A 10% cut at the Pentagon?
posted at 9:42 am on January 31, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
While the Obama administration tries pushing through its trillion-dollar porkfest of Mall resodding and Medicare expansion, the Pentagon has gotten a much different mission from the White House. President Obama has demanded a 10% reduction in the defense budget for FY2010, even while we fight a war in Afghanistan and conduct counterterrorist operations around the world:
The Obama administration has asked the military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff to cut the Pentagon’s budget request for the fiscal year 2010 by more than 10 percent — about $55 billion — a senior U.S. defense official tells FOX News.
Last year’s defense budget was $512 billion. Service chiefs and planners will be spending the weekend “burning the midnight oil” looking at ways to cut the budget — looking especially at weapons programs, the defense official said.
Ah … those would be weapons systems that actually employ people, create jobs, and help defend the nation. That may not be as sexy, figuratively and literally, as buying billions of condoms, but it means that a significant number of good paying (and likely union) jobs will disappear.
I’m not going to argue that the defense budget doesn’t have fat. I’ve seen defense contracting from the inside, and it stinks. However, unlike the Obama stimulus bill that will cost more than twice as much as the 2010 defense budget, it’s not 90% fat. Director Blue reminds us of a few numbers:
• $83 billion in welfare payments
• $81 billion for Medicaid
• $66 billion on “education”, more than the entire Department of Education required just ten years ago
• $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits
• $20 billion for food stamps
• $8 billion on “renewable energy” projects, which have a low or negative return
• $7 billion for “modernizing federal buildings and facilities”
• $6 billion on urban transit systems, dominated by unions and which, almost universally, lose money
• $2.4 billion for “carbon-capture demonstration projects”
• $2 billion for child-care subsidies
• $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that’s run in the red for 40 years
• $650 million for “digital TV conversion coupons” (on top of billions already spent)
• $600 million on new cars for government (added to the $3 billion already spent each year)
• $400 million for “global-warming research”
• $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
Obama’s busy expanding all of the rest of the government except for its primary, Constitutional mission: defending the nation.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Pick a 50 meter target then and just keep squeezing the trigger till it goes away.
hawkdriver on January 31, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Thanks, sometimes we need help from you groundpounders.
Squid Shark on January 31, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Okay, before you libs go off the deep end, that a euphemism for dealing with the most urgent tasking at hand. We’re not really going to start shooting anything.
If you keep cutting our funding, we might not even really shoot at 50 meter targets anymore.
hawkdriver on January 31, 2009 at 11:55 AM
;-)
hawkdriver on January 31, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Ha! we are already running low on 50cal ammo because it was all going to Iraq. We are severely limited on practice rounds.
Squid Shark on January 31, 2009 at 11:56 AM
82ND CAB here…
You?
hawkdriver on January 31, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Did you give up on the thread Hack?
hawkdriver on January 31, 2009 at 11:58 AM
U.S. Navy, we have 50cals too!
The better to fight pirates with my dear!
Squid Shark on January 31, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Fantastic, Hack with nothing more to say. I must have changed his opinion.
hawkdriver on January 31, 2009 at 12:00 PM
It is the soldier, not the reporter,
“Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet,
Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the campus organizer,
Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier,
Who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag,
Who allows the protester to burn the flag.”
Hell, we might as well give him a 10% pay cut too. Or, we could cut out some of his/her food and ammo.
Special Forces Grunt on January 31, 2009 at 12:01 PM
My DGs shoot M240s with 7.62.
The funny thing is the little birds in my brigade, OH58Ds, are the ones shooting the 50 cals.
hawkdriver on January 31, 2009 at 12:02 PM
I thought that we had gone beyond Democratspeak. The Pentagon has asked for a budget for next year, how much of it was an increase over last years budget?
Last years budget was 512 billion. Ten percent of the new budget is 55 billion, that means the 2010 request was 550 billion. The 2010 budget would be 495 billion with the 55 b removed. That is an actual reduction of 17 billion.
The act of claiming that a reduction in the increase is an actual cut is Democratspeak. It is not a 10% cut. Stop saying it.
