House approves $460B Pentagon budget

[bishop]

House approves $460B Pentagon budget - USATODAY.com

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House approved modest changes to President Bush's record Pentagon budget proposal early Sunday, but Democrats signaled plans to resume a more contentious debate over the Iraq war after the August recess. The House's $459.6 billion version of the defense budget, approved on a 395-13 vote, would add money for equipment for the National Guard and Reserve, provide for 12,000 additional soldiers and Marines, and increase spending for defense health care and military housing. They adjourned until after Labor Day minutes after the vote a little over an hour past midnight. The White House criticized Democrats for cutting Bush's request and effectively transfering $3.5 billion of the money to domestic spending programs. It is likely the cuts will be restored this fall when Congress passes another wartime supplemental spending bill. The measure does not include Bush's 2008 funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Democrats say they want to consider that money in separate legislation in September. This approach would set the stage for a major clash over the war; Democrats are likely to try to impose conditions on the money. <snip> The massive military measure represents a nearly $40 billion increase over current levels. The Pentagon would get another several-billion-dollar budget increase through a companion measure covering military base construction and a recent round of base closures.

and the endless growth of military spending continues to grow, unabated. good to see that there's virtually no change whatsoever with the democrats in control of congress. just like the republicans, they've decided to fund the ongoing wars separately in order to hide the true costs from the public. can't wait to see all the random earmarks that are spending to this corrupt and wasteful spending package.

$40 billion more than what was budgeted last year, and before they tack on all their earmarks.. then god knows how many billions more for iraq/afghanistan, and whatever earmarks are tacked on to those additional spending bills.. then another several billion to construct even more military bases and possibly close others - in addition to even more earmarks attached to that spending bill.

and let's not forget that just a few weeks ago, the house also passed another year of the farm bill representing an additional $614 billion in spending..

the dems are either going to revert back to their tax & spend roots - or they'll continue to borrow & spend like their republican cousins have for the past 6.5 years...

[The Decider]

Quote by: bishop House approves $460B Pentagon budget - USATODAY.com

According to the article, the approved defense budget funded such "corrupt" and "wasteful" items like:

• Equipment for the National Guard and Reserve
• 12,000 additional soldiers and Marines
• Defense health care (including veteran's care)
• Military housing

[Praxius]

I see all those things as kinda needed for the military, since many have been complaining that their soldiers don't have this stuff for the last few years.

However I agree, those are good things to put money in..... But how much of that do you expect to actually go towards those things, and as you said..... what else will be added.

Everything I've seen when it comes to anouncements towards anything by the US government, we've always ended up seeing there were other motives at work which nobody was told about until it's too late.... innocent until proven guilty seems to be the wrong mentality when dealing with the government.....

as an example of how I view the US Government (Not the people, mind you) is similar to Canadian law where an offender after being convicted of the same crime such as sexual assault etc.... the law provides a reverse Onus.... where the accused much prove their innocence in any other crimes that relate to previous ones they have been convicted of.

To me, the entire bufget should be released to the US public, and if there are some or a lot of things that the majority question or disapporves, then you should hold a referendum to approve the budget yourselves, since you don't have a similar government as our own where you can not actually keep a lot of control over those in power.

Referendum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
^ General Detail

Referendum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
^ Canadian Detail

Quebec referendum, 1995 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
^ Example of Provincial Referendum

The 1995 Quebec referendum was the second referendum to ask voters in the Canadian province of Quebec whether Quebec should secede from Canada and become an independent state. The 1995 referendum differed from the first referendum on Quebec's sovereignty in that the 1980 question proposed to negotiate "sovereignty-association" with the Canadian government, while the 1995 question proposed "sovereignty", along with an optional partnership offer to the rest of Canada.

^ This was a decision given to the voters of Quebec..... a pretty big decision to be throwing onto your people.... but the decision was made.

Not like this would ever happen..... but this is what attributes to my distrust.

Although the listed above are good things to put money into, based on your country's current military situation, I didn't see anything else shown that would be considdered too negative..... ie: biased.

Before I continue to attempt to shove my foot in my mouth, I'll continue to read the full article:

The defense legislation largely endorses Bush's plans for major weapons systems such as the next generation Joint Strike Fighter and the F-22 Raptor fighter jet, which has been beset by cost overruns. The Democratic military budget would provide $8.5 billion for missile defense, about 4% less than requested by Bush but $1 billion more than current spending. The Army's Future Combat System, a computerized system designed to transform the service's warfighting abilities, would absorb an 11% cut from Bush's request. It, too, has been plagued by cost overruns. Those huge procurement costs are driving the Pentagon budget ever upward. Once war costs are added in, the total defense budget will be significantly higher than during the typical Cold War year, even after adjusting for inflation. The measure would eliminate the $468 million requested to procure the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter, whose per-unit cost has more than doubled. The helicopter recently crashed during test flights. The bill would provide $2.2 billion to cover a 3.5% pay raise for service members. The administration objects and says its recommended 3% pay increase is sufficient.

^ Ah... you should have quoted this as well ^

Ok, so there's your negatives.... good to hear..... somewhat..... but to me it does show a pattern you see Bishop.....

The costs are going up, not down, and not only do the Democrats appear to not be able to do a dam thing towards what Bush has already been doing, but the Democrats seem to just be an extra arm for Bush.... he plans out all he needs and wants, and the Democrats think of all the other stuff that the Republicans forget, and Bush to make everybody think they're doing something..... adds their requests on too..... thereby having technically two sides working as one..... AKA: Good cop / Bad cop for the public...... that is pretty sick when you look at the numbers.

