E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
FAYETTEVILLE, NC -- At a defense-industry roundtable meeting here -- which included two retired four-star generals -- Paul Ryan criticized the pending $500 billion in defense cuts that would go into effect in Jan. 2013.
These cuts -- part of what’s known as “sequestration” -- were part of the Budget Control Act of 2011 that Congress passed to resolve last year's debt-ceiling standoff.
“When those budget negotiations were going on, it was the president and his party leaders that insisted on this makeup, this formula,” Ryan said at the invite-only event near the Fort Bragg military base. “Defense spending is not half of all federal spending, but its half of the cuts approximately in the sequester. We disagreed with that then, and we disagree with it now.”
And he vowed that a Romney-Ryan administration would restore the cuts. “That means if we have to do it in January, we will do it in January. That’s our position. We are crystal clear about it because it’s not just policy, it's personal,” Ryan said. “And it’s important that we send the right signals to our military families, to our economy, and to our adversaries. We are going to be strong, we are not going to back down, don’t question our resolve.”
Yet Ryan voted for the Budget Control Act, which contained these same defense cuts as well as cuts to social programs. And the Obama campaign highlighted the contradiction.
“Congressman Ryan voted for the agreement he criticized today, and he walked away from a balanced deficit-reduction plan last summer because he thought it would help the president’s re-election prospects,” Obama spokesman Danny Kanner said in a statement. “And Mitt Romney himself has said that he didn’t want Congress to act, despite looming defense cuts. Congressman Ryan and Mitt Romney should show some leadership to avoid these cuts instead of using our military budget to score a political point.”
But Ryan spokesman Michael Steel, who was involved in the debt-ceiling debate while working for House Speaker John Boehner, replied: “What Chairman Ryan voted for was bipartisan deficit reduction. The president instead went AWOL on the campaign trail and the result is the devastating defense cuts that the president insisted on.”
These automatic cuts to the defense industry (traditionally a top GOP constituency) and social programs (favored by Democrats) were supposed to serve as a "trigger" if Republicans and Democrats failed to come together to pass additional budget cuts under the legislation.
Ryan's remarks here at the Partnership for Defense Innovation lab at the All-American Business Park were not the first time he President Obama over these looming defense cuts. But it was -- by far -- the harshest tone Ryan’s taken towards Obama on the subject yet.
“The House has already passed, as well as the Senate, which has now been finally signed into law, bipartisan legislation saying put up or shut up. The president needs to show us how he plans on putting this in place if he is not going to help us pass legislation preventing it in the first place, so we’re now waiting for that answer,” Ryan said. “The president needs to show us how he plans on putting this in place if he is not going to help us pass legislation preventing it in the first place.”
The legislation the Congressman was referring to is the Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012, which passed both chambers in July 2012 with bipartisan support demands that the president show how it would carry out the defense cuts.
While Ryan has never served in the U.S. military, he made clear his close ties to the men and women who defend the nation on a daily basis.
From inside his blue sport coat, Ryan pulled out a white card to show the roughly 100-person crowd. The card contained the names of fallen military personnel from Wisconsin.
“I carry this card in my pocket. I've carried it with me for years. I don't really talk about this often,” he said. “It's the men and women who have lost their lives, the men who have lost their lives in Wisconsin. I've talked to these families, been at the funerals. It's the ultimate sacrifice.”
And he transitioned to the defense cuts.
“My childhood friend was a brigade commander here at the 82nd,” Ryan said. “He and I are very close and he would email me what was happening. The kind of sacrifices and the moral changes that occur when these kind of looming defense cuts occurred.”
Leave a Comment:
Are you talking about the defense cuts he, himself VOTED for?
Ryan was the perfect choice as Willard's running mate - he puts the "flip" into Willard's "flop"
Think of it as a political version of "ying" & "yang"!
I used to say their base has IQ's equivalent to a turnip... now I believe I'm giving the turnip to much credit!
WTF???
Come on Feisty, Eddie takes his lead from Willard. You know that there isn't an issue under the sun that Willard was for before he was against it. Good thing Eddie has that super max workout. It helps to be limber and in shape for all the flipping and flopping he will do running around with Willard.
@Feisty,
The sheer gall of these guys is amazing. It's like they don't acknowledge that we're living in the Age of Instant Information.
How stupid do they think We The People are?
(From Abbot & Costello: "How stupid can you get? "How stupid do you want?")
Al, when I saw this article, my jaw literally dropped!
I have to seriously wonder about people who support this freak shows sanity!
PS: Shout out to Martin Bashir who took some right wing hack apart limb by limb for demeaning General Dempsey!
Wow, that might p*** off some supporters!
Paul Ryan vows to restore cuts to defense but says nothing about all the other programs affected with the other half of the cuts.
He would be very pleased if ONLY the cuts to defense were restored and let the programs for the poor, sick, old and middle class go unfunded.
Empty!....Personal, how, Mr. Marvelous? Clear as mud and your etch-a-sketch!
I really enjoy Martin Bashir!
Is it me? Is it FR? Or did he really say that ... the President needs to show us how he plans on putting this in place if he's not going to pass legislation? The sentence before said it was a law? Not just flipping on his own voting record (he's getting really good at that), but making completely incoherent sentences as well.
Is it 5:00 somewhere??????
I ♥ him!
"My childhood friend was a brigade commander here at the 82nd," said Ryan.
Mr. L. Ryan:
What's this? My army's bigger than your army -?
NO - we're not having more tax cuts for the rich while our taxes go up, and $10Trillion more on the deficit, 0.82% taxes for your boss, cutting Medicare, healthcare, Pell grants, slashing Education by 20%, and $4Billion slush fund to Big Oil -
While you play little tin soldiers with Defense cuts.
Grow up Private Ryan.
Feisty,
How'd you do that *heart* thingy?
Hold down your "alt" key and hit 3 on your number pad, there's a whole bunch of icons to play with!
For instance, "alt" 1 will give you this; ☺
What is the "Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012" that this article refers to? Is it law?
♥......☺ Yeah......
Gracias!
@Feisty (while you're doing Tech support),
How do I get thing to track in real time? I have to back completely off the site and get back on to see new comments.
I'm going to have to defer you to our resident techo-guru, Dennis in Columbus!
When it comes to technology, he's the brains behind the operation! ;o)
refresh button??
Well ... at least it's no contest whose brain is bigger-.
Yes indeed, the President and First Lady have brilliant minds.
Shall we fill the paddling pool up for you now dear?
If Ryan wants to avoid that $500 Billion, maybe he can ask the Kochs, Adelson, Friese and the other multi-billionaires to "pony up". It is about time we cut military spending and started spending on other needs.
What good does it do to have the most powerful and most expensive military in the world if the roads, bridges, energy grid, schools are crumbling? What good is it if we do not provide the best education possible for our children because we spend it on wars? What good is a powerful military when so many people live in poverty, so many lack health care, so many lack a place to live? We spend more money on the mililtary than our allies spend combined; we spend far more than does China, Russia. If we keep spending all our money on the military, we will look like North Korea.
Bali Bob,
I don’t believe that you can track in real time. You either must go back to your home page or use the “refresh”.
Yes, just hit the refresh button and it even leaves you close to where you were reading.
I will hit it every ten minutes or so if I want to see the most current post.
When I answered your post Dennis post hadn't shown up yet.
Obama is brilliant at fooling dummies. Actually accomplishing anything ... nothing but excuses.
Since you mention it, and since I just mentioned things as in real issues, what about what Obama's man on his special commission (the subject of this thread btw) said, the former Clinton guy -Erskine Bowles?
Wow ... what a rip on Obama from an actual intelligent lib.
What an endorsement for Ryan from an actual intelligent lib that understands the issues.
I ♥ it
☺
Ryan makes you go hmmmm. Since someone else mentioned Abbott and Constello earlier, the Ryan paragraph Layton re-posted reminds me of "Who's On First"!
Is he and Robme going to pay for it?
Jody, Iowa
I think he makes people say "WTF" is more like it.
They HAVE to restore the defense budget. They already plan wars in Syria and Iran.
Bob -180..... Democrats will always be smarter than Republicans - it's in our genes. That's what makes us immune to the stupidity of the far right. Sorry - but, facts are facts.
Like, we know that if a woman is raped her body doesn't keep her from becoming pregnant. We saw right through that one.
Obama/Biden 2012 - for the intelligent choice!
Despite the wars, defense spending, a core constitutional function of Govt. has declined significantly over time.....However, spending on three "entitlements" has more than TRIPLED.
Since 2001 defense spending has doubled !!!
A constant claim among liberals is that government spends more on defense than anything else in the federal budget. The reality is that even after paying for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, Washington spends twice as much on entitlement programs than on defense.
2001 = $308 Billion
2011 = $700 Billion - 19% of the Federal Budget which is the largest part of discretionary spending.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/a0904490.html
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2b/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png
Harley,
did I miss something:
"The reality is that even after paying for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan,..."
when did we pay for these wars?
Hi Seeking,
Still seeking the ability to make an intelligent and cogent response I see.
Keep up the good work, you'll get there.
Have a good weekend!
(PS - To save you time - I know ... I know ... you are more intelligenter and cogenter than I am.)
"and we desperately need you guys backing us because we're getting our behinds handed to us by every other voting group except old, white people!"
"C'mon guys, name your price. Mitt has said what ever it takes, so the check book is open."