Pelayo on January 31, 2009 at 12:02 PM
But at least there’s plenty of pork for that single-mom/baby factory in Whittier, California, who just had eight babies via fertility treatments after already having six kids and bankrupting her own family.
Disturb the Universe on January 31, 2009 at 12:03 PM
No! Because if you knew what you were talking about you’d understand it is a cut when the budget needed to be stable or increase. It will decrease unit funding in GWOT dollars. My guys are four months out from our next and it has a direct impact on us.
hawkdriver on January 31, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Sigh… so much for my cautious optimism.
It really is going to be the Carter years all over again.
Sackett on January 31, 2009 at 12:09 PM
So we are going back to the Clinton Days? Remember when the joint cheifs of staff would go up to capital hill to beg for money? I do it was on CSPAN. I remember the questions from the Senators about the “Readiness” issue…remember Bill Clinton created a Government Surplus by slashing budgets…who remembers the shape the Intelligence community and the Pentagon were in when we got hit on 9/11? I remember, Barack Obama has decided to go with “The Clinton” Treatment of the Military? As I recall that was considered Hostile. Cut back in defense in when we are at War in two different Theaters? “Readiness” someone needs to explain to the folks who have never served in the Military why it’s so important To Our National Security. Barack H Obama’s administration “Same As It Ever Was” no change here unless you consider adopting old Clinton Policy Change.
Dr Evil on January 31, 2009 at 12:10 PM
hawkdriver, I posted that comment because ten years ago Rush Limgaugh taught me to think of budget cuts that way. I’m just applying his process to the Pentagon.
So, you would defend a US Forest Service budget cut with the same attitude? But I guess constincency of thought is too much to hope for.
Pelayo on January 31, 2009 at 12:12 PM
And my comment back to you was terse and uncalled for too. Sorry.
hawkdriver on January 31, 2009 at 12:14 PM
When you live a sheltered life of plenty in academia, you are naive and blind to the ways of the world, particularly when you are as arrogant as he is.
We’ve got the most naive president in history. Wish us luck.
MadisonConservative on January 31, 2009 at 12:14 PM
Don’t pay too much attention to military recruiting goals, they generally change their goals to match what they actually got just before the end of the year. So they are always artificially high.
I was halfway through my 20 military career when Clinton took office. Had I known what he was going to do the the military with his hugh ‘drawdown’, I would have walked right then. I remember during the Clinton years, while he hooted about the ‘peace dividend’ seeing lines of cannabalized fighters lined up at North Island NAS because they didn’t have new parts.
The military is already too small to do the job they are being asked to do as it is. They have been stuck with the ‘doing more with less’ garbage till now they’re expected to do miracles with next to nothing. How many times have we heard about the soldier who is doing his third combat tour in one hitch? This is nuts people, you can’t tell me that you have money to pay ACORN, an overt ballot box stuffing organization, over four Billion dollars yet you want to add 30,000 Marines to the Corps, and you want to cut their budget by 10%????
Mark my words people, THIS IS THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE! He has no real connection, love or allegience to this country. It is his desire to reduce it to a third world country and he is doing it QUICKLY!
The democrat party has become a baby with a gun.
Bikerken on January 31, 2009 at 12:15 PM
But the fact remains less funding is available.
hawkdriver on January 31, 2009 at 12:16 PM
I also posted that because now we have some consevatives thinking the way liberals do.
Pelayo on January 31, 2009 at 12:16 PM
He is practically painting a bullseye on our country at this point.
WisCon on January 31, 2009 at 12:17 PM
Why do people keep leaving the $79 Billion “STATE FISCAL STABILIZATION FUND” in Title XIII off their lists???
This deceptively titled Title is where Congress federlizes education!
JM Hanes on January 31, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Meanwhile, the Congress has voted an additional $93,000 in petty cash for each member! (Gatewaypundit)
PattyJ on January 31, 2009 at 12:20 PM
I might be in the minority here, but as a federal worker at the DHS I can see why modernizing federal facilities might be a good idea. Even post-9/11, the bureaucracy moves slower than it should, and I think we need a little help getting where we need to be. (IMO)
NorthernCross on January 31, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Yes it is a reduction, perhaps they could raise drink prices at the Officer’s Clubs. That would cover most of it.
