24
   

Congratulations, House Republicans!

 
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2014 05:05 pm
@coldjoint,
Quote:
@parados,
Quote:

You just want to attack a black President every chance you get.



That is a lie. It has nothing to do with his color. If you wish to be a race baiter that is your choice.


Might be our choice, you were born that way.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2014 05:10 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
ice brain wants to continue those fucked up times because he's a masochist. He loves to hurt himself and others like the GOP in congress.

TNCFS
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2014 05:18 pm
@Baldimo,
AND the Republicans stripped $190million from the budget for security issues with US foreign installations, half the rquest State and the President asked for. The Armed forces shoot up that much in ammunition in a week.

Hell the 1.6 billion rounds ordered by Homeland Security has to be worth more than the $190million Teapublican and Teabilly Congressmen cowardly, negligently, murderously stripped from State's budget. Investigate those assholes.
bobsal u1553115
 
  3  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2014 05:30 pm
@McGentrix,
 
Re: bobsal u1553115 (Post 5656192)
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/white-house-defends-benghazi-email/story?id=23538942

Quote:

    The e-mail from National Security Council communications adviser Ben Rhodes, lists as a "goal" of Rice's round of interviews "to show that these protests were rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."

So you wanted them to move onto "a broader failure of policy" even though 250,000 pages of investigation report, 15 Congressional Committees, 40 or so Benghazi Congressional briefings, 100's of news stories, releases of hundreds or even thousands of e-mails there's no "broader failure of policy".

I blame Congress and all those dirty rotten lying sons of bitches who "stripped" $190million from the State Department budget for security of foreign US facilities. Those dirty cock sucking Teapublican and Teabilly bastards are no better than the commie traitors they are.
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2014 05:34 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Now, that's telling it like it is. They don't have any credible source to charge this administration with any crimes or misdemeanors concerning Benghazi, but they don't have any new topic they can provide that improves American lives. They keep banging their heads against a non-issue for political reasons only - and for those who believe as they do.

That they are the worst performing congress in history doesn't seem to phase them one iota.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2014 07:21 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
$190 million? Really? Obama and his Dem goons don't care about $190 million. If they were really serious about security they would have found the money in another budget, say the green energy fiasco. Talk about throwing money away. Most of the companies they provided money for went belly up and cost the taxpayers millions. Don't pick and choose your false Republican monetary outrage with me. The State dept had enough money to spend on a PR campaign to distance the US from a lame video. That cost $70 million. If they had the money for a BS PR campaign then they had the money for increased security. Obama could have cut back on some of those expensive family vacations him and his family are so fond of. What do those cost per trip? During a time when the average American family can barely stand to pay their bills and the First Family is taking vacations people like myself will never be able to take. I only say this because our current President claims to be a man of the people but does not seem to live that way. Reminds me of Marie Antoinette, "Let them eat cake".
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2014 08:02 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
Blah blah blah blah blah


Why not take it out of defense:

U.S. Military Budget
How Much the U.S. Spends on Defense Will Surprise You

By Kimberly Amadeo
"Air Force Jet"

1991: An American airforce jet returning to base in Saudi Arabia after a raid on Iraqi ground forces during the Gulf War.
Photo by MPI/Getty Images

The U.S. military budget is $756.4 billion for FY 2015. This includes:

$495.6 billion for the base budget of the Department of Defense (DoD).
$85.4 billion for Overseas Contingency Funds for the wind-down of the War in Afghanistan.
$175.4 billion for defense-related agencies and functions. This includes the Veterans Administration ($65.3 billion), the State Department ($42.6 billion), Homeland Security ($38.2 billion), FBI and Cybersecurity in the Department of Justice ($17.6 billion), and the National Nuclear Security Administration in the Department of Energy ($11.7 billion).

That makes military spending the second largest Federal government expenditure, after Social Security ($896 billion). Military spending is dropping, thanks to sequestration and the end of the War in Iraq in 2011. It's all-time high was $851.3 billion in FY 2010. (Source: Office of Management and Budget, 2015 Budget, Summary Tables, Table S-11)

Military spending is greater than Medicare ($529 billion), Medicaid ($331 billion), or the interest payment on the debt ($251). It's also more than the three next largest departments combined: Health and Human Services ($73.1 billion), Education ($68.6 billion) and Housing and Urban Development ($32.6 billion).

If all military spending could somehow be safely eliminated, there would be a budget surplus of $174.8 billion, instead of a $564 billion budget deficit.