To put money into things still being tested which are still failing, to put money into fighter jets that are already going over pre-determined cost, etc..... this does stink higher then I originally thought when clicking the topic link.

460B Bucks eh? Just on Militart spending alone? No wonder why yuo guys have the World's largest debt, lol.

[Zeebadee]

Assuming a population of 300 million, this will cost every man, woman, and child about $130 a month each. And we're still not safe.

[bishop]

Quote by: The Decider According to the article, the approved defense budget funded such "corrupt" and "wasteful" items like: Equipment for the National Guard and Reserve 12,000 additional soldiers and Marines Defense health care (including veteran's care) Military housing

you sure dig real deep there "decider"...

House Armed Services Committee releases Defense Authorization Earmarks


besides these earmarks in the linked exposition, clearly inserted to fund the pork to politicians' home states, much of these new "important" measures are intended to support our empire. if the dems were intent on bringing the troops home, they wouldn't be pushing for such policies, using our money. when/if you talk about how much you want our troops to come home, i'll remind you of your support for the democrats who helped continue this debacle.


An Overwhelming Vote for Waste, Earmarks and Corruption

You want earmarks? "This bill has more than 1,300 earmarks. The notion that these had proper review is simply not reasonable," said Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican who gave a good speech but still joined the overwhelming majority of House members in voting for every one of those earmarks – and the rest of the $459.6 billion in spending. Of course, that amount does not include the extra $147 billion in Iraq war funding that the Bush administration has demanded that Congress approve when the Congress returns from its August recess. Nor does it include the include the various and sundry additional requests to cover nuclear weapons costs, international FBI expenses, the rising demands of the General Services Administration's National Defense Stockpile and Selective Services requirements. Add on debt costs attributable to defense spending and, according to authoritative Center for Defense Information estimates, U.S. taxpayers will dole out at least $878 billion to cover military costs in 2008. As CDI notes, the final total "will probably be even more." The key word there is "probably," because even the most skilled analysts can never place a precise figure on what the Pentagon is or will be spending. What is certain is the fact – confirmed by conservative and liberal analysts – that the bloated defense budget contains waste on a scale unimaginable to even the most ardent earmarkers. So why was there no serious debate on the Pentagon budget?

indeed... why?

[The Decider]

Quote by: bishop you sure dig real deep there "decider"...

You make the claim, you dig up the supporting evidence. That's the way debate works, "bishop."

Quote by: bishop House Armed Services Committee releases Defense Authorization Earmarks

And for all your digging, you've found earmarks for defense-related expenditures, in a defense appropriation. Shocking. What's more, calling them "earmarks" or "pork" doesn't make the expenditures a) unnecessary or b) corrupt. You have some more digging to do I'm afraid.

Quote by: bishop much of these new "important" measures are intended to support our empire. if the dems were intent on bringing the troops home, they wouldn't be pushing for such policies, using our money. when/if you talk about how much you want our troops to come home, i'll remind you of your support for the democrats who helped continue this debacle.

Your logic fails here. Funding military medical care and a few thousand more troops and some tanks and National Guard equipment doesn't involve Iraq. Those expeditures will be handled in September, during the "Iraq supplemental" debate. If the Democrats cave again, and they very well may, I'll oppose that Iraq policy and any Democratic presidential candidate that supports it. So, no, I'm not supporting Iraq War funding, but I'm sure you'll try hard to claim otherwise. Suit yourself.

[thx1138]

The money from taxes is going just to pay the debt on the money borrowed..

According to the Treasury Department, from 1776-2000, the first 224 years of U.S. history, 42 U.S. presidents borrowed a combined $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions, but in the past four years alone, the Bush administration borrowed $1.05 trillion.

So when you pay taxes your money is just making an interest payment...

"No American political leadership has ever willfully and deliberately mortgaged our country to foreign interests in the manner we have witnessed over the past four years," said Tanner. "If this recklessness is not stopped, I truly believe our economic freedom as American citizens is in great jeopardy."

The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

So were is the money coming from for all the new spending?
Money As Debt

[bishop]

Quote by: decider And for all your digging, you've found earmarks for defense-related expenditures, in a defense appropriation. Shocking. What's more, calling them "earmarks" or "pork" doesn't make the expenditures a) unnecessary or b) corrupt. You have some more digging to do I'm afraid.

did you even read the link i posted, or give it a 5 second glance? all the earmarks are examples of politicians bringing federal funding home to their own states. and, those are just a paltry few examples of the 1,300+ earmarks inserted into this bloated pile of waste.

Quote by: decider Your logic fails here. Funding military medical care and a few thousand more troops and some tanks and National Guard equipment doesn't involve Iraq. Those expeditures will be handled in September, during the "Iraq supplemental" debate. If the Democrats cave again, and they very well may, I'll oppose that Iraq policy and any Democratic presidential candidate that supports it. So, no, I'm not supporting Iraq War funding, but I'm sure you'll try hard to claim otherwise. Suit yourself.

do we really need a few thousand more troops? for what - so that we can continue to play empire and pile on more debt? this budget certainly suggests just that. i have no issue with improved medical care, and to a MUCH lesser degree pay raises (which amounts to little more than bribery since the poor, by in large, are the ones who join the military these days).

if the democrats are so eager to pass blockbuster military spending bills, i'd be very concerned about all these other spending bills they have planned. they will undoubtedly raise taxes, but continue to deficit spend. that's a really exciting prospect indeed...

i didn't think that excessive borrowing and spending could be a good thing, as was the republican's glorious legacy... but with the democrats, we'll be treated to even more excessive borrowing, taxing and spending. god bless our establishment and the people who support them.....