These clowns will learn real soon that you can't buy the White House.
Feisty,
Still working on the happy face...
I heard this one today:
"While Obama is teaming up with Clinton, Romney is running away from Bush"
That's a result of water swelling it.
Harley Chic
No, "only" 20% goes to defense. let's make it 50% while cutting education. Who needs education anyways, right?
bob-1805084,
I didn't need to add the attack line... SINCERE APOLOGIES.
However, wait for it, wait for it --
Without the persistence and determination of this President, we'd all be down a giant fiscal hole as per Europe - with their 11 to 25% unemployment rates. Eventually, they'll have to have a stimulus in order to begin recovering.
And President Obama kept us afloat without any help from GOP - you will remember GOP leaders said they were going to block our economic recovery as devastating as it was - and they proudly did so at our expense. They did it so they could blame any fallout on the President. Truth.
Let me guess. We're going to increase the military budget, from the increase it already gets. Hmm, Sounds like a great plan.............Unless, of course, you're planning to get out of the war in Afganistan.
Why would you need to increase the budget, unless you're planning on having a new war?
I used to be a tradition that a former President of the United States would be revered and respected, particularly by his own party. When Bob Dole ran, he had both Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush as speakers at the convention.
President Carter and President Clinton will be at the Democratic Convention.
Neither President Bush will be at the Republican Convention, maybe they just really don't want to have anything to do with Mitt Romney or the current Republican Party ?
Maybe the GOP is just too nuts even for W.
Your chart proves my point. More is spent on entitlements than defense.
Harley Chic
you mean Social Security that people have paid into for 20,30,40,50 years? That entitlement?
Medicare offends you? Cut the Medicare for the old, the sick and the poor and give some more non-bid billion dollar contracts to Halliburton so Halliburton can charge the federal government for feeding soldiers that don't exist, or sending subpar body armor that is responsible for deaths of American soldiers?
Evil poor and old taking bread out of Halliburton's mouth....
When did they say that?
However, I believe it was Patty Murray who vocalized the Democrats willingness to let the country fall off the fiscal cliff in the name of temper tantrum politics.
Harley chic, or is it Tracy, 90% of your posts are cut and paste. At least put them in quotes. You are plagiarizing.
Harley,
[Despite the wars, defense spending, a core constitutional function of Govt. has declined significantly over time]
The point I was making was your false statement that Defense spending has declined when in fact it has doubled.
blackcatwhitecat
or is it GermanGem?
Sshhhhh!
We don't need the bimbo to wake up from her drunken stupor! ;o)
Candice,
Actually several Republican Senators have agreed (secretly) with her because then during the first week of Jan they can vote for a tax cut which would not violate their pledge to never raise taxes.
The tax increase on the middle class will only be for a couple weeks
Doesn't matter to these nitwits. Like the candidates they stump for, lying is a perfectly acceptable form of campaigning. The Republicans lies are so far off that they're laughable. Even the part about the "debt crisis", which many people believe is way overblown. People like Romney are the ones who started the ball rolling on that. But, let 'em spin. It only makes them dizzier than they already are.
You are so correct. What entitlements? We pay for our social security and Medicare out of each and every paycheck. At least us working people do. If you take what you pay out every week and compound it daily for 40 years or more figuring that you go to work at 18 and retire at 65 you have paid a lot into that so called entitlement. Ryan wants to give you a voucher and a kick in the @ss in return for what you have paid in. Any one under 55 should think hard on how difficult it is going to be to get an insurance company to take you as a client when you are 67 or 77 or 86 etc. our 20 something bodies are a little out of wack by then and will need medical help and more than likely before we die that will be expensive medical help. an MRI costs thousands, hospital stays in the tens of thousands. So this voucher isn't going to guarantee you health insurance. That's why medicare was formed. Ryan/Romney want to tear it apart for big Pharma and Bigger insurance corps. Do they have stocks in those. While at the same time they want ZERO taxes for capital gains, dividends, and estate taxes. Wow what a windfall for Romney/ Adleson/Kochs etc. All on the backs of the working people. It's the 1920's to 1940's all over again. Brother can you spare me a dollar????? dimes aren't worth much any more.
Are you sure it's a she? I got to wonder sometimes. Maybe it's one of those "Chicks with D--ks, lol.
If it was a secret, Dennis, how do we know?
Getting our fiscal house in order is too important to play games. The Dems do it. The Repubs do it. They played these games last time and our credit rating was downgraded for the first time in history, global markets shook and no one in the country was well served.
The all need to get it together and put the interests of the country first. They're playing with the people like pawns. Strong leadership would help.
Candice,
If we have to go …
Off The Cliff
To get the tax increase on the wealthy then, as John Boehner said …
So Be It
Republicans can stop this if the want to and so could Dems but they will not !!
By only one of rating agencies S&P and their record is not exemplary. These guys were giving A+ ratings to almost worthless mortgage CDSwaps
Blackcat -
True. Standard Poor's lost a lot of credibility. And they got a little inappropriately political, in my view, in their written opinion. You're right that Moody's and Fitch only have our debt on credit watch.
I wouldn't be comforted, though, that S&P's record makes the downgrade any less meaningful. Our fiscal house is a mess. Our path is not sustainable. We can't keep spending money we don't have. Our politicians have to buck up, quit cowering from reality and come up with solutions.
I think the American people are smart enough to be able to handle the truth.
BCWC,
Speaking of CDSwaps...
gawker.com has put up over 100 documents about Romney's Cayman Island accounts today.
Read one called Santkay, LLC which he and Anne are shareholders. It statment form the auditors sayit deals in CDSwaps....
Some expert in these exotic accounts will translate for the rest of us in the coming days....
Wonder who leaked these to the web site? A Bain employee?
Dennis.
A lot of non-wealthy people will be hurt if we fall off that cliff. Are you willing to sacrifice the majority of the people to get a week or two of expenditures from the wealthy? If a tax increase would make a dent in our debt, I might agree. But it won't make a dent. It will just make you guys feel a little victorious and fuzzy.
Candice,
The tax cuts will be signed into law by the 3rd week of Jan. so very little damage.
The tax increase on those making more than $250K will be a start at a balanced plan of spending cuts and revenue increase.
Northstar
Thanks for the late night reading. Lotsa snacks in bed tonight.
When did defense become the Republicans' biggest single entitlement program?
http://www.globalfirepower.com/defense-spending-budget.asp
Feisty -- I saw Martin Bashir's show today. All I could think was that he would have made a great presidential debate moderator.
Answer the question, or you forfeit your time!
Dennis - The CBO says the tax increase you're rooting for will increase revenues by $42 billion in the first year. That's 14 days of spending. The CBO says the increase will generate $8.2 billion in the years after that - which runs the government for 3 days.
And that will start a balanced plan? Only if they drastically change the mindset of Congress.
The end of the year continued realization that Congress is politicking instead of governing, and three weeks in the new year is enough to cause another recession. A deeper hole. More unemployed. More uncertainty. More disgust. All in the name of sticking it to the wealthy - on pure ideology and not fiscal responsibility. Too bad they're allowed to mess with people's lives with little recourse.
You will get no agrument out of me!
Martin appreciates being a citizen of this country... unlike those who take it for granted! ☺
Here is a man who truly cares about where we are heading as a collective!
Backhouse -
That's ok ... love means never having to say you're sorry.
We've been waiting for 3 1/2 years for Obama's unemployment to get back to where his administration said it wouldn't go if we gave him a trillion, (or 5.)
... in the pursuit of his big governemnt / statist agenda, we would have recovered by now.
Eh .... so how is Obama's agenda different than Europe .... socialistic, anti-fossil fuels, unions, etc.
Have any idea what will happen when Obama's European style socialistic national health care and all its cost take effect?
You realize that the CBO states the actual unemployment is 11% right?
Do you realize that if unemployment was calculated as it was before the change in 1994, unemployment would be 23%-25% .... the Great Depression levels?
Childlike naivety is cute, but how old are you?
Do you really think libs devoted themselves to "helping" Bush? All that "Mission accomplished" stuff was just trying to support Bush in the war effort?
Do you think there wasn't a group trying to make Clinton a one term president ... Bush 1 a one term president .... Reagan .... Carter ....
Gosh, how pathetic is that Obama had overwhelming majorities in both houses for 2 years and 10-12 repubs completely ruin the poor guy's effectiveness.
Simply amazing that you not only concede his abject failure, but you also accept that as a reasonable excuse.
The most powerful man in the world ... is a poor little victim?
Not much of a president , huh?
Candice,
If you want to be stubborn about tax increases then we can be stubborn about spending cuts.
I know the numbers and I know it doesn't do much but it is an act of good faith which will allow more of the people to accept the deep cuts that are necessary.
For goodness sake it is only 4.5% increase on taxable income above $250,000. If you make $350,000 the additional Federal income tax would only be $4,500. If you make $251,000 the additional tax is $4.50.
Whats really too bad and so sad . Is that no matter the subject . Repubs only look for the Quick fix . If we can reduce something ? WHY NOT START there ?
GEEZ a Start is a GOOD thing . Of Course that 4 Trillion "grand agreement " might have been a good idea .
Each soldier sitting in a warzone costs a million dollars annualy. Sitting in readiness is a hundred thousand a year. Let people in other lands settle their strife on their own though often it's not pretty. It's not our job.
