gain. Who'd of thunk a politician would do something sleazy like that?

It's also not true. Fiscal responsibility requires shared sacrifice and this country isn't ready for that. Everybody wants cuts until it's their programs being cut.Things are going to have to get a lot worse before we see fiscal responsibility creep into the mainstream.

Jonessed is absolutely correct here.

 

[NCCommish]

Is there a bigger myth in American politics is the idea that Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility.

And yet the thought of true fiscal conservatives (i.e. Tea Party types) throws liberals into conniption fits. Funny how that works. Scream one way, scream the other. Such effing hypocrites.

I hope Ted Cruz runs for President just to see people melt down.

If the only thing the Tea Party was about was true fiscal responsibility, they 'd be a LOT more popular

At the grassroots and local levels it is what most Tea Party organizations are about, bearing in mind that the "Tea Party" is not an organized political party but a loosely tied together network of individual local organizations. Unfortunately, national politicians with no real ties to the ideals of the Tea Party have coopted the term for political gain. Who'd of thunk a politician would do something sleazy like that?

Funny every time I see some grassroots tea party spectacular it seems they are much more worried about "them" whoever thy might be today than anything else. The Tea party is at this point pretty much an astroturf operation to fulfill the Kochs wishlist.

Oh no! Not the boogie men!

Didn't call them boogie men just pointed out the reason there is a Tea Party and why it gets funded.

 

[timschochet]

I don't blame the Congress. They're merely reflecting the public attitude. If a congressman votes for serious cuts in his own district, he's going to lose the next election: it's that simple.

The American public can talk all it wants about how we need to cut spending, but that's only on stuff that doesn't affect THEM. "Don't touch my Medicare!" on Tea Party posters- that tells the story. Nobody really wants anything cut.

There you go again, generalizing the opposing opinion in your arrogant way. Obviously you know what everyone thinks who doesn't agree with your viewpoint that there is no solution to out of control government spending. You could not be more wrong on your view of American opinion.

Really? If I am generalizing here, then please tell me specifically in what way I am wrong about the public? Are you suggesting that the public will go along with spending cuts that might affect them personally?

Yes, and they have before. Ross Perot helped educate the public back in 1994 and he forced both sides to get on-board. The American people will get behind a solution that has everyone pulling their weight and making shared-sacrafices.

What specific spending cuts did Ross Perot inspire? And please don't bring up welfare reform; most of the public isnt on welfare so that's easy. Provide an example of a spending cut that the public approved which affected them.

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 froze non-discresionary federal spending to $547 billion for 5 years, while it had previously been growing at a rate of about 5 percent per year. It is those type of freeze and reducing the growth of government that is a critical start and it worked. I am not sure why we don't go back to a wildly successful tactic.

This was an across the board limitation, not a specific spending reduction. And the moment specific cuts were actually threatened, most of it was scrapped. Across the board cuts never work, and can be quite destructive (witness the sequester).

 

[timschochet]

The Tea Party, to the best of my knowledge, has never proposed specific spending cuts, only across the board limitations- in theory. In practice, they seem to support cutting programs which conservatives dislike while increasing spending on programs that conservatives prefer. And they oppose any notion of increased revenue, even if it is devoted 100% to reducing the debt.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Nothing wrong with spending $ when you can print it yourself. Keeps the engine running.

You can always tell that someone is out of their league when they play the "printing money" card.

 

[datonn]

Is there a bigger myth in American politics is the idea that Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility.

And yet the thought of true fiscal conservatives (i.e. Tea Party types) throws liberals into conniption fits. Funny how that works. Scream one way, scream the other. Such effing hypocrites.

I hope Ted Cruz runs for President just to see people melt down.

