i thought cutting was the goal?

[Danzig]

what i put in the initial post was from an article in today's paper; here's a link to msnbc's take on it..

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43688283...ime-austerity/

House boosts military budget in time of austerity (poor choice of words, this is no example of an austere appropriations bill!)
Measure includes $119 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan


On a 336-87 vote Friday, the Republican-controlled House overwhelmingly backed a $649 billion defense spending bill that boosts the Defense Department budget by $17 billion. The strong bipartisan embrace of the measure came as White House and congressional negotiators face an Aug. 2 deadline on agreeing to trillions of dollars in federal spending cuts and raising the borrowing limit so the U.S. does not default on debt payments.

While House Republican leaders agreed to slash billions from the proposed budgets for other agencies, hitting food aid for low-income women, health research, energy efficiency and much more, the military budget is the only one that would see a double-digit increase in its account beginning Oct. 1.


what asinine bullsh!t. does anyone here know that we outspend china six times over? russia? that 43% of military spending in the world is by us? that probably will increase with this bill. absolutely ridiculous. and what has that spending gotten us?? we can't even win a fukking war in afganistan with all these billions-so what's the point??

[Riot]

"While House Republican leaders agreed to slash billions from the proposed budgets for other agencies, hitting food aid for low-income women, health research, energy efficiency and much more, the military budget is the only one that would see a double-digit increase in its account beginning Oct. 1. "

Yeah - because in the middle of a great stagnant recession recovery, slashing billions from those things keeping people alive is exactly what is needed. While keeping people working at Halliburton and the other defense contractors, including their lobbyists, is good. For campaign funding.

You do not slash budgets in a recession recovery. Money is never cheaper than now. So you borrow at those cheap rates and have another huge stimulus, targeting infrastructure repair (bridges have to be fixed, why not do it with cheap money rather than expensive, and hire the currently unemployed, too? Duh!) and green technology advances.

That Obama has allowed the Republicans to highjack and control a routine deficit ceiling raise (that these same Republicans did seven times under Bush without a peep) and make the public discussion instead about spending cuts is something that will literally kill this country and any growth for two decades to come.

We borrowed in the past, we have to pay for it. That has nothing at all to do with future spending. Zero. Zip. Nada.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

"While House Republican leaders agreed to slash billions from the proposed budgets for other agencies, hitting food aid for low-income women, health research, energy efficiency and much more, the military budget is the only one that would see a double-digit increase in its account beginning Oct. 1. "

Yeah - because in the middle of a great stagnant recession recovery, slashing billions from those things keeping people alive is exactly what is needed. While keeping people working at Halliburton and the other defense contractors, including their lobbyists, is good. For campaign funding.

You do not slash budgets in a recession recovery. Money is never cheaper than now. So you borrow at those cheap rates and have another huge stimulus, targeting infrastructure repair (bridges have to be fixed, why not do it with cheap money rather than expensive, and hire the currently unemployed, too? Duh!) and green technology advances.

That Obama has allowed the Republicans to highjack and control a routine deficit ceiling raise (that these same Republicans did seven times under Bush without a peep) and make the public discussion instead about spending cuts is something that will literally kill this country and any growth for two decades to come.

We borrowed in the past, we have to pay for it. That has nothing at all to do with future spending. Zero. Zip. Nada.

not sure if you saw this line in the msnbc article i posted above.


'The overall bill is $9 billion less than President Barack Obama sought.'

also:

The overall bill must be reconciled with a still-to-be-completed Senate version.

Yet not every House member thought spending was set high enough. Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., opposed the bill for cutting too deeply.

"It is dangerous for Congress to begin hollowing out the United States military without fully realizing the national security risks this may entail," Forbes said in a statement. (laughable at best)

The House also acted to slow the repeal of the policy allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces. Lawmakers voted to block money to train the Chaplain Corps on the practices it should use once the "don't ask, don't tell" policy ends. (a damn crying shame)

Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., sponsor of the measure, said its purpose is to prohibit chaplains from performing same-sex marriages on military bases without regard to a state's law. The House approved the measure 236-184.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

We borrowed in the past, we have to pay for it. That has nothing at all to do with future spending. Zero. Zip. Nada.

We have yet to pay for it. We've had a national debt since at least 1930.

The party is over. Time to cut all the freebies.

And whether it's a household, a business, or a government, debt has very much to do with future spending. The juvenile actions of Congress in spending whatever figures suit their whims, regardless of actual resources and revenue, MUST cease.

Here's the most controversial statement any presidential candidate for 2012 can make: "Effective upon my inauguration, this government will spend a sum going forward that is always less than the previous year's tax revenue. The remainder, which will always be a yearly surplus, will be put toward retiring the debt we have already accrued, with a fraction of that to be accumulated for emergencies."

I laughed my tail off at the president's chief of staff on ABC news yesterday. What a joke - these guys will never get it. We as a country need to spend LESS than we TAKE IN starting RIGHT F**KING NOW!

[Danzig]

andrew jackson was the last president to have this country out of debt.

hopefully the senate can do something about the house's appropriations bill. or the white house will do what they've threatened and veto the thing.

[Danzig]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43708556/ns/politics/


lol gotta laugh at the new euphemism of 'revenue increases'. let's not call it what it is.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43708556/ns/politics/


lol gotta laugh at the new euphemism of 'revenue increases'. let's not call it what it is.

Yeah, next thing you know, they'll stop counting the unemployed people after a couple of years, thus reducing the reported figure. Oh, wait a minute....

[Danzig]

a wsj view on the debt crisis, etc

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...p_mostpop_read


and i found this link, as i had read the piece in the paper here...

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/artic...imate-speeches


i went to factcheck, and did find this from obama's april budget speech:

http://factcheck.org/2011/04/factche...budget-speech/







and all that is all well and good...but i can't help but wonder why the govt let the debt ceiling get so close before doing anything. why didn't they let the tax cuts expire rather then extend them? how much would that have helped? why is the military budget larger than a year ago? why didn't obama and his party take more steps when they had the majorities in congress and held the executive? it's been left til now so that they would have to rush, just jack it up, and worry about all the reform later.
the ceiling will be raised. the question is what else will occur? i'm figuring not a lot.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43708556/ns/politics/


lol gotta laugh at the new euphemism of 'revenue increases'. let's not call it what it is.

There is raising the marginal tax rate, and eliminating loopholes. Eliminating loopholes could open up the base to an increase that would allow the rates to be lowered.

Call it what you wish, we have never had lower tax revenue compared to our spending. The inbalance is too significant. We gave away too much revenue in cuts, and we need it back. We cannot "cut" our way to prosperity in a recession. Well, we can, but we have to decide who gets to die on the street from the Congressional death panel: young disabled or old starving and sick.

[dellinger63]

We need to address the two biggest expenses, Social Security & (SSI) and Medicare/Medicaid. At the very least as average expectency of life goes up so should the minimum retirement/benefit age.