Getting out of Germany is long over due.
There's $500 Billion to be saved cutting expenses in Afganistan, Pakistan, and Germany.
Cut government employee pensions and healthcare 50%. The pensioners still will be getting double the pension and healthcare received by private sector people. There's $250 Billion annually to be saved there.
Raise taxes on rich Americans who hoard their income money and do not invest it into new endeavors that create jobs in America. Reduce taxes on rich Americans who do invest their income money into new endeavors that create jobs in America.
I understand what you're saying, Dennis. The President is absolutely stuck on raising taxes on that group. He harps on the idea as if it will actually make a difference. If deep cuts are necessary, he should be talking about that
He knows what he can and cannot get done. It's all rhetoric at this point and the only reason he clings to it is that it fits in his narrative about the rich and Republicans.
If he were as concerned about the people as he wants to be perceived to be, and if he were as pragmatic as he wants to appear he would drop the nonsensical and divisional and switch gears to something actually meaningful.
With so many people still struggling, record numbers on unemployment, disability and food stamps, and houses that used to be people's homes foreclosed and sitting empty, he'd have a better chance wooing the independents if he simply stated----" it's not a good idea to raise taxes on anyone in a precarious economy" (which he's said before, by the way) and instead vow to require the government live within it's current means. Everybody else has to!
If you run into a brick wall enough times you figure out a different way. Grown ups do anyway. You would think a uniter of his intelligence would have figured that out by now.
Candice, the "rich" and the Republicans need to step up to the plate and use their money to actually assist people in this country. Adelson, Koch bros and Murdoch are so damn busy buying an election that they cannot and will not see that their monies are better spent helping the people in this country. When the wealthy few decide that they need power to better decide for the poor, all is lost.
Layton, How are the wealthy supposed to use their money to assist the people? Should they simply distribute it? Should they hire people? But if their products or services aren't selling, those people would have nothing to do. If giving it to the government is the best way to assist the people, the people would be in good shape already.
The wealthy few don't really believe they are better equipped to decide for the poor. The left believes they should decide for the poor and everyone else. I believe we should lift up the poor, give them a fighting chance, and allow them the dignity to make their decisions themselves. If we could do that, all would be won.
The military should be leaner and meaner. It's not only good for the nation's fiscal health, but also allows for the possibilities of more investment into new tech, so that the military can be tougher and better.
And I quote -"Childlike naivety is cute, but how old are you?"
So if you attack like a grown-up -
How come you don't know the difference between wild extrapolation, and phoney 'facts'?
Candice,
"You can't cut spending your way out of this hole," Simpson said. "You can't grow your way out of this hole, and you can't tax your way out of this hole. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, we tell these people. This is madness. Show me a guy who won't compromise and I'll show you a guy with rocks for brains."
One other item that was cleared up during this discussion was that President Obama did, in fact, endorse Simpson-Bowles. He could not fully support it because all the Republicans would immediately oppose it because it was his commission and Dems would be up in arms because it calls for cuts in social programs. He presented his version 3 times to Congress and, so far, it has been rejected.
A smart Wall Street manager who makes about $150 million a year made a great point about the importance of a strong middle class. His income is equal to about 3,000 average household incomes.
He said: "I own 3 cars but I'm not going to buy 3000 cars. While I love my job and believe that people should be allowed to make as much money as they can, I also know that without a strong, well paid middle class that can afford to purchase homes, cars and other commodities our country will not thrive."
I've been asking for months and STILL no Conservative has had an answer to the question;
Why is it wrong for the wealthy to pay an effective tax rate at least as high as that paid by the middle class?
So both sides were obstructing. Thank you for acknowledging that.
The President should have used Simpson Bowles as a starting point then. And then led the two sides together. Instead he sets important issues aside because it's "too hard" and no one is "helping him" do what he wants. This is poor leadership. Leaders find ways.
If he couldn't get Republicans nor Democrats to work with him for the past four years, it's not going to be any different for the next four years. I don't think we can survive the status quo.
It's too bad. I was hopeful. But now it's time for a change.
Candice,
The middle class whom I am a part of will not allow deep cuts to social programs unless the wealthy are willing to suffer a little also {period}.
By social programs I am talking about programs other than the big 3. Programs that help educate our children, programs that help children and adults that suffer from severe disabilities, programs that help with retraining for people dislocated from their careers and many more programs should not be the recipients of deep cuts while the wealthy don’t suffer and if Mitt and Paul get their wishes they will get more tax cuts.
Dennis and Candice.....
I wouldn't worry about anything getting done next Congress if today's party control of both houses of Congress remain as is. Frankly, I don't see the Dems taking control of the House, nor do I see the Repubs taking control of the Senate. I believe the split control will continue, as both sides voters are pretty entrenched.
That means that repeal of across the board cuts will never make it to the President's desk (whoever is President) unless there is a compromise in the budget process. And I don't forsee compromise anytime soon, as no politician wants to go back to his base and explain why he voted against their gravy train.
Look foreward to at least two more years of do nothing petty bickering, with mandatory cuts happening.
Personally, I believe it's designed this way on purpose, so both sides can tell their contributors they're fighting the good fight, but their hands are tied on delivering the bacon. This way they can ask for more money next election, and promise to deliver the bacon.............yet again.
CPO,
I agree that without a mandate, as you suggest, nothing gets done for another 2 years.
What scares the heck out of me is that we knew we had long term problems a dozen years ago yet Congress decided to give huge tax cuts rather than use the surplus to pay down our debt. I just do not understand the logic. I know that in part it was motivated by the 2001 recession but the tax cuts (especially the 2003 cuts) were much larger than needed for the depth of the recession and a 10 year life was twice as long as any recession and recovery prior to the 2007 recession.
If social security and medicare were discontinued being self funded the taxes they raise would no longer occur. Republicans use these programs to downplay the huge percentage the military takes from income tax revenue the total source of military funds.
These cuts in miliary spending need to go forward. We need to spend money on our infrastructure our education and our energy independence here at home to form a better society for our children in the future. My suggestion is simply, slow down when driving. "Kill a terrorist, drive 55!" Best decision President Carter ever made. Think of the savings in fuel consumption, tires and other car repairs. Most importantly, injuries and deaths will go down. Hence healthcare costs are down. This is a simple step that even ONE citizen can have a positive impact with.
Ana--agreed! These idiots want more war spending so their buddies can continue making fortunes whilst our children and grandchildren go off to fight the rich white men's wars. Notice that their offspring are not getting shot at, maimed, or killed. Not for them the ultimate sacrifice that they wax so emotionally about--oh no. Somehow the ultimate sacrifice they and their offspring make for the country they profess to love is to get daddy elected president! I guess war is the process these people want to use to decrease the surplus population.
"We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo by Walt Kelly
"These cuts" being the ones that Obama's Secretary of Defense said would devastate our national security ... that could effect the "quality of life in this country" .... that would be "completely unacceptable" ...
Cuts that cost the jobs of 1.2 million workers and dump another 100,000 service members into the unemployment pool?
We are arguing about jeopardizing national security, the quality of life, etc. because of unimaginable, asinine spending ... and you want more spending?????
You want energy independence, you want less money going to the Mid East?
Elect Romney. We have more natural energy resources than any country on this planet - more than OPEC countries combined! We literally have 300-400 years of independence with what we are sitting on.
You don't want money go to the Mid East - then build the damn pipeline.
You don't like the above answers ... get off the computer until Obama powers it with his green dreams.
Wow ... tha's your answer, huh?
Wow.
Ana - partially disagree. Education needs to fall out of the hands of the federal government. It's a useless agency. Education is paid for on a local level, has local boards and is something the feds need to step out of. The federal government does not set local policy nor should they be involved at all.
I will agree that the infrastructure needs serious work. Our electricity grid is at close to maximum output and it needs some serious work. We need some way better roads and our bridges could use some beefing up.
Cutting military spending will place us back in the same position when Clinton gutted it. While I feel the military can spend a lot more wisely, to cut that huge chunk of money out of it will weaken our ability to respond in the event we are attacked or are needed in the world to defend ourselves. What I feel is needed is better control over military expenditures. Try saving money efficiently instead of just cutting to beat 60.
bob-1805084
All that oil? Mostly in shale and very expensive to extract. How are you going to force the oil companies to keep it in the good ol' USA, Nationalize them? If not how else?
BTW, the purpose for the pipeline is to send the oil to a shipping port to be shipped overseas.
BrianB999431,
I disagree on education. I think the local and estate education boards need to be dumped because we are such a transcient society. We move too often. Our children have no stability and they would if the lesson plans and books were identical everywhere. You can have regional books for extra history. But math, science, reading and writing should be standardized. With standardizing you can also check the teachers. Because kids are very malleable. The errors are in the teaching methods and standardizing will allow you to apply best practices. Europe and Asia do this and we are far behind them in math and science.
Brianb99941,
"Saving money efficiently" is something the military must do itself. This is a good time to start. I remember August and September in a Dept of Defense job. They spend every penny they have on trash they don't need so no one cuts their budget for the following year. Then October comes around with the new budgets for that year. This is wasteful and I know there is tons of waste during August and September. This is something the administration really needs to look into. because they could really cut costs. I've never seen so much waste as I have seen in the Dept. of Defense late summer.