If the only thing the Tea Party was about was true fiscal responsibility, they 'd be a LOT more popular

Yep. Pretty much ^ this. Folks wonder why more people in the middle cannot support what the Tea Party stands for. When I'd be willing to wager that the Tea Party pushes as many people in the middle to the left with all of their non-smaller government talking points and agendas as it does to the right. The Tea Party seems to be the party of "we're mad (or at least confused/ignorant) as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore!" Why would anyone with at least a reasonable intelligence want to align with that sort of group?

 

[timschochet]

Is there a bigger myth in American politics is the idea that Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility.

And yet the thought of true fiscal conservatives (i.e. Tea Party types) throws liberals into conniption fits. Funny how that works. Scream one way, scream the other. Such effing hypocrites.

I hope Ted Cruz runs for President just to see people melt down.

If the only thing the Tea Party was about was true fiscal responsibility, they 'd be a LOT more popular

Yep. Pretty much ^ this. Folks wonder why more people in the middle cannot support what the Tea Party stands for. When I'd be willing to wager that the Tea Party pushes as many people in the middle to the left with all of their non-smaller government talking points and agendas as it does to the right. The Tea Party seems to be the party of "we're mad (or at least confused/ignorant) as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore!" Why would anyone with at least a reasonable intelligence want to align with that sort of group?

Disagree with both of you about this. True fiscal responsibility will never be popular with the public. In bad times, the public is eager to protect what's theirs. In good times, the public finds the whole issue boring.

 

[datonn]

Is there a bigger myth in American politics is the idea that Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility.

And yet the thought of true fiscal conservatives (i.e. Tea Party types) throws liberals into conniption fits. Funny how that works. Scream one way, scream the other. Such effing hypocrites.

I hope Ted Cruz runs for President just to see people melt down.

If the only thing the Tea Party was about was true fiscal responsibility, they 'd be a LOT more popular

Yep. Pretty much ^ this. Folks wonder why more people in the middle cannot support what the Tea Party stands for. When I'd be willing to wager that the Tea Party pushes as many people in the middle to the left with all of their non-smaller government talking points and agendas as it does to the right. The Tea Party seems to be the party of "we're mad (or at least confused/ignorant) as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore!" Why would anyone with at least a reasonable intelligence want to align with that sort of group?

Disagree with both of you about this. True fiscal responsibility will never be popular with the public. In bad times, the public is eager to protect what's theirs. In good times, the public finds the whole issue boring.

But Tim, you're assuming that people are turned off by the Tea Party because of fiscal responsibility. When folks like me are refugees from a former Republican Party, and have moved left as a result of the Rs/Ts saying they want to keep "big government" out of everyone's wallets and personal business, when 2/3 or more of the Rs/Ts talking points the past several years have been keeping government big for the things they want/support, and getting all-up in anyone's personal business. Government wants to regulate what types of weapons you can have? It's Armageddon! Government wants to treat "queer-o-sexuals" (copyright: News Anchor Dallas Houston from Family Guy, LOL) like second/third class citizens, or move in the direction of having a national religion (Christianity)? Well, we're just saving all-y'all from yourselves...saving US from YOU (THEM). And maybe scaring a few more of you into adopting our world view, so you don't face hell-fire and eternal damnation after you die.

I would LOVE to see us cut hundreds of billions out of our annual spending in DC! But I would start with our war machine before I would touch social services (though cuts to BOTH are going to be necessary). But because folks are against the idea of cutting social services while keeping our military spending untouched, they're for "big government?" UnAmerican? A "commie?" And because folks want to keep the war machine humming so that a few more people in a few more Southern states can keep their jobs (when the Pentagon itself will say those weapons/programs are no longer needed/wanted), they're a "patriot?"

It is moronic. And the people who support it are either morons or, worse, are intelligent enough to know how to manipulate the morons into supporting their agendas.

 

[timschochet]

I agree with you on most of that Datonn. But I doubt that either of us represent the majority of the public. Unfortunately.

 

[Sand]

I would LOVE to see us cut hundreds of billions out of our annual spending in DC! But I would start with our war machine before I would touch social services (though cuts to BOTH are going to be necessary).

