House GOP: Cut Programs For Low, Mid-Income Americans To Protect Wasteful Military Spending

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Is there really anyone on Right that can defend spending over a trillion dollars a year on the military?

--------------------------------------------------
House GOP: Cut Programs For Low, Mid-Income Americans To Protect Wasteful Military Spending
By Ben Armbruster on Apr 18, 2012 at 5:11 pm

CAP’s Melissa Boteach, Lawrence Korb and Max Hoffman report today on how House Republicans are asking low- and middle-income families to sacrifice health care and basic services to preserve redundant defense systems.

They note that the Republican controlled Ways and Means Committee recently proposed $68 billion in cuts and tax increases for low- and middle-income Americans in order to “protect” military spending cuts that would occur in January 2013 because last year’s debt deal. The chart below provides a side-by-side comparison:



“We can make strategic cuts to our defense budget without undermining our national security, including reducing our nuclear stockpile while sustaining a credible deterrent and making more effective weapons purchases,” the report states. “In fact, the Center for American Progress has found more than $500 billion in Pentagon cuts that could be implemented over the next decade while still maintaining our vast military superiority.”

[footstepsfrom#27]

Hey military contractors gotta eat to ya know? Times are tough now that the word on the $10k hammers and $20k toilet seats is out to the public.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Reform entitlements and quit playing the class warfare card.

[alkemical]

Everyone wants to get rid of entitlements, just not theirs.

[peacepipe]

reform defense spending by half & a flat tax around 30-35% on all forms of income.

[Rigs11]

Well we have to stand up those evil vile russians. Right Mitt? Usa! Usa! Usa!

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

reform defense spending by half & a flat tax around 30-35% on all forms of income.

by half? seriously? you couldn't even pay the troops salaries.

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

by half? seriously? you couldn't even pay the troops salaries.

Concider the source.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

by half? seriously? you couldn't even pay the troops salaries.

We don't need standing armies of hundreds of thousands if we aren't invading and occupying other countries (nation building).

[ant1999e]

I love the military support that's been displayed by a few here on the Mane lately.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

I love the military support that's been displayed by a few here on the Mane lately.

oh please, instead of trying to change the subject into the old bull**** talking point that you don't support the military if you support making cuts to the waste in defense spending. try addressing the issue of defense spending.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

I love the military support that's been displayed by a few here on the Mane lately.

You mean you think we should be bombing, invading and occupying countries around the world. Yeah, we already know you support that "philosophy".

But a little reality for you. Because most of the country doesn't support your views, doesn't mean they don't recognize and support Americans that HAVE to support those views by serving in the military.

Your attempt at slandering the majority of Americans in this country is nonsense.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

We don't need standing armies of hundreds of thousands if we aren't invading and occupying other countries (nation building).

that & how many bases do we need in germany,france, & anywhereelse for that matter. you don't need to close down all of them but quite a few are expendable.

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

oh please, instead of trying to change the subject into the old bull**** talking point that you must not support the military if you support making cuts to the waste in defense spending. try addressing the issue of defense spending.

I wasn't refering to you or your comment but if the shoe fits...

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

by half? seriously? you couldn't even pay the troops salaries.

actually you could,but I was being abit sarcastic. you can cut defense spending by a 1/3 without a hitch.

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

You mean you think we should be bombing, invading and occupying countries around the world. Yeah, we already know you support that "philosophy".

But a little reality for you. Because most of the country doesn't support your views, doesn't mean they don't recognize and support Americans that HAVE to support those views by serving in the military.

Your attempt at slandering the majority of Americans in this country is nonsense.

You have no idea what my views are. You can assume but you just make an ass out of you. I don't believe in any of the things you say I do. You cut the budget, you take from the military members and retirees. And I wasn't refering to the majority of the country you idiot, just you.

I'll make you libs a deal, let's cut wasteful military spending when we cut wasteful entitlements.

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

that & how many bases do we need in germany,france, & anywhereelse for that matter. you don't need to close down all of them but quite a few are expendable.

I agree with this.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by ant1999e

You have no idea what my views are.

Everyone here knows exactly what your "views" are, you confirm them in 90% of your posts.

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Everyone here knows exactly what your "views" are, you confirm them in 90% of your posts.

Everything you suggested in post #12 was wrong. You don't know.what.the Hell you're talking about old man.

[snowspot66]

Originally Posted by Smiling Assassin27

Reform entitlements and quit playing the class warfare card.

So where in the ladder is the military? Above or below 250k earners? Because you're certainly implying they're above low and middle income houses.

[UltimateHoboW/Shotgun]

That's funny considering Dems haven't even passed a budget in what a 1000+ days. Keep trying.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

actually you could,but I was being abit sarcastic. you can cut defense spending by a 1/3 without a hitch.

I think a safer way to do it would be reduce by 1-2% a yr for a decade. Also I think some of the super high tech stuff they spend money on is a waste. I'm not sure that new destroyer they have decided to go ahead and build is worth it. So expensive we can only make 4 of them. I guess they feel they need them to counter Chinese.

I'm against a huge troop reduction though. Being able to join military, and all the ones who have already committed deserve the chance to serve if that is what they want to do. It's the best way for govt to employee people and the one of the ways that is actually in the Constitution.

Just saying off the top of your head cut it by 1/3 or in half like you originally said is crazy talk. That isn't how you manage the most powerful country in the world.

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

I think a safer way to do it would be reduce by 1-2% a yr for a decade. Also I think some of the super high tech stuff they spend money on is a waste. I'm not sure that new destroyer they have decided to go ahead and build is worth it. So expensive we can only make 4 of them. I guess they feel they need them to counter Chinese.

I'm against a huge troop reduction though. Being able to join military, and all the ones who have already committed deserve the chance to serve if that is what they want to do. It's the best way for govt to employee people and the one of the ways that is actually in the Constitution.

Just saying off the top of your head cut it by 1/3 or in half like you originally said is crazy talk. That isn't how you manage the most powerful country in the world.

At least the taxpayers money is going to people.who.actually work for a living. Some.libs would.rather give it to people for.popping.out kids.and.sitting.on their ass all day.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

...and on top of that, they get tax breaks
that aren't available to you and me.

[UltimateHoboW/Shotgun]

BTW, Obama Budget could even get Dem votes.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Un...federal_budget

A motion to proceed on President Obama's 2012 budget proposal was defeated in the Senate by a margin of 0-97 votes on May 25, 2011

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...efeated-414-0/

President Obama's budget was defeated 414-0 in the House late Wednesday, in a vote Republicans arranged to try to embarrass him and shelve his plan for the rest of the year.

The vote came as the House worked its way through its own fiscal year 2013 budget proposal, written by Budget Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan. Republicans wrote an amendment that contained Mr. Obama's budget and offered it on the floor, daring Democrats to back the plan, which calls for major tax increases and yet still adds trillions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade.

"It’s not a charade. It’s not a gimmick — unless what the president sent us is the same," said Rep. Mick Mulvaney, a freshman Republican from South Carolina who sponsored Mr. Obama's proposal for purposes of the debate. "I would encourage the Democrats to embrace this landmark Democrat document and support it. Personally, I will be voting against it."

But no Democrats accepted the challenge.

They have their own alternative they wrote, which closely tracks the president's deficit numbers, though it changes the details of his plan. That plan will receive a vote on Thursday, as will Mr. Ryan's proposal.

Senate Democrats have said they will not bring a budget to the floor this year, though Republicans in the chamber have talked about trying to at least force a vote on Mr. Obama's plan there as well.

Last year, when they forced a vote on his 2012 budget, it was defeated 97-0