Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since federal funds can't be used for abortions, I'm not sure I get your point.
As for cutting the defense budget, you do know the difference between cut and eliminate? If you do, then you can appreciate that an area that the only portion of the Federal budget that is equal in size is Social Security, both of which comprise 40% of the federal budget.
Now, as much as reactionaries would seem to think, spending on the poor, cowboy poetry festivals and frog statues weren't the causes of the deficit, so if you are going to cut where better than in those areas where fractional reductions are more easily found, unless of course you think that there are no areas in the defense spending the country can't now afford.
I do not hear Republicans talking about cutting our over bloated military to help balance the budget.
I assume that they do not want to make the cuts.
Why?
Why not?
I can see that liberals are getting very, very uncomfortable with the inevitable reductions in entitlements, such that they are lashing out in a last death spasms of the social democracy.
Liberalism and the concept of trading entitlements for votes is dead. The treasury has been drained. Will the military be cut? Of course it will. The military will be cut as well as essentially every federal government service.
The military has proposed various cuts over the years, most specifically the various base closure recommendations. Congress can't bear to see unnecessary bases or contractors in their districts cut.
Lets see just one congresscritter from either side of the aisle show some courage and support cutting a military base, or payments to a defense contractor in their district. Both sides are cowards for not supporting meaningful cuts across many areas, including defense. So far the 3 Pauls are the only ones I see showing any leadership.
The military has proposed various cuts over the years, most specifically the various base closure recommendations. Congress can't bear to see unnecessary bases or contractors in their districts cut.
Lets see just one congresscritter from either side of the aisle show some courage and support cutting a military base, or payments to a defense contractor in their district. Both sides are cowards for not supporting meaningful cuts across many areas, including defense. So far the 3 Pauls are the only ones I see showing any leadership.
Defense cuts are fine as long as the impact is not directly felt by our warfighters in combat zones. Unfortunately, there seems to be a rather indiscriminate method, at times, for determining what cuts should be done. Thus far, I have primarily seen it based upon politics vice the actual needs of the military. I would say, that with three ongoing conflicts, drastically cutting the defense would have a direct impact upon our troops. So, yes, let's get out of these conflicts and then have meaningful cuts.
Also, please feel free to cite exact programs to cut outside of the three overseas wars. I can think of several because I have been in the military and have worked with the military for my entire adult life. However, most often, when I hear these calls to cut defense, most people can't give you specifics on what cuts would be most beneficial for our fiscal health while having the least impact upon our warfighters.
So you want people who are putting their lives on the line so you speak badly about them to pay for their own weaponry and armor now?
Being a Gulf War Vet as well, I would rather have my fellow country men serving the country here at home against actual border protection rather than serving some pseudo democratic parasites that are only trying to spread their control and financial interests around the world only to stuff their pockets at the expense of the majority of Americans.
Obama is a carbon copy of Bush in action, but a lying pig with lipstick that knows how to talk the talk to a gullible public. He is a warmonger wherein we are in the same wars 2 years later, and add in additional war, plus he is propping up the politically connected firms in Wall Street and other to big to fail mega corporations. He says one thing out of the side of his mouth but everything he has done has benefited the politically connected banks and mega corps.
The Russian Oligarch would be proud. Not sure why anyone that supports these policies would have any problem with Communism.
Everyone suffers except the politically connected that have their hand in the cookie jar. These banks and mega corps are only private in name, because when you can go through the revolving door between government and private sector and make laws to your benefit what the hell do you call that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