Ana - I've been saying the same thing since I was in the military. Each year, by the end of September, we needed to spend a bunch of money on supplies or we'd lose our funding... It's never changed. They can't spend more, but they won't spend less. As far as I am concerned that system is broken. I'll never forget going into a supply closet and seeing hundreds of boxes of pens and assorted office supplies... just so they won't lose their funds. That's what I was referring to as being more efficient. Each commander is given an allotment and he'd better spend it or he'd lose what he didn't spend. They were very protective over that money.
I can see your point on education, but local control is the way it's always been... it's fragmented when you compare one school system to another, but federal standards in teaching math, science and other subjects do not take in account any local resources... I don't necessarily like the thought of the federal government having text books written and distributed. Even with national standards, you still have the same trouble of teachers that are sorely lacking in ability... and that's where I believe the major problem is teaching skill is found.
bcwc,
Nope, shale would be in addition to oil, gas, coal. Check the Congressional Research Survey.
Btw - shale adds a couple more centuries.
The government is sitting on 97% of the US reserves. What we are producing is the small stuff pretty much on private lands that Obama has difficulty stopping. The feds have plenty of control.
Btw - What about China getting the Volt technology from Obama's GM, what about the Russians getting the hi-tech battery technology from the company they just bought out of bankruptcy ... that recieved so much stimulus money and the military contracts ... (how many do you want?)
Yea, some of it is refined and sold but most would go here. Why would it not?
You don't think it would open up the supply ... that it is not infrastructure that actually generates economic growth?
You don't think supply effects price?
You like 4 bucks a gallon?
Think $8 a gal like Obama and Chu want helps the economy, helps jobs ....
bob-180..... You lie. Most of the oil from the Keystone Pipeline would NOT go here. It is Canadian owned and would go where they decide to sell it and plans were for overseas.
Again since you don't seem to comprehend facts - President Obama, like every President, has NO control over gas prices.
Obama/Biden 2012
Bob: Yea, some of it is refined and sold but most would go here. Why would it not?
Like SeekingSanity said, you are wrong.
The whole intent of the pipeline was to get Canadian oil to market. It's not our oil, it's Canada's oil. We have no say over where it goes. Canada wanted the fastest, cheapest route to the shipping lanes. They didn't want to risk polluting their land but they had no problem with polluting ours. And conservatives were only too happy to oblige.
Yet Bush dropped the price about $2.50 a gallon down to around $1.60 by opening up some of the offshore stuff (the stuff we drilling now that Obama brags about - the stuff that has kept the price from being $6.50 or whatever.)
Still can't google before making an idiot out of yourself.
(You really should get Feisty or Dennis to tell you how to do it sometime.)
Bob
"The Bakken Formation in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and southern Canada was discovered in the 1980s and 1990s, but because as much as 500 billion barrels of oil was scattered through layers of shale and sandstone, little could be recovered at the time. But with new production techniques, new estimates suggest that 3.65 billion barrels could be extracted from the Bakken Formation."
That's not even 1% that they can get their hands on. Getting the rest will make your fear of $8 a gallon seem paltry. The oilsands in Canada are only economical to extract because the price of oil is high. If the price dropped dramatically the tarsands would shut down.
The proverbial Presidential fairy wand that doesn't exist. It's not going to matter much anymore as whoever will pay the most for it will drive the cost of fossil fuels and right now, China's willing to pay a lot more than we are.
Bob,
maybe you should talk to Feisty or Dennis. Under George w. Bush, the price of gasoline went from $1.60 per gallon when he took office in January 2001 to $4.40 per gallon in july 2008 a jump of 275 percent.
Bob,
Crude oil is a global commodity and sold on the global market. That is what sets the price of gas. President's don't get to set gas prices. World events play a large part in the price of gas.
Blackcat -
So you didn't look up the Congressional Research Survey huh?
Nice specious deflection about the shale oil stuff though.
You other guys -
The price of gas peaked at $4.12 on July 4, 2008.... Bush signed an executive lifting the off shore drilling ban on July 14, 2008 .... price of gas dropped to $1.61 by January 22, 2009.
Drop of $2.51.
Yea, the president doesn't set the price of gas.
He does set the energy policy for the nation with the greatest reserves on the planet.
If you don't think that can effect price .... you are a moron.
bob-1805084, Great stuff, however you are talking to the living dead. I would like to see these folks on another site that does not favor them.
This folks use the same tactics that are used by Obama and his team. When they can not give you facts they resort to insults, lies or they will change the subject like feisty has done in post 3.1.
The truth of the matter is that there is enough energy in this country to be processed and help the economy which means lower unemployment. It is sad as hell that they refuse to even research for themselves.
As a military retiree and a former defense contractor yes defense cuts do need to go forward. Remember President Eisenhower's speech. Why do we spend more on Defense then we do on the citizens of this country? The Cold War has been over and the Cold War thinking and building are over. Why do we continue to build Super Aircraft Carriers that take years to build? People fail to realize that the US Military prior to Bush 41 signing into law mandatory cuts the Active Army was over 700k men and women. However because of the modernization programs started by Reagan eventually the Force had to shrink because these numbers could not be sustained over time. Yes Reagan modernized the Military but at the cost of the future force.
By the way oil that is discovered in the US does not necessary end up here, yes it is a World Commodity. Unless people are advocating for the US Government to nationalize Oil Companies, the USG cannot tell them what to do with the products. I do believe that more barrels are being produced now then ever before yet the gas and other by products are high. Just a question has anyone figured how much money the Oil Companies make from the by products of Crude?
The former President of CHEVRON was on television during the spring and was asked how can the President regulate prices, his answer Nothing because the President of the US does not set the prices.
Of course he wants more money for war thats what war mongers and murderers do
There is SO much money tied into Defense one way or another. I would increase spending on active duty personnel and their families, and vets, especially VA health care. On the other hand it is time to close or consolidate the (too) many overseas bases; some will need to be kept for strategic reasons but it's past time for local governments to spend their money of their own defense, rather than our money.
And it is past time to cut off vendors that over-charge, don't meet requirements, abuse the system. If found in violation they should be denied any future contracts with the federal government, period. No open-ended contracts with anybody - everything comes up for review every 5 years. Fraud gets you booted permanently from any future contracts and severs current ones. There are lots of pet programs individual representatives support that should be ended, sooner rather than later. Priority should be given to supplier who use 80% or more US workers AND US materials and manufacturing (I'd suggest 100% but it's not practical in the global economy - we can't and don't make everything.) Perhaps a small bonus for those who fulfill a project using American workers 100% down the line.
bob-1805084
First, offshore oil drilling does not have an immediate impact on oil prices because oil exploration takes years
Second, the reason why prices went dow GLOBALLY is due to the financial meltdow that we witnessed in 2008 and going into 2009:
a. oil prices went down due to job losses and demeand decrease
b. oil prices went down to the weak dollar that was the result of the Wall Street collapse
c. the pricess wend down due to accelerated selloff after a government supply report showed still weakening demand for oil, dashing the bullish hopes of traders that had been betting on the beginning of another substantial rise in crude prices.
educate yourself. it has nothing to do with what Bush did!
Energy policy of the country with the largest reserves on the planet effects price. And yes immediately ... as immediate as a hurricane popping up or a nut job in the Mid East giving the speculators something to worry about.
Yet more people are jobless now than in January 2009. Demand still sucks and prices are going up.
Of course Obama's ebergy policies don't have anything to do with that right?
Yet the dollar is even weaker now and the price of everything is skyrocketing ... heck we are even downgraded.
Reality is .... that oil prices GO UP WITH A WEAKER DOLLAR DUMMY!
Do you not have even any common sense?
What an ignorant load of crap. (Thinkprogress?)
educate yourself. it has nothing to do with what Bush did!
If gas prices were solely your cue on who to vote for, all you have to do is see which side the oil companies lobby on the most and vote the other side.
Gas prices dropped .40 earlier this year and the oil companies used it as the excuse of why they many billions less that quarter. Oil companies will lobby for the person they think will raise the price of oil the most. It is simple as that. It we have Romney in charge, at the leas;t if not all out war with Iran, he will set the international stage to high alert for a possible war. This will in and of itself cause gas prices to go way up!
Feisty,
Ryan is running for two ballot positions.
His defense spin is for the voters back in his Congressional district.
He wants to make sure when R/R lose , he still has a job in Congress.
Northstar,
I sure hope he gets his clocked clean back home as well!
I see where Joe Dead Beat Daddy Walsh here in my district hitched his wagon to Team Akin!
He was already down by 8 points prior to this stunt! lol
Feisty,
I think lots of the RWJN in Congress have done the same.
TeamAkin has more members than we think.
Many are trying to change their uniforms as we speak.
Great news about Deadbeat Walsh!
This was such a great article on Tammy Duckworth:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/08/tammy-duckworth-versus-joe-walsh-congress
I wish her all the best in this race!
Thanks Clara!
The woman is a class act in every sense!
How are you going do this Little Eddie? Hold you breath and stomp. I tell you anyone that votes for any of these GOP Cult Clowns is pretty much out of touch.
I know the republicans are incredibly out of touch about everything. I can't believe any woman is dumb enough to vote for a republican to make herself into a second class citizen with the government in charge of her body.
After the republican men take control of our bodies do we lose our vote next?