I would like to see cuts in both, though it is important to remember that the primary reason that the US has the preeminent position in the world and is wealthy as it is is because of that war machine. It isn't some random appendage that is hanging off and trimming it too much won't have effects down the road (that said there is a lot of protectionism in the defense budget that could safely be chopped).

 

[jon_mx]

I don't blame the Congress. They're merely reflecting the public attitude. If a congressman votes for serious cuts in his own district, he's going to lose the next election: it's that simple.

The American public can talk all it wants about how we need to cut spending, but that's only on stuff that doesn't affect THEM. "Don't touch my Medicare!" on Tea Party posters- that tells the story. Nobody really wants anything cut.

There you go again, generalizing the opposing opinion in your arrogant way. Obviously you know what everyone thinks who doesn't agree with your viewpoint that there is no solution to out of control government spending. You could not be more wrong on your view of American opinion.

Really? If I am generalizing here, then please tell me specifically in what way I am wrong about the public? Are you suggesting that the public will go along with spending cuts that might affect them personally?

Yes, and they have before. Ross Perot helped educate the public back in 1994 and he forced both sides to get on-board. The American people will get behind a solution that has everyone pulling their weight and making shared-sacrafices.

What specific spending cuts did Ross Perot inspire? And please don't bring up welfare reform; most of the public isnt on welfare so that's easy. Provide an example of a spending cut that the public approved which affected them.

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 froze non-discresionary federal spending to $547 billion for 5 years, while it had previously been growing at a rate of about 5 percent per year. It is those type of freeze and reducing the growth of government that is a critical start and it worked. I am not sure why we don't go back to a wildly successful tactic.

This was an across the board limitation, not a specific spending reduction. And the moment specific cuts were actually threatened, most of it was scrapped. Across the board cuts never work, and can be quite destructive (witness the sequester).

and X

 

[tommyGunZ]

I would LOVE to see us cut hundreds of billions out of our annual spending in DC! But I would start with our war machine before I would touch social services (though cuts to BOTH are going to be necessary).

I would like to see cuts in both, though it is important to remember that the primary reason that the US has the preeminent position in the world and is wealthy as it is is because of that war machine. It isn't some random appendage that is hanging off and trimming it too much won't have effects down the road (that said there is a lot of protectionism in the defense budget that could safely be chopped).

LOFL. So this is the rationalization?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Where is the outrage from the righties on the board? We are constantly badgered with calls for social spending reductions due to waste. Here we have the Pentagon actually requesting spending cuts, and the House says no. Is there a more egregious example of waste in our federal budget than this?

The silence is deafening.

 

[Sand]

Where is the outrage from the righties on the board? We are constantly badgered with calls for social spending reductions due to waste. Here we have the Pentagon actually requesting spending cuts, and the House says no. Is there a more egregious example of waste in our federal budget than this?

Yes, there are more egregious examples, but building tanks to put in a warehouse somewhere is just stupid. That crap should be cut.

Though recall that we have Hagel at the helm here and some of what is says is asinine. No one should trust the guy to make smart cuts.

I would LOVE to see us cut hundreds of billions out of our annual spending in DC! But I would start with our war machine before I would touch social services (though cuts to BOTH are going to be necessary).

I would like to see cuts in both, though it is important to remember that the primary reason that the US has the preeminent position in the world and is wealthy as it is is because of that war machine. It isn't some random appendage that is hanging off and trimming it too much won't have effects down the road (that said there is a lot of protectionism in the defense budget that could safely be chopped).

LOFL. So this is the rationalization?

It's called ROI.. That money comes back to us in spades. No need to rationalize anything here.

 

[Johnnymac]

Gee I wonder if there were any special interest groups behind this vote.

 

[cstu]

Though recall that we have Hagel at the helm here and some of what is says is asinine. No one should trust the guy to make smart cuts.

Like?