​Defense Department Base Budget:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/budget-defense.jpg


America’s staggering defense budget, in charts

By Brad Plumer
January 7, 2013 at 11:26 am

More

Comments

On Monday afternoon, President Obama will nominate former Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel (R) as secretary of defense. The confirmation hearings are likely to focus on Hagel's views on Israel and Iran. Yet the biggest headache likely to face the next defense secretary will almost certainly be the U.S. military budget.
(Charles Dharapak/AP)

(Charles Dharapak/AP)

The United States spends far more than any other country on defense and security. Since 2001, the base defense budget has soared from $287 billion to $530 billion — and that's before accounting for the primary costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But now that those wars are ending and austerity is back in vogue, the Pentagon will have to start tightening its belt in 2013 and beyond. If Hagel gets confirmed as secretary of defense, he'll have to figure out how best to do that.

Below, we've provided an overview of the U.S. defense budget — to get a better sense for what we spend on, and where Hagel might have to cut:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/07/everything-chuck-hagel-needs-to-know-about-the-defense-budget-in-charts/

1) The United States spent 20 percent of the federal budget on defense in 2011.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/budget-defense.jpg

All told, the U.S. government spent about $718 billion on defense and international security assistance in 2011 — more than it spent on Medicare. That includes all of the Pentagon's underlying costs as well as the price tag for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which came to $159 billion in 2011. It also includes arms transfers to foreign governments.

(Note that this figure does not, however, include benefits for veterans, which came to $127 billion in 2011, or about 3.5 percent of the federal budget. If you count those benefits as "defense spending," then the number goes up significantly.)

U.S. defense spending is expected to have risen in 2012, to about $729 billion, and then is set to fall in 2013 to $716 billion, as spending caps start kicking in.

2) Defense spending has risen dramatically since 9/11.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/08/csbachartmon.png

Here's a historical chart of U.S. defense spending since World War II in inflation-adjusted dollars. There's a big spike for the Korean and Vietnam wars. There's another big ramp-up during the 1980s under President Reagan. Then defense spending got cut significantly during the Clinton years until soaring to historically unprecedented levels after 9/11.

U.S. defense spending is set to fall again in 2013, though it will still be as high in real terms as it was at the height of the Reagan build-up for the foreseeable future.

3) The Pentagon's budget mostly consists of personnel pay, weapons procurement, and operations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/defensechart.jpg

In 2011, the Pentagon spent about $161 billion on personnel pay and housing, $128 billion on weapons procurement, and $291 billion on operations and maintenance— the last largely in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those three items made up the bulk of the budget. Smaller amounts also were spent on R&D (about $74 billion) and nuclear programs ($20 billion), as well as construction, family housing and other programs ($22 billion).

My colleague Dylan Matthews created the graph above to show how these portions have changed over time. Personnel spending has stayed constant over the years, even as the number of soldiers in the U.S. military has shrunk (pay and benefits have increased). Weapons procurement can vary wildly. And operations spending has soared during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

4) The United States spent more on its military than the next 13 nations combined in 2011.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/4A8078449E794DFB8CC33ADD00A6F1AF.gif

Needless to say, the United States remains the world's dominant military power. The graph above comes from the Pete G. Peterson Foundation, which compiled data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

5) The U.S. defense budget is poised to shrink in 2013 and beyond, although this won't be the biggest downsizing it has ever faced.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2012/11/Military-spending-sequester.jpg

Two big things are about to happen to military spending. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down. And, thanks to the 2011 Budget Control Act, the Pentagon is facing both hard budget caps and a looming sequester that would cut defense spending by about $1 trillion over the next decade (compared to what was expected).

That's a serious cut. Although, as the graph above from the Center for Strategic and International Studies shows, even if the sequester is fully implemented, which no one expects, the drawdowns after Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War were far more drastic in inflation-adjusted dollars.

6) Sequester or no sequester, the 2011 Budget Control Act is expected to rein in the Pentagon's base budget over the next decade:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/BCA-and-defense-spending.jpg

The chart above comes from the Congressional Budget Office,* which points out that the spending caps in the Budget Control Act of 2011 are likely to force the Pentagon's "base" budget to stay virtually flat in the next decade, adjusting for inflation (that's the light-blue dashed line). If Congress fails to avert the sequester, then funding levels will drop to an even lower level (that's the light-blue solid line).

These numbers don't include any additional war funding that Congress might approve over the next decade. Still, sequester or no sequester, the Pentagon's base budget will be well below the dark blue solid line, which is the CBO's projection of what the Department of Defense's budget would look like if costs remained "consistent with DoD’s recent experience."

7) The Pentagon and Congress are already rejiggering the military budget in response to austerity.
522h_jlens-660x452

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/522h_jlens-660x452.jpg

Back in January, the Department of Defense unveiled its proposed budget for fiscal year 2013 — a look at how it would deal with new budget constraints. As Wired's Spencer Ackerman reported, the Pentagon wanted to downsize about 100,000 human soldiers and ramp up advanced weapons programs, including drones, bombers and missiles.