VOTE FOR WOMEN'S FREEDOM...VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT 2012
I understand Americans First... the republicans are the scourge of the earth, very similar to little green blobs of universal trash... right? On the contrary, democrats are the bright shining stars of the political realm. No democrat has ever done anything wrong... they are the closest people to perfection... they walk on water, split 5 loaves of bread and 2 fishes and can feed the multitudes...
Oh, I forgot to mention... democrats do this with other people's money
Brianb - actually, it was a Democrat who spit the loaves of bread and 2 fishes, etc., since you refer to Democrats as socialists and Jesus would surely have been a socialist. So, you're right about his actions.
Obama/Biden 2012
The Ryan Plan:
Cash for the Military. Vouchers for the Elderly.
Mind you, I've got all the respect in the world those who serve in the Armed Services... but this math just does not add up.
You said it.
I have all the respect in the world for Ryan's childhood friend who chose to serve his country. Too bad Ryan didn't follow his example and decided to be a career politician instead.
Military money doesnt get to the soldiers. Like all jobs, it goes to the ones at the top and to the companies who get the contracts...which are insane amounts. Its time to put a stop to that gravy train. Even Ron Paul says that.
It's really cash for defense contractors, not personnel (wish it was - that I'd back.)
So, Ryan doesn't want to cut military spending, doesn't want to increase taxes (at least on the wealthy), so HOW does he plan to balance the budget? Kind of scary to think what's left - gut all social programs and tax the middle class.
♥☻♣◘•○☺♦♠ Thanks Feisty
Restore the Defense cuts. Knock me over with a feather.
33% of income taxes are spent on military funding and 28% are spent on all programs run by the government for the benefit of its citizens. Welfare, food stamps, energy dept. dept. of agriculture, FDA, etc.
The right likes to throw in medicare and social security but those are self funded by separate taxes and have no bearing on what general funds are spent on.
So the President and Congress will have nothing to say about it. What does he think he will be, a dictator? Typical Fascist.
Wait. . . didn't he vote FOR those cuts as part of the debt ceiling deal???
Yes! He's a bag for feminine cleaning products.
Paul Ryan voted for the defense cuts. "White man speak with forked tongue."
Um, shouldn't that be "White boy. . ."? Just sayin.
This is what the last republican administration did to us, we don't need a repeat.
By Tim Shipman in Washington and Edmund Conway
11:33PM BST 27 Sep 2008
Comment
The financial system could face a meltdown of 1929 proportions unless US politicians succeed in their efforts for a $700bn rescue scheme, experts added.
The warning came as Republicans and Democrats met in Washington for a rare weekend debating session to attempt to seal agreement on the contentious plan, aimed at preventing a long-lasting recession in the US.
Officials close to Paulson are privately painting a far bleaker portrait of the fragility of the global economy than that advanced by President George W Bush in his televised address last week.
One Republican said that the message from government officials is that “the economy is dropping into the john.” He added: “We could see falls of 3,000 or 4,000 points on the Dow [the New York market that currently trades at around 11,000]. That could happen in just a couple of days.
“What’s being put around behind the scenes is that we’re looking at 1930s stuff. We’re looking at catastrophe, huge, amazing catastrophe. Everybody is extraordinarily scared. It’s going to be really, really nasty.”
Nothing like a daily dose of Ryan hypocrisy. What a lying, two-faced dufus. Ryan voted "yea" agreeing to the cuts IF Congress could not come to an agreement on spending and deficit reduction. It was the "Young Guns" of Cantor, Ryan who threw Boehner under the bus and forced the automatic cuts saying NO to the Boehner, Reid and Obama agreement for deficit spending reductions. It was Ryan and the GOP who refused to compromise and now they want a "do-over".
Where's the money coming from Paulyboy? You want to give the rich even more tax breaks, so how are you going to restore these cuts? Are the rich to sacrifice nothing to pay for our defense. Which reminds me of the Romney men, who have never served one day in the military. Mittens took four deferments while other young men of his generation were dying in the jungles of Vietnam.
For Romney it is a one way street, you get rich off America but never pay the same percentage as everyone else pays back in taxes. What's more he is too cowardly to even show his tax returns to show how he got rich off the cheating of the rest of us.
Romney the cowardly lion, roaring like he could be a leader, but I for one am not fooled.
VOTE FOR WOMEN'S FREEDOM....VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT 2012
There are a whole lot of us that aren't fooled either, AF. The transparency of Romney gets even more transparent every day. Hell even the solid GOP rag, the Detroit News, had for it's headline today "Obama leading Romney in Michigan." This is his supposed home state where he learned the fine art of bullying his fellow students. You would think someone would throw him a bone. I'm beginning to enjoy this buffoonery and will enjoy seeing Willard have to make his concession speech on Election night. I'm wagering by 11 o'clock EST.
Wow, I see it's too late to keep this above the belt- let's be real for a moment- can we? Do you care that Romney is rich? I know Obama is barely making it with his 11 million plus more when the talk circuit act begins. Romney's VP choice may very well be a better presidential candidate than he is, but he was still the wrong choice at present. Florida is lost- and Romney either needed Florida or all the other swing states combined and we know that won't happen.
Unless you can produce a very much alive Osama Bin Laden this show is over- the accusations that Romney is a cut throat business man are bogus- he didn't bother to reach out to Senior citizens or minorities- or women. That makes him a very poor business man in my view.
Have I switched sides? Hell I'd vote for Mickey Mouse if it would rid us of our current president. Perhaps if the GOP didn't cut it's own throat with personal attacks against one another months ago and consider the bigger picture they may have had a chance- now we can look forward to Amnesty for illegals, as long as your skin is brown, and free medical for all- except the middle class which should be extinct by 2016. God Bless America.
Silly to bicker about the nonsense......Mickey Mouse for President!
Didn't your hear? "Deficits don't matter" - except on a Democrat's watch (even when they were there when he arrived, lol - TAG! you're it!)
The want to destroy all programs that do not have a rich man/woman overseer. They want to destroy all the contracts we as a society have made with each other that do not have a rich overseer. If they are able to do that, then all aspects of life will be at the mercy of a certain class. It will distinctly create classes with authority over others.
Silly people...don't you know that blowin' stuff up is free?
4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ic06yijpqLE/TIGhYtOGhlI/AAAAAAAAAeM/baysxtGyz98/s400/cut_taxes_not_defense.jpg
President Obama praises the US Military in Public and then stabs the US Military in the Back:
President Obama as Commander In Chief Ordered the dismantling of the US Military with a significant Reduction In Forces (RIF) of the US Military of:
80,000 US Military Personnel
PLUS 27,000 US Military Personnel Returning from the Wars
PLUS 10,000 US Military Personnel returning from the US Military Installations Closed at Germany (Logistics Supply and Transportation Support for Afghanistan)
PLUS 5 more Brigades all being thrown on Unemployment.
PLUS thousands of US Civilians that provided support to the soon to be RIF'ed US Military Personnel.
PLUS about 1 Million US Civilians of the US Military Defense Industrial Complex (President Obama's and Secretary of Defense Leon Penetta's "A 10% US Military Defense Budget Cut will result in a million US Civilians becoming Unemployed").
The specific numbers by Branch of Service can be seen here: US Army: www.armytimes.com; USAF: www.airforcetimes.com ; USMC: www.marinecorpstimes.com ; USN www.navytimes.com;
The US Civilians to be Unemployed: www.federaltimes.com
So the remaining US Military not RIF'ed by President Obama: longer Deployments, more Deployments.
No wonder so many Seals and Special Forces are forming Anti-Obama Super Pacs.
All lies on your part Harley. Do all you republicans lie? President Obama has done more to help the troops than any President we have every had and that it a truthful FACT.
Haven't you had enough of a beat down today, honey?
Or are you into that kind of thing? ;o)
In order to gain membership into the bat @!$%# crazy fan club, who have to be a birther!
No wonder people like General Dempsey are calling them out on their bull@!$%#!
Yet, it doesn't stop the dishonest diarrhea from dripping from your lips!
"Navy SEALs, Special Operations Personnel and Veterans across America have been outraged since Barack Obama conveniently took credit for killing Osama Bin Laden for political gain,” a statement announcing the launch of the organization said. “The active duty military has no voice as they are forbidden to publicly engage in the political campaign process and it is career suicide for senior military leaders to speak out against the President.”
The truth burns that liberal ass....LMAO!
They take their orders from the President and he gave the order. And NO Veterans across America are not outraged. It's all FAKE outrage coming from the GOD Darn Liars from the RIGHT Wing Cult and the people that are flat out Racist. You yourself would not be bitching had that DUMB A$$ had been in charge.
And that is a FACT.
Harley Chic
Harley quotes Ryan Zinke, the guy behind the latest swiftboat team. Harley, give your fingers a break and go on a road trip. I hear the bridge to nowhere in Alaska is very scenic.
I would ask WTF are you talking about, however I don't want to give you the impression I care! lol
You might want to schedule a Dr's appointment ASAP - the silicone leaking from you chest has left you with some severe brain damage!
Says the broad who brags about hers being fat & cellulite ridden! lol
I'll stick with my firm, hot, liberal ass anyday... thanks!
And birther king! lol
Guys - all classless biker chic has is lies.
Please, the military have received more attention and increase in their benefits since President Obama has been President than under all other Presidents.
Plus, Michelle Obama and Jill Biden have made military families their focus. The majority of the military LOVE this President.