/s
Pentagon cut is hard to swallow when compared to some of the cap placed in the so called stimulus package.
Pelayo on January 31, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Didn’t the Democrats whine and accuse Pres Bush of sending our troops to war ill-prepared? But now they have no trouble with eliminating improved military hardware & manpower support in order to divert funds to STD prevention & grass for the Mall Interesting.
katiejane on January 31, 2009 at 12:27 PM
No, our S4s will try to move other units funds around and we’ll local purchase what we can. In other areas we will just have to do without.
It just began with this reduction. It won’t stop here.
hawkdriver on January 31, 2009 at 12:27 PM
this is exactly WHY i believe ALL americans
Must keep and own firearms
Because if your stupid enough to even think
that the liberals would actually try to DEFEND this nation
YOur NUTS..
The so called peace dividend
They want to spend it
But we are still in the middle of 2 wars AGAINST
Islamo Fascists .
I am sorry but these Morons running our government
are really really ASKING to get hit again
and i guarantee you the next time it wont be airliners..
No it will be trucks or tankers or possible even a nuke supplied by iran..
Obams an frigging moron
jcila on January 31, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Of that I have no doubt, it’s just really odd that we can’t get your side to think about teachers and social workers in the same way even though they make a lot less money than most of the folks at Halliburton and, especially in the case of teachers, have as critically an important job as those in the military. I’m not anti-military. I’m anti a society that only invests in its military to the exclusion of other things. As you know Pentagon budgets are seperate from Iraq War/Afghanistan budgets and so in that sense, the military contributes infinitely more to the national debt than teachers unions, NEA funding, Smithsonian funding, contraception funding combined by a *huge* amount. Asking that the military cut some of the fat is impossible, but we have no problem cutting funds from a system that educates the vast majority of our young people. It seems the GOP has gone so far as to suggest education itself is useless, when its the basis for our very civilization.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 31, 2009 at 12:31 PM
To all, I apologize if this seems to be a bit long.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 31, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Let me see if I can educate you a bit as it is eminently clear your comments above demonstrate your utter lack of understanding about the points Hawk made.
First, as to this comment….
FYI, the military had armored vehicles, but they were geared toward fighting the most recent conflicts/wars and not for the way we found it. The real isue on this one was the lightly armored Humvee, the replacement for the venerable Jeep. Last I knew, there to counter anything resembling IEDs — nothing similar to that had ever been used against US forces on any grand scale prior to current conflict. So, it is rather difficult under peacetime processes to submit requests for equipment you don’t have and for which you don’t envision a need.
I challenge you to provide multiple links over a progressive period to substantiate your claim that folks on the left warned about guerilla tactics. It didn’t happen on any widespread scale, if it ever did happen. That statement is simply false in any sense. Further, when you comment “long before the occupation began…” You simply expose yourself for who you are – liberal-minded and close-minded. Please forgive the redundency in that statement.
Also, the budgets from the Clinton admin (for the entire 8 years) served to minimize, not enhance, them. I was in service then and had to live through it. So, I can vouch for that without any equivocation. When Mr. Rumsfeld stated that you go to War with what you have, he was correct. Despite your whimsical and varied assertions in this comment, as well as others, that is a simple fact. The budgets and laws in effect prior to the start of hostilities prevented a hell of a lot of innovation, and war planning had to be accomplished with the understanding that the military would use those systems that had already prevously “proven” themselves. It is the nature of the beast. Now, if we had some improved vehicles in the development stage, but they hadn’t proven themselves, maybe we would have needed to kill those programs – simply because they weren’t proven to work. Do you see the incongruity there?