Of course, the Pentagon doesn't have the final say. Congress eventually passed its own $631 billion defense appropriations bill in December that made some changes to the Pentagon's vision. Many of the weapons systems that the Obama administration wanted to retire — such as three Navy cruisers — were kept in. The final did, however, make plans to reduce civilian and contractor personnel by 5 percent over the next five years.

8) The next secretary of defense will have to make further tough choices about the Pentagon's budget.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/reduction-force.jpg

The chart above comes from a recent report from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, which asked seven teams of experts to come up with ways to meet the Pentagon's new spending constraints in the coming decades. It shows what areas different teams would cut — some experts advised heavily slashing the civilian workforce, others advocated cutting aircraft inventory. (There were some areas of consensus, though: surface ships were generally cut more than submarines, for instance.)

The cuts weren't always painless. For instance: "Five of seven teams agreed that they could not fully resource their strategies under the assumed fiscal guidance unless they accepted near-term risk by reducing current readiness programs." These are trade-offs Hagel will have to navigate.

9) Ordinary Americans want to cut defense spending far more than is already on the table,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/Defense%20graph.jpg?uuid=KvOidJrtEeGeXUxrJNTkgA

Back in May, the Stimson Center unveiled the results of a new survey asking U.S. voters about their views on defense spending. As it turns out, Democratic, Republican and independent voters all want to cut military spending far more severely than the sequester would and far, far more severely than either party has proposed. Congress isn't likely to pay much attention here, but it's a reminder that defense cuts tend to be extremely popular.

* Correction: I replaced the original graph in #6 with a better chart from the Congressional Budget Office, which shows military spending shrinking over the next decade under the 2011 Budget Control Act (after adjusting for inflation), not growing as originally stated. Apologies for the error.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2014 08:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
have any new topic they can provide that improves American lives.

Results provide improvement. Obama has gotten 0 results. The economy is stagnant. Fund raising and sniping at Republicans and telling lies about whatever, be it climate change or income equality.

0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2014 08:21 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/522h_jlens-660x452.jpg

Is that Obamacare?
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2014 08:25 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Whendid you last eat?


That response is as unique as the recycled crap you post.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2014 08:26 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
GW Bush


Did not supply weapons to jihadists. Obama does.
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2014 08:45 pm
@coldjoint,
Quote:
Is that Obamacare?


No, idiot, its another boondoggle defense program that cost billions that could have been used protect US foreign interests. Wouldn't your health care provider read you the rest of the article?
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2014 08:47 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Quote:
its another boondoggle Healthcare program that cost billions


FIXT
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2014 08:47 pm
@coldjoint,
Are you shitting me? W armed all sorts of morons and lost billions in cash in Iraq, literally cash on a wooden pallet shrink wrapped.
coldjoint
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2014 08:53 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Quote:
W armed all sorts of morons and lost billions in cash in Iraq,


And Obama has armed a lot more in Egypt, Libya and Syria. Trusting Islam is a serious mistake,no matter who makes it. And Obama bends over for Islam.
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2014 08:56 pm
@coldjoint,

Ol Chicken Hawk in Chief never had any money stripped out of his State Department budgets.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bm6egpPCUAE_2eM.jpg
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2014 09:00 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Again where were the Democrats? Oh that's right they supported the war in Iraq.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2014 06:55 am
@coldjoint,
The Pinik Prevaricator wrote:

Quote:
It is nonsense because your statement makes absolutely no sense.
How were the American people harmed?
How was the office of the Presidency harmed?
How was the security of the country harmed?


You even trying to justify this kind of conduct says you do not care how power is defined. The Constitution defined it. And how power is abused is open to interpretation.
And your interpretation sucks.


And you have provided ZERO evidence to support your opinion. Let me repeat this again Pinkie. You **** on the US Constituiton because you think you can use your opinion to impeach and remove Presidents. The US Constitution has a standard for impeachment. The US Constitution has a standard for charging someone with a crime. You simply ignore the US Constitution and make outlandish statements while claiming others that don't agree with you hate the US Constitution. You are ridiculous and ignorant.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2014 07:00 am
@Baldimo,
Quote:
$190 million? Really? Obama and his Dem goons don't care about $190 million. If they were really serious about security they would have found the money in another budget, say the green energy fiasco.

Maybe you need to take a basic civics class. The President can't move funds budgeted by Congress for one purpose somewhere else. If that was the case the Congress would have no power. To suggest such a thing shows you to be willfully ignorant and then to use your ignorance to blame someone else for a failure is even more ignorant.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2014 07:34 am
@parados,
Then I don't want to ever hear again how the money spent in Iraq or Afghanistan could have been used elsewhere. It's the same principle. Hypocrisy at it's best from you lefties.

Why didn't the State Dept move the money to the Benghazi outpost? In the dept they have the ability to prioritize where their money gets spent. How many guards does the Ambassador in Paris have? It is a matter of priority and the State Dept failed to take care of their people.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.77 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 12:01:01