"The active duty military has no voice as they are forbidden to publicly engage in the political campaign process and it is career suicide for senior military leaders to speak out against the President.” Stupid biker chic - this has ALWAYS been the rule for military. There is absolutely no difference now.
But of course classless and crude biker chic aligns herself with the swift boat liar group. Is that surprising?
Obama/Biden 2012
@Feisty:
ZING!
btw if you're still on, say "YEAH". Wanna try hitting refresh like Dennis said, if you don't mind.
YEAH!
Testing, testing...
Harley Chic aka Tracy Richman .... in his/her dreams!
Aha! Thanks!
Feisty, You RULE! You too, Dennis!
BCWC,
I will go with "his" dreams...
Always happy to lend a fellow loony, lefty librul a hand! ☺
Harley Chic - when you watched the 22 minute video . . .
Did you notice that they did not show where President Obama congratulated the men and women of the armed forces for this action? They edited that part out.
Did you notice that the video was produced by a former Republican candidate for office and that they refused to say who paid for it?
Did you notice that they made unsubstantiated allegations while "protecting the identity" of the sources and speaker?
Did you notice that the video footage of President Obama supposedly spilling the beans to Hollywood about killing bin-Laden was footage from March of 2010, roughly a year BEFORE bin-Laden was killed?
They deliberately slanted their presentation by using selective editing and false images. This was little more than an effort to clearly to create a false and biased presentation to support unsubstantiated allegations against President Obama.
It's been argued that Opsec (by some right wing pundits and as Opsec tried to portray themselves) is a "watchdog agency", however a watch dog agency strives for "sunshine and transparency" not undercutting and sabotage. A true watch dog agency would promote truth and use comprehensive facts, not selective editing and false portrayals.
Frankly, I have very little respect for the politically based antics of former service personnel that compromise their military honor and diminish their personal service by deliberately making unsubstantiated allegations and agitating for other active duty military personnel to disrespect the CIC.
And clearly I'm not the only one that feels that way - http ://www .cbsnews.com/8301-501363_162-57497974/special-operators-to-anti-obama-groups-zip-it/
I have a friend who is stationed where Obama made his "suprise visit"... they said that he was there ONLY for primetime television in America, and promptly left the moment his speech ended. He did not stay for a memorial service for the soldiers they lost that week that was scheduled for 30 mins later... I'm sorry, where am I supposed to believe that Obama gives two sh*ts about our men and women over there?
Really? I've never heard that, and I have a lot of friends that were in SOG .
Earlier you were a geologist, now you know all about special ops?
Seems like we should of met before. I have been in the military, (I shoveled $h!t in Washington state) and when I went to college................
Guess what I studied?????????????????
YOU"RE DELUSIONAL!!! GET A LIFE!!!
I don't think these guys were Navy seals. Real Seals have a code of conduct and they don't speak of missions to the public. Most likely they were Navy Seal want o be that couldn't make in the Military otherwise.
Don't be too hard on Chicky-Poo - she has a case of silicone-encephalitis of the brain!
It's a side effect of a half off boob-job!
Oh, my God! You're right! That is horrible!
The only thing I could think of that is worse is if they dressed the President in a flight suit and flew him out to an aircraft carrier in the middle of the ocean so he could deliver a some grand speech with a big "Mission Accomplished" banner in the background!
HC why do you play in this lion's den? These folks have one hand down their pants while the other is typing insults.... FRW is clearly digging your photo- you can always tell when she has a crush ; )
Good night all- play nice....give it a try ; )
NONE OF THE ABOVE 2012-just say no!
Da Noid,
Was this a classified visit? No date, no location, just conclusions one could not possibly make from the facts you have supplied.
I can tell what the attitude is, though. I really think you don't like our President.
Hey, guess what. I think Ryan and Romney are the biggest LIARS I have ever seen and I have plenty of facts to back it up. How about you?
I wish you the best.
Harley Chic: You're brain washed. Someone needs to explain how a countries military should work. In war time you call up reserves and increase enlistment to fight the war. When the war ends as it did in Iraq and is winding down in Afghanistan you begin to cut back on the military. One thing you should realise is most of the units being disbanded are reserve units. Most in reserve units didn't want to go to start with and are quite happy to go back to their lives. You wont get much support demanding we keep the same sized military even after we withdrew several hundred thousand troops from Iraq.
Our defense budget is more than 17 of the top countries budgets combined. And yet Ryan would have you believe that we can't manage to defend ourselves with less money.
We need to put that money to work for America and jobs for Americans. We should be building roads and bridges not bombs that are wanted by Ryan and the so called right to life party.
In reality it is the republicans fighting for your right to die poor and without medical care brought to you by the deficit creators that the republicans are protecting from paying the same percentage in taxes as the rest of us.
VOTE FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS...VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT 2012
Hey RYAN!! You Damned Chicken Hawk!!
The American Middle Class is STILL waiting for it's darn "Peace Dividend" for sending it's kids into harms way during the Cold War!!
Bush 2 pissed away the surplus and sent us into deficits in part with his political/"bring-it-on" wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, now you want to ramp up Defense Spending to prop up the Defense Industries instead of putting that money in to directly helping the Middle Class!!
We don't need to dump MORE cash into our weapons manufacturing sector, unless of course it's because your fellow chicken hawk romney is calling out the Russians and making direct threats (on behalf of Israel) to Iran!
The USUAL republicon plan is to screw the middle class to pay for tax cuts for the rich while at the same time increasing military spending to make the SAME rich richer...and driving up the deficit.
Here is an idea. Pass a war tax that fully funds the military/war. This tax should go up and down...with military spending. Republicons, who we know are such good patriots...would be HAPPY to support our soldiers any way they could. (I think thats the words they always use)
Ok, serious question here for anyone who can answer . . . (Preface - I fully get and agree that we need to be able to defend ourselves. I fully get and agree that we need to be able to launch an attack if needed. I fully agree that we should be the pre-eminent military force in the world.)
What I don't get is why we need to be the principle provider for the military forces, materials, equipment, and supplies for the UN and NATO. Aren't we all supposed to be closer to equal partners? And if we HAVE to be the principle military assistance for our allies why aren't our partners fully reimbursing us their "fair share" of the cost?
As was stated, our military budget is more than the top 17 of the other contries combined. Isn't it about time our allies helped share more of the burden and offset this cost?
That way we could re-allocate those funds from the military to reducing the deficit, infrastructure, medicare, etc.
It's a great question, Matthew and one that needs to be answered. It's a very touchy subject and nobody wants to get into the nuts and bolts of it and realize it is way too big. In order to not appear "anti troops" we just continue to throw money at it. They broached it on a few of the Sunday talk shows and it gets out of hand really fast.
Thank you Layton. And I understand people get cranky about it but frankly I'm not worried about people being a bit touchy. : )
IMO it's a simple question of the accountability of our allies as much as it is a fiscal concern for us. If we don't broach it, then we do a diservice to the taxpayers footing the bill. Note that I am NOT advocating isolationism.
PS - how are the newlyweds doing? I hope they are doing very well!
Hi, Matthew.
I agree with you. We do carry most of the weight when it comes to military presence, force and assistance. The U.N. (which is truly more of a corrupt organization and not very helpful when it comes to supporting us) should certainly kick in - as should NATO.
We've always been looked towards as the leaders, though. One of our strengths has been leading - not following - and not partnering. I think we should maintain that strength under the "walk softly/big stick" theory.
Why don't our allies reimburse us cost? Most of them don't have the resources.
What irritates me is when deals are struck for pay back, there's never follow through. No one bothers to collect even when the allies are capable. Example: Iraq promised pay back with oil revenue. We never got it. It's a failure of our diplomats, I think.
Hi Candice,
I'm not suggesting we discontinue being the leaders. I'm suggesting that we require our allies to keep faith with us as we kept faith with them.
The resource issue was why I selected the UN and NATO (as organizations) to ask about rather than individual countries that we have aided. As collective bodies, those countries DO have the resources to pay their fair share.
The US pays 22% of Nato funding. The arrangement is based on sharing as to a percentage of each countries GDP. Germany pays 15.5%, England 12% and so on down the line
Thank you for the info bcwc! Does that include the cost for military expenditures or is that simply NATO operational?
Mathew,
Here's a little math for you to think about also. The US Navy has 11 carrier groups with 2 more carriers in production. (one will replace a current obsolete carrier) That's more than the rest of the wold combined.
Why???
Never mind bcwc - http ://www .nato.int/docu/briefing/nato_funding_final.pdf . Thank you again for the heads up on the info.
fuzzy44 - the real answer to that is that at least part of it has to do with the politics and jobs associated with the naval shipyards. I had some sources to where they Navy was decommissioning some ships early due to the operational costs. I'll see if I can find them.
Matthew-2771918
Matthew, it is across the board.
Info on the Navy budget and how it is being used: http ://www .navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=58606 from last year which says -
"Mulloy also pointed out that even with the streamlining of the DoN budget and through captured efficiencies, the Navy will still be able to purchase five more ships than planned, extra F/A-18 fighter jets to help modernize the aviation warfare, and more P-8 aircraft."
or .navytimes.com/news/2012/02/navy-budget-request-avoids-deep-cuts-021312 from this year which says -
"The budget calls for 192 new aircraft next year. It includes six F-35Bs, a jump-jet variant Marines will use, and four F-35Cs, a Navy version with bigger wings and sturdier landing gear for carrier operations.
