Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: US Crumbles while repugnicons seek more war money

Posted 5 years ago on May 8, 2012, 8:50 a.m. EST by bklynsboy (834)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Insane repugs want billions more to the military while EVERYTHINGE else crumbles in the US. A NEW MISSILE DEFENSE FOR THE EAST COAst?? What's going to attack? Cubans on rowboats?? They want to cut Medicaid, food stamps, social services, meals on wheels, child abuse prevention programs, child care, more.

We spend as much as the rest of the world combined on military. There is NO country or power that can conquer us. Meanwhile everything is cut like jobs, healthcare, education, transportation, science, senior care, Veterans benefits, social services, infrastructure, Wall St. regulation and enforcement, food industry safety, mine safety, EVERYTHING but the military. Meanwhile China trades globally, gets stronger daily without wars, a huge military budget or interfering with other governments. That's how they are beating us.

Republicans seek to add more in defense spending By Walter Pincus, Published: May 7 http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/republicans-seek-to-add-more-in-defense-spending/2012/05/07/gIQAKiq48T_print.html

House Republicans on Monday spelled out some funding increases they are seeking in defense programs above the amounts President Obama requested in the fiscal 2013 Pentagon budget, including an additional $1 billion for Israeli anti-missile defense systems.

While the Obama budget proposed reducing the core defense budget by $5.2 billion, or 1 percent below this year’s spending, the Republican majority on the House Appropriations Defense subcommittee put out a suggested bill that would add $1.1 billion to Pentagon spending.

Also on Monday, Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, released his version of the fiscal 2013 defense authorization bill, which tops Obama’s budget request by $3.7 billion.

All three proposed defense budgets are above the bipartisan level set by the Budget Control Act (BCA), setting the stage for a showdown later this election year. That is when Congress must approve deficit reductions totaling $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years, through additional spending cuts or revenue increases, or both. Otherwise, under current law, across-the-board cuts, including more than $500 billion in defense spending over 10 years, will begin to take effect in January 2013.

While defense spending may not become a central issue in the presidential campaign, some of the Republican-proposed increases have clear political implications. The proposed extra $1 billion for Israeli systems includes $680 million in the 2013 authorization bill for the Iron Dome system that has proved effective in knocking down short-range rockets fired into Israel from Hamas-controlled Gaza. That money is to be spent over four years. It will be a hard item for the White House to oppose in an election year, because it already has bipartisan support.

A controversial Obama proposal to reduce the number of aircraft and reassign personnel in the Air National Guard and Reserves is the focus of both Republican panels, with the appropriators seeking to add $590 million but delaying its spending while Congress and the Government Accountability Office study the issue. The McKeon panel, however, would simply add more than $500 million to “preserve tactical airlift” capabilities provided by Guard and Reserve aircraft that Obama proposed to retire early.

The House GOP authorizers proposed an additional $460 million to begin planning and development of a new U.S. missile defense site, “potentially on the East Coast.”

House Republicans, however, appear to accept the Obama plan to reduce the size of the Army by some 80,000 and the Marines by 20,000 over the next five years, though the authorizers slow it down some. That comes as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, is calling for increasing U.S. troop levels by 100,000.

While both House panels want increases in the Obama shipbuilding program, neither comes close to the Romney proposal to up the level to 15 ships a year. The appropriators would fund 11 new Navy ships; the authorizers would take it a step further and add about $60 million to upgrade three of the seven cruisers the Obama administration wants to retire.

Another issue to watch is the Obama plan for increasing fees for military retirees, both for working retirees’ health-care programs and for their drug purchases. The authorizers would bar any increases or new fees but propose a pilot program on pharmacy purchases. Some $1 billion is involved, and the GOP appropriators have yet to decide the issue.



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 5 years ago

The simple facts are, 1) Members of congress (less than 10 % of Americans approve of these criminals) are legally allowed to use insider trading information to make millions of dollars in profit off the stock market, so they just do it. (Would you do it? If you aren't a member of congress, you would be going to prison for using insider trading info )

2) Members of congress are also allowed to buy stocks and shares in the military industrial complex, so not only are they allowed access to insider trading information, they are also allowed to create reasons for sending American people to war, so that they can make a lot of money in the short term, from their stock investments.

In any other country, aside from the obvious dictatorships, these members of congress would be tried as war criminals, lined up against a block wall, and summarily executed.

End of story.

If you are an American, question why these people are still alive, and making a million dollars at your expense.

[-] 3 points by bklynsboy (834) 5 years ago

Absolutely correct. Corruption and kickbacks everywhere, both parties.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 5 years ago

these jets do fly overs at air shows. the only use they have.

http://news.yahoo.com/fighter-pilots-claim-intimidation-over-f-22-raptor-123832451--abc-news-topstories.html Last week the Air Force officially received the last F-22 Raptor from defense contracting giant Lockheed Martin, completing an order of 187 planes that cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $79 billion -- meaning that including research, development and production among other costs, each plane has a price tag of more than $420 million. Despite being the most advanced fighters on the planet, none of the planes have been used on a combat mission since they went combat-ready in late 2005. Critics told ABC News that's because the jet was designed to fight rival, sophisticated fighters – an enemy that doesn't exist right now.

[-] 2 points by bklynsboy (834) 5 years ago

Yes. Endless waste and pork to MIC contractors who pay off both parties in congress. US goal; endless war for MIC profits.