GOP: More Tanks, Less Healthcare

Satchel

2,500+ Posts
Who didn't see this coming?b]House GOP To Shift Defense Cuts To Poverty Program

As Congress returns from recess this week, House Republicans are set to advance legislation to replace automatic defense spending cuts they agreed to last year with cuts to programs for the poor and working class. The controversial measure is expected to pass the House and die in the Senate, making it largely a political exercise that allows the two parties to contrast the values at the heart of the 2012 election: Should the burden for addressing the country’s long-running fiscal challenges fall to struggling people, or to the wealthiest people in the country?

The proposal — which is an outgrowth of the budget the House GOP overwhelmingly voted for late March — would cut some $261 billion from health care programs, food stamps, unemployment benefits and child tax credits, among others. It constitutes a violation of the GOP’s end of the debt-limit deal, which included painful sacrifices for both parties if the Congress failed to reach a bipartisan deficit-reduction agreement.

The measure would override the $78 billion in defense cuts set take effect January 2013 as a backstop in last August’s debt limit law. Additional cuts are in place for the following nine years. President Obama and Democrats aren’t happy with the so-called “sequestration” cuts either, but they insist they won’t roll them back unless Republicans agree to a balanced deal that combines spending cuts with new revenues taken from wealthy Americans, the latter of which Republicans have blocked for years.
The Link
 
Satch,

The deal imposed 50 percent of the cuts on a department that only composes about 20 percent of the total budget. The Pentagon is taking a grossly disproportionate share of the cuts. Even Leon Panetta (Obama's Defense Secretary) thinks the defense cuts are dangerous.
 
Shiner, to your earlier question, here's one of the things I really don't like about the President:

President Obama and Democrats aren’t happy with the so-called “sequestration” cuts either, but they insist they won’t roll them back unless Republicans agree to a balanced deal that combines spending cuts with new revenues taken from wealthy Americans, the latter of which Republicans have blocked for years

BHO should realize that he's already lost this battle. He should stop trying to reason with these people and move on.
 
rolleyes.gif
 
Satch, why don't we just turn every company over to the govt, pay everyone the same except for the govt dictators who tell everyone what to do, dye all non dictators purple so we all have the same skin color and ration out food, cars, healthcare and everything else so we are all treated equally. Whaddya think?
 
It is time for the President of the United States to do what all good Presidents do at a time like this. Make campaign speeches and tweet.
 
Republicans told us that Clinton gutted the military and left us vulnerable to enemies abroad. Yet, GWB was able to wage war on the ME with that gutted military. We could probably cut more than the amount Panetta is fretting over and not miss it.
 
^By the same token, Satch, we could cut out the ridiculous duplication and administrative overhead costs (not to mention the fraud) in social programs and not miss anything, either. And those cuts would (a) make a lot bigger dent in the deficit and (b) restore some sense of individual responsibility.

HHD
hookem.gif
texasflag.gif
coolnana.gif
ousucksnana.gif
 
entitlements make up 58% of the budget, and have no mandate within the constitition. that is where the bulk of spending cuts should be made. military is 20% of the budget and is mandated in the constitution.
 
Mandatory entitlements (Unemployment, Medicaid, Medicare, SS) : 2,009 million dollars about 56% of the 2010 Federal Budget
SS: 19%
Medicaid: 8%
Unemployment: 16%
Medicare: 12 %



Read more:The Link
 
You missed the larger point I was attemting to make. The military industrial complex will always look for ways to ensure an unending supply of cash to keep it going. Clinton was "accused" of gutting the military but the fact that Bush went to war with him with what was bequeathed to him is proof that GOP claims of Clinton's desire to defang the military was just that - baselss claims. That a similar hue and cry is coming from DOD and the GOP is not at all surprising.
 
Actually, to correct you a little bit, it wouldn't be tanks. I think we would want Anti-Missile Defense systems, F-22 and more Drone planes.

Tanks are not the mobile armored vehicle of the future.
 
Who accused Clinton of gutting the military? I think Clinton was accused of chasing Monica Lewinsky instead of Osama Bin Laden, which was proven to be factual.
 

Recent Threads

Back
Top