Spending is going up for research and development for the F-35, going from $1.310 billion to $1.481 billion. It’s unclear if the figures included in Navy documents refer to all three variants or just the Navy and Marine versions. As the P-8 Poseidon moves closer to entering operations, research and development funding for the next-generation maritime patrol aircraft is dropping from $609 million to $421 million.
The Navy wants 26 new F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets, the biggest fixed-wing purchase. It is unclear if those planes will be used by the Navy or Marine Corps.
The Navy also plans to buy 37 MH-60 helicopters."
Also note the discussion by Admiral Mulloy about retiring ships early to save money from operational expenses. This is what I was referencing earlier, fuzzy44.
Matthew.
Who's in charge of that? The State Department? The Defense Department?
The trouble is that we want to be strong and mighty and come to the aid of those who need us (or put those misbehaving in their place) but we are soft when it comes to requiring our allies to help financially.
We're soft and irresponsible with everything financial.
And that. Right there. Is the core of most of our problems.
Matthew, thank you so much for remembering and asking! The newlyweds are doing great and this mother of the bride is so thankful wedding season is over! Not only did my daughter get married this summer, two of my sister's daughters did as well. I so appreciate your kindness and have a wonderful evening! (sorry for being off-topic all but I wanted to respond!) ;)
The US navy has to keep the sea lanes open, which requires more ships then a country trying to shut down the sea lanes. Remimber WWII? and considering China is building up it's navy, russa still has a good size navy, and the other unfrendly countries out there.
We cancelled the F-22 Raptor, which was the only Stealth figher we had. we are using F18 Super Hornets, that are very old and not as good as many foreigh aircraft I do believe our military should have the best, It also detures countries , You can use the russian trend for more and less techinal craft, or the US trend to more hi tech and fewer. We have already killed our ability ot get our astronauts to the space station. we now need to ask Russia to get us there. We have China building a lot of our electronics.
The tonnage of all US Navy ships is greater than the combined tonnage of the next 17 navies combined.
Hard to expect allies to fund a military for purposes that they don't support or agree with. All of our allies pretty much keep a military for defense which is what the constitution requires from us yet we choose to find some reason to start a war every time a republican gets elected. 12 years under democrats no wars began. Last 12 years under republicans saw 3 invasions and our longest lasting war.
The only way he can do this is cut entitlements and raise taxes even more on the middle class, as Romney has already promised that the wealthy will get the Bush tax cuts and more on top of that.
This isn't even considering that the military already has about a $3 trillion unfunded liability in benefits and medical from the last 12 years of fighting in the Middle East.
"We the People" got ourselves into this fiscal mess, we need to take our medicine and get ourselves out of it instead of passing the buck onto future generations through deficit spending.
We should allow the so called "Bush tax cuts" to expire as well as make the mandated spending cuts required by the budget agreement. We can't keep spending like there is no tomorrow or else there won't be much of a tomorrow. To stimulate the economy the Fed should print dollars to cover the deficit instead of borrowing it. That way the value of the dollar should drop, we wouldn't pay interest on money we don't borrow, and those holding the 16 trillion dollars of US debt might start spending it providing a huge stimulus to the economy. If nothing else it would also reduce imports as a falling dollar would make imports more expensive improving the chance that jobs would be returning to the US.
I disagree, Spending is the problem. Get rid of the Bush tax cuts and change the tax system to a flat tax, of 10%. No deductions, or exemptions. It is the Fair way to tax people.
Second No More Printing Money except to replace damaged currency alreay in service.
Third, Spend only money that come into the treasury, Deficent spending not allowed, Hence no more Debt.
10% for Treaties,
20% for Interstate Regulation.
10% for federal pay
10% to pay off the debt
50% for the military.
We already pay gas taxes for road, bridges, and such.
The States charge property taxes for schools,
People can then choose waht to donate to with their added income.
Change Social Security to a privite 401K type program, you would control your own fund (no governemt withdraws, as with Social Securty raids on the money)
Irate: If you're that concerned with the deficit do you support Romneys 5 trillion dollar tax cut? Hard for him to call himself a fiscal conservative and propose a 5 trillion dollar tax cut when we have a 16 trillion dollar deficit. And do you really think that since he's claimed he's paid between 13% and 14% every year he needs a tax break?
10% won't do it. It would take a flat tax of at least 30% to provide the current level of revenue once corporate, capital gains, and inheritance taxes are eliminated.
The flat tax is yet another Conservative con job. It would mean a significant tax increase for the middle class while eliminating the majority of taxes paid by the wealthy elites.
.........................ROMNEY/RYAN team................these guys will mess up a wet dream!!!.......................
.........................................Can they put back the genie in the bottle???????.................................................
@God,
Nope. They done drunk the Tea. Now they're choking on it.
Nope, not the tea party. The republican big defense party. A true fiscal conservative would say we are spending almost 30% of the revenue we take in on defense. (900 billion give or a take on 2.6 trillion) and the military is 17 times larger than the next one. Its a travesty to see these guys. I won't vote for them even though I loathe obama. Cause its business as usual . nO change here. Next!
It is not the military that is the problem (read the Constitution). it is all the social spending (not in the Constitution) that will soon comsume all of the money the government takes in. Thank God for the Tea Party, they are the only ones in Congress that understands the spending problems we have.
Oh, it is the Defense spending that is a HUGE part of the problem.
Please explain what does the Constitution have to do with Fiscal Responsibility and proper budgeting? Where does it say in the Constitution that we must outspend 17 of the next highest spending country's defense budgets? Could you detail where the Constitution stipulates that our Defense budget must be a quarter of our entire nation's budget, or where it insinuates that we should be responsible for 41% of the planet's total military expenditures.
Regarding all this Social Spending you're so concerned about... Please look at your next pay stub (providing you have a job, of course), and notice that there are State taxes, Federal taxes, Social Security Taxes, and a Medicare tax taken out of your check. Social Security and Medicare come out of a different bucket than our regular Federal taxes. If you wanted to look just at our general Federal Taxes and it's support of the Department of Defense, you'd see that this slice is closer to 33% of the total Federal budget for Defense.
...So...
Social spending BAD? Defense Spending GOOD?
I don't think you have a supportable position.
This guy is a fiscal conservative! HE is a joke in that arena and so is romney. He needs to shut his big government pie hole. He is not true tea party. The military is 10 times to large already but they want to even put more money in it at the expense of medicare. I mean, These f'ers need to get a life. No one but hard corp republicans will vote for this lunatic fringe.
............................................LIAR!......LIAR!......LIAR!......PANTS......on.......FIRE!!!..................................................
..............................................................................VOTE..........................................................................................
...................................................................OBAMA/BIDEN 2012.....................................................................
Isn't that an olymoron. (God Bless America) vs (Obama same sex marriage (sin)), Ronmey said what lies? I can think of plenty for Obama - not rasing taxes on under 250K (Obamacare) he raised the price of gasoline, food, Cutting the debt in half, closing Getmo, more open govenrment, no exective orders, the unemployment rate will not go above 8% if he got the stimulas, You would keep your doctor, but what are Romney's?
You quote the constitution when it suits you but ignore it when it doesn't. Same sex marriage is only a sin from a religious standpoint. Ever hear of separation of church and state? Making a religious argument is unconstitutional.
A pox on both political parties. Neither side is willing to do anything meaningful to reduce the deficit. The democrats want to increase spending on more stimulus above and beyond the annual trillion dollar deficits and pay for these new programs with additonal taxes on the rich. The republicans want to cut taxes and limit cuts to entitlement programs without saying which specific social programs and by how much they will be cut. And the "whiz kid" Ryan has no idea when his plan will balance the budget if it ever will.
Almost half the population of the US pay no federal income tax so democrats wanting to raise taxes on the rich to make the tax code "fairer" is a big lie. While I agree that the rich could and should pay more taxes to help balance the budget, so should everyone else.
thats why you can't vote for them. Not a fiscal conservative bone in their bodies. All a bunch of lies.
At least the Republicans have brought up the issues. The Democrats don't even want to aknolage the problem even exists. Even AARP say we will soon have one payee to one payer. Will that one person want to pay for both? and what about medicare. Obama took out 716 Billion from the trust fund, to put into Obamacare. If Republicans did this there would be rioting in the street. But Obama does it only silence. Democrats have doubled the Bush spending. They have Doubled unemployment. They have doubled prices (gas, grocery, etc). They took away the right of you to choose your own doctor. Gives preffered treatment to criminals (illegal students /school) Racest (blacks get preferred treatment for schools)
The $500 billion number changed to $716 billion on July 24th, 2012, when Speaker Boehner received a letter from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in response to his request on the cost of repealing the Affordable Care Act. Specifically, the CBO wrote this:
Let's go over this slowly. The Republicans have been telling the American people that ObamaCare is expensive and will bankrupt the country. But when they asked the CBO what would happen if they repealed ObamaCare, they discovered that it would result in an additional $716 billion in Medicare costs. Overall, the CBO estimated that the cost of repeal would be $109 billion over the next ten years. So, the truth is that ObamaCare saves us money.
The Medicare savings are huge, but they come entirely at the expense of hospitals and insurers, who negotiated and approved the deal with the White House because they knew that having millions of newly-insured people would more than make up for their loss of money under the old Medicare arrangements.
