republicans refusing to cut military spending.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Free Thinker, Nov 1, 2011.

  1. so you thought republicans were serious about cutting spending? not so much.
    lets use republican logic here. cutting spending for teachers and police is good and will stimulate growth but cutting military spending will cause grave economic problems:

    “What’s more, cutting our military—either by eliminating programs or laying off soldiers—brings grave economic costs,” wrote Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) in a Wall Street Journal op-ed last week. “f the super committee fails to reach an agreement, its automatic cuts would kill upwards of 800,000 active-duty, civilian and industrial American jobs. This would inflate our unemployment rate by a full percentage point, close shipyards and assembly lines, and damage the industrial base that our warfighters need to stay fully supplied and equipped.”

    “Should another $600 billion in cuts come to pass, at least 200,000 pink slips could be delivered to active-duty warfighters; at least 13 percent of our servicemembers will be forced out,” wrote Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) in Stars And Stripes last week. “Another 200,000 job losses will come to Department of Defense civilians working at installations across the country. We would be asking 1 in 4 highly skilled defense civilians to leave service.”

    There’s truth to that. But where have these guys been the last 10 months?

    Since they took over the House of Representatives in January, the GOP has been on a single-minded pursuit of deep cuts to almost to all other federal programs. They fought for $100 billion in immediate cuts to so called non-defense discretionary programs — education, research, health care, and others that receive annual funding from Congress — and $2.4 trillion in further cuts over 10 years to both discretionary programs and programs like Medicare, that are funded automatically.

    That was the GOP agenda, despite a crippled economy, and despite warnings from economists that cutting government spending during a time of weak consumer demand would make things worse and could even risk a second recession.

    Over the last 10 months, the GOP has dismissed or denied those warnings, in a number of ways. In the early days of the 112th Congress, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) touted the Republicans’ vision of a “Cut & Grow” economy — one that somehow produced new jobs as the result of a trimmed federal government.

    During a February press conference House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) acknowledged that GOP-pushed cuts would likely result in public sector job losses but, he said, “If some of those jobs are lost so be it. We’re broke.”
  2. You're right that some republicans' (not all) traditional refusal to cut defense at all undermines their credibility on the budget. Of course, national defense is one of the few constitutionally authorized ways for the federal government to spend money. Sending it back to the states to subsidize unionized workers, ie core democrat constituencies, in exchange for campagin funding is not a constitutionally authorized use of funds.

    Getting us out of the morass in Afghanistan would save plenty. Too bad obama has not been able to figure out how to do that. Avoiding ridiculous adventures in places like Libya and Uganda would also save a lot, but this administration seems eager to get us involved. After all, Hillary needs her Nobel Prize too.

    Bottom line, defense is a huge part of the discretionary budget and has to be cut substantially.
  3. rew


    The only way you will see real cuts in military spending is if you vote for the one presidential candidate who will actually insist that it be cut -- Ron Paul. A Republican.
  4. Lucrum


    SOME republicans you shit for brains ultra biased dumb ass.
  5. To do it the Ron Paul way all we need to do is cut a deal with Iran. We let them be the policemen in the Persion Gulf.

    So what if they charge us an Islamic gas tax of $100 a barrel.
  6. rew


    If you want to fight a war with Iran join the IDF.

  7. Cut down on defence contracts for connections. :mad: .
  8. + 1,000
  9. Correct.
    The main reason for not wanting to cut defense budget is that bribes from the military industrial complex are larger or equal to those from the big Pharma companies.
    That includes jobs for kids, friends, wives and for congressmen when they are done screwing , aka "serving" the taxpayers.
  10. That's right. The Dems have their pet industries that offer up bribes, just like the Repubs. It's going on in record fashion on both sides of the aisle. None of them can cut a thing without cutting off all of their campaign financing. It's the dirty little secret the media seems loathe to touch. Albeit, we do get it in bits and pieces, but only when they deem it necessary to cover the story.
    #10     Nov 14, 2011