Concerning a second point……
Again, you demonstrate ignorance about what Hawk was telling you. In fact, you missed the entire point. The process and methods allowed with the GWOT funding enabled units to bypass the standard procurement requirements foisted upon the military (Defense Acquisition Regulation) for the types of gear and equipment purchased (with the GWOT programs). The 2028ed point is that changes to authorization documents must pass through a formal process of recommendations and justifications (intended to take time and thought to avoid adding items on a whim) to get items added to the organization’s authorization document. You see, we do (normal times) take time to look at what is needed, and it is done deliberately. The GWOT programs allow units to buy off the shelf items that will do the most good for them and that can be purchased quickly without having to use more formal and drawn out processes. Interestingly, under the GWOT process, we were able to get the MRAP vehicles in the inventory in record time [normal processes take many years based on required testing for personal protection and weapons demonstrations (after proof cof concepts)], not the mere months it actually took for that system to be purchased and actually in the teater of operations. Wouldn’t happen under normal, peacetime processes (and to avoid issues associated with military industrial complex, probably better not to be that way).
Ref your ending query….
Unless you want to first put yourself on the line to defend this country, its citizens, to maintain our alliances, and to really see and understand it from the vantage point of the soldier on the ground, you can take your pusillanimous, idiotic blather and go home. When it comes to doing what is necessary to support the troops on the ground and enable them to fight and win, nothing should counter efforts to provide them with the best our nation can give them — and peoples’ concern about military industrial complex can simply go to hell.
This query carries no weight without your participation on the very end of the supply chain — where our soldiers happen to take care of bleating sheep such as yourself. Your ability to continue to comment here is paid for with their efforts, so just try to understand that.
By the way, you may recall all of the press and uproar over lack of sufficient personal armor for the Soldiers and Marines. Then came the various and sundry efforts to solve that issue. From where did most of the hue and cry come? Your precious left thinkers. Do you know what happens now? Most of those in contact eschew this added armor, because it hampers mobility, slows them down, and makes them greater targets for the enemy. However, they still have to maintain this gear, which causes logistics issues on all levels. SO, hue and cry raised in this fashion has caused higher spending for something the troops don’t use, requires additional logistics efforts to maintain and sustain (more $- some say wasted – but not because of the military’s desire), and probably contributes to issues that you were trying to associate with above – military industrial complex.
FYI, I am more concerned about socialistic policies and ruses and the economic servitude that is continually championed by your precious left. You may not agree, but that is all that this current administration and the Congressional majority is interested in — power gained by making the people dependent on the government (economic servitude and all of its associated effects). I don’t ever intend to support them nor anybody in positions of power who want to impose them on us.
Thank you, and go away.
MikeW on January 31, 2009 at 12:32 PM
My last 3 years in the Army was during the Carter administration. I saw first hand what Defense budget cuts do.
The Defense budget cuts do little to reduce defense contract spending. The military still need new weapons systems and will cut everything else in the budget to keep developing new weapons.
My last duty assignment was with a Signal Platoon. When I arrived the Platoon had 4 vehicles on ‘Deadline’ waiting for ordered parts to come in. When I left the Army 3 years later the same 4 vehicles were still ‘Deadlined’ waiting for those same parts to come in. Additionally, out of 12 vehicles 8 were ‘Deadlined’ and the 4 remaining only ran because we harvested parts from the other 8 vehicles.
In those 3 years went on field training 3 times. Each field training event was only allocated enough fuel to get to the field site and return to the motor pool. When we reached the field site all the vehicles were parked and the engines turned off to save fuel. We were not allowed to run the vehicles for daily maintence and charge the batteries.
Being a Signal Platoon we had to run 5KW generators for our communication rigs. We were allocated six 5 gallon cans of MOGAS for the 5 day field exercise. We had to keep logs justifying each time we ran the generators. Needless to say my men got very little training on these field exercises.
At the Main Post we were not allowed to conduct any training that required any additional expense. My Platoon spent almost every work day of that 3 years in the motor pool working on ‘deadlined’ vehicles that could not be repaired.
So, when the rescue attempt of the Iran hostages failed in that horrible accident I was not surprised or shocked as the civilians were. I knew the rescue failed because the rescue teams were not trained properly due to ‘Defense Budget Cuts’.
The only ‘Defense’ a soldier has against being killed is ‘Training’ and lots of it. All the body armor and weapons in the world will not keep them alive if they are not properly trained.