Needless to say, Speaker Boehner was hoping for different numbers. He didn't want to learn that ObamaCare saves money and repealing it would be very expensive. But he decided to take that $716 billion of lemons and turn it into lemonade by arguing that "forget that $500 billion that Obama stripped from Medicare recipients, he actually stole $716 billion from them."
It's somewhat breathtaking in its brazenness, no?
It's even more brazen when you realize that Paul Ryan's budget protected this $716 billion in savings and that all but five Republican members of the House voted for Ryan's plan.
The 400 richest people on the Forbes 400 have a combined net worth that exceeds the net worth of the bottom 50% or 160 million. It might make people like you feel better to raise taxes on the poor but it isn't realistic nor would it make a difference. The top tax rate when Reagan was elected was 70%, now it's 35% and so many loopholes for the rich exist that Romney and people like him has never paid over 15%.
George Romney when running for president released 12 years returns and paid an average of 36%.
300 are you really that much of a blind partisan? At least the GOP brought it up? LOL what the hell do you think that little ole health care debate that the GOP refused to join in and the ACA were all about??????? Good God you right winger are so disingenuous. We have to go to a single payer system that encompasses medicare and all health care in the US....that is the ONLY answer.
You guys are supposedly pro business but you want big business to pay for health care. Hell I will gladly pay another 3-5% annually if it means a single payer system where I don't have to have out of pocket expenses (premiums, copays and services)............and I mean on my full income, not just the first $110K....I also mean on the capital gains income crowd as well....that group making more than a certain amount of money annually (over $500K, should have a minimum SS and Medicare (new single payer system) tax they have to pay as well).
Are they for real?? Send in the MITT!!! How could he possibly go wrong with the Military?
After 4 deferments he fled the USA and spent the rest of the Vietnam war in France under
the protection of the Mormon hierarchy while STILL advocating,,,,,,The Vietnam war!!!!
Take your pick, Deserter? Draft Dodger? Chicken?
One thing is for sure, It doesn't look good on an application for Commander in Cheif
That is almost as bad as a muslim schooled president that has friends that had bombed the pentagon, had a pastor that hates this country as he does, and an administration that could not even pass an FBI backround check. Take your choice, race baiter, flub artist, fraud, thief, dictator as obama is or a person that has been successful, run balance sheets, employed more people, and a true family man like Romney that has given millions to charity unlike joey biden and his $3-$400.
Almost,,,,,,,The big difference, It's actually true that Romney fled the USA to avoid the Vietnam war
So is was ok for Clinton do draft dodge, but not Romney as you put it? I guess Clinton's was ok becuase he had the (D) for democrat, or does that sand for Draft Dodger? Whay the Double Standard?
Is Clinton running again?
I guess we shouldn't even bring up the last President's military status as an Texas Air National guard pilot who didn't show up to duty all that often in 1972-1973 because he was helping a friend of the Bush family run for the Senate.
When he did fly, he usually just went up in the air, and flew circles around Houston while our brave soldiers in Vietnam died daily.
Later, after becoming President, I was pretty sickened to see him all fancied-up in flight gear, landing on an aircraft carrier, and acting like he just saved the world from an Alien invasion ala "Independence Day". At least Obama didn't have the Draft to dodge; unlike our rich Republican friends who managed to get deferments aplenty, or who had rich connections to hook them up with reservist, non-combat National Guard gigs that don't require any consistent attendance.
Romney/Ryan 2012.. GET USED TO IT!!!
What we need is more people on welfare and foodstamps. Remember piglosi saying the unemployment is the best way to help the economy? Lay off everyone, tax 99.9% of those evil greedy job creaters,and when we have the majoriety of people riding in the cart as the democrat plan is,,, we will show those people who really work for a living the what for!
You're right, totally unfair to expect people like Romney already paying 13% to pay more to pay those unemployment checks for those 5 million people Bush threw onto the unemployment roles. I mean if they raised his rate to say 20% he'd starve. Also hard to paint Romney as a job creator. He buys existing companies, drowns them in debt then bankrupts them. He began as a venture capitalist then graduated to vulture capitalism finding it more profitable. That's why he had to retroactively retire so the worst cases couldn't be blamed on him. How do you retroactively retire back 3 years from a company that you own 100% of and are still signing legal documents as CEO?
Romney/Ryan 2012.. cant wait!!
Ryan,Cantor are stupid and want to push this country back into the Bush era which will finish off this country as we know it. The military waste money and we can't afford it any more. Murphy please shut up you are a moran.
jimmyBOY,,,6 trillion in debt AND 8.4% unemployment(obama phoney numbers), middle class losing more ground in 3 years then last 20, Americas security secrets sold for a obama vote or headline, over 2000 MURDERED(INCLIDEING 2 us BORDERGUARDS) by obama holder guns, the lowering of Americas credit for the first time ever, foodstamps TRIPLED, welfare more then doubled, more "czars" then what would make russia proud and a political campaign that is built on LIES, HATE, class and race warfare by a no class pathalogical lieing president that cannot and will not run on his pathetic puke record.
And jimmyBOY,,,I will bet you said that on 9/12/ also.!
The Government wasts money because there is no responsibility, to be more efficent. Unlike the Private sector, where to say in business you must be as efficent as possible. If you can not produce the products at the least expensive costs to sell at the lowest possible price the public will go to anther Company. The Government is the only source, so they can waiste billions, and still stay in business. Before the democrats took over Congress in 06 the unemployment rate was 4.7% Even Obama can only dream we haad that now. The National Debt was at 8 Trillion, Now it has doubled to 16Trillion (didn't Obama promice he would cut the budget in half, before he started his spending spree?) So Solyindra was not a $500 billion dollar waste of money. What about the governemt buyout of GM. The Nation if given a choice of Bush's America, and Obama's America, I am sure they would choose Bush's. Things were so much better back then.
Romney/Ryan 2012.. get used to it!!!
Due to the utter lack of leadership by Obama, Russia seeks to be a world power again, just this month floating a sub in the Gulf for a few weeks. China, is making significant inroads in Africa and the far east, and has been a world power not far below America's level. Iran, if allowed to achieve nuclear arms, will completely change the dynamics of the middle east, and gas prices will be so high, even Obama's foolish green dream will seem competitive. Syria will further confuse the middle east, and we can only hope Iraq's chemical weapons can be secured before the're provided to hezbollah.
So, yeah, we need a strong military.
We have the strongest military in the world by far. We spend much more than any other country in the world on defense. The budget is so bloated many things could be cut without jepardizing our security or short changing vets and Paul Ryan knows it. That is if he really is the numbers guru that he says he is.
melo,,and we spend more on education then anyone. Look at where we are on that and all democrats want to do is spend even more without fixing anything wrong.
The children are the future of this country, if we don't give them a good education they will end up being braindead tea partiers that think the earth is 6000 years old. No amount of money is too much to avoid that.
The Main Goal of the Federal Government is to protect the citizens of this county. That means Military. Since Social Programs are not listed in the Constitiution, I think all spending on them should be droped. The savings would allow taxes to be reduced, so that people could donate to charities that would halp releave those problems better then the Government could ever do.
Melo, I agree Children are the future. One I suggest we stop killing them (abortians), except to save the life of the mother. Second make the Father take responsiblility of the child too. The Government should not have to support the child, but the Father and mother. Third get rid of the Federal Department of Education. It is the States responsibiltiy to educate our kids. (that is why it is financed by Local Property taxes. The money the Feds waste could be better served in the schools. (why is the money sent from the states to the federal government then back to the states?). The Tea Party want financial responsibility in government, were Liberials want unrestrained spending, and increasing Debt. The Problem is we have been increasing spending every year, but test scores are not showing any improvement. Besides where would we get the money?
Commonamerican1: Russia is building it's military because they have become one of the worlds largest producers of oil and gas and are swimming in money. Claiming some lack of leadership on Obamas part is stupid.
Chinas growing military power is also due to the tremendous wealth they're acquiring mostly due to republican policies. Hard to blame the democrats who support unions and American workers when jobs go to places like China. But you can blame republicans always looking for cheap labor. Romney plans to authorize 1.25 million high tech workers legal immigration if elected and add 5 countries including Panama and Columbia as free trade agreements.
China protects it's industries by imposing restrictions on imports and requiring companies that want to sell there to build there with Chinese labor and require them to partner with Chinese companies so they're forced to share trade secrets. We make free trade treaties with countries that have an average $1 day in wages and pump sewage with no environmental protections and blame the American worker for being greedy wanting more than minimum wage. America isn't in decline because we're getting greedy or lazy it's because our "global" companies push for politicians to pass laws to benefit business instead of our country.
Lets not forget how Obammy bowed down to the Saudi King and the Chinese Emperor. The traitor he is sided with the Mexican President on immigration. Now he wants to cut defense. What a looser coward!! Seriously... the clueless left would have a better chance if Hillary ran instead...she has bigger balls then obammy... but you got Obammy the coward again. you all have lame brain excuses to keep him in office. Blames all his failures on everyone else... He lied, and broke every promise he gave... and your still voting for him. I voted for him last time to... figured we should try someone new.. and i'm going to try someone new this time... He seems to be a real leader, obammy will win the mooches.. that's it.. all the left news stations are even saying Romney is ahead.. that's pretty insane!!
Romney/Ryan 2012