So, President Obama, get your pen filled with ink and get ready to write a lot more letters to the families of dead service members.
Helloyawl on January 31, 2009 at 12:32 PM
let’s see..
he wants open homosexuals in a military he wants to cut by 10%
yes sireeeeeee, hope and change!
mountainmanbob on January 31, 2009 at 12:33 PM
It’ll get to the point where units will have to shell out their own money for needed supplies–just like during the Carter administration.
Matt Helm on January 31, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Also? From the horses mouth isn’t really much proof. You are asserting that the cuts in weapons development that Obama is proposing will come from your GWOT budget. Until you can show some kind of budget plan that indicates a slash in that portion of the budget you haven’t proven that you will be “put at risk” by cuts. No doubt ANY cut in the Pentagon budget you would respond to by saying “it puts soldiers at risk” because that’s the talking point your side always employs, whether they can actually demonstrate how or not. Again, despite Clinton military cuts (which were no bigger than Bush I cuts I might add) which soldiers were put at risk, and where? What conflict did we not succeed in as a result of those policies.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 31, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Sorry, Hawk. I was writing my comment but see that you answered the mail on same issues I did. Good stuff.
MikeW on January 31, 2009 at 12:36 PM
You saw firsthand what budget cuts do 30 years ago….
DeathToMediaHacks on January 31, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Sigh, apples and oranges type of arguement…
The Federal Government is NOT MANDATED to fund Education. Historicly that was a STATE responsibility…
They are however, specificly tasked with Defense.
If you want more education dollars, talk to your state and local politicians…
Romeo13 on January 31, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Here it is the Clinton Years 1999 and the author of the article is quoting John McCain…incredible lets revisit the past? No lets just move there permanently. Who is Barack H Obama listening to? What is the definition of insanity- doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different outcome “Same As It Ever Was”
http://www.govexec.com/features/0199/0199s2.htm
Dr Evil on January 31, 2009 at 12:41 PM
The AF has raised it’s end-cap numbers for FY 09 by 4,000 with an end strength total of 32,000 new recruits in FY09. Now we get to pay for those numbers how? All of the services were tasked to increase their end-strength numbers, in fact Obama has bragged as much. Typical liberal logic – let’s actually increase our numbers to make us look like we’re pro-military – but then we’ll reduce the overall budget to pay for the stuff those recruits are actually supposed to do. Maybe we could put those new troops to work “building roads and bridges”? Nah, gotta have something for the welfare recipients to do.
Back in the 90′s, Clinton got away with gutting the military and bragged about the so-called “peace dividend” – all the while paying for it by cutting active duty and military civilian jobs and reducing our ability to fight.
Yeah, let’s return to a plan which we still haven’t recovered from.
Missile defense – gone. JSF – more than likely gone. No new bombers. No replacements for aging fighters (in ANY service). Still can’t get a new small arms weapon system. Bullets for training – gone. Money to send people to training – gone.
10 more months for me – then Obama can suck it.
catmman on January 31, 2009 at 12:43 PM
The America we know will be lucky to survive this administration.
Maxx on January 31, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Whoa, didn’t see that one coming…
/sarc
Wyznowski on January 31, 2009 at 12:45 PM
The military will get a miniscule pay raise, while the pols vote for another fat increase in their salaries for all of that hard work they do.
ammo john on January 31, 2009 at 12:46 PM
That little pucking funk Obama needs to cut his own pay first.
john1schn on January 31, 2009 at 12:46 PM
All he has to do id keep up this BS and he will have people leaving the military in convoys and that will take care of his 10 percent. Then what is he going to do when the Russians, Chinese and Islamists start flexing their muscles, talk to them about how nice it would be if we could all get along? Hope and Change we can all die in…..!
DL13 on January 31, 2009 at 12:46 PM
We’re not constitutionally mandated to recognize marriage and yet we have Federal marriage law. I’m 3/5ths of a person according to the constitution. Also Patriot Act? The document lives and breaths as does our society, it’s only in your interest to be a strict constitutionalist when that allies with your own personal political beliefs.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 31, 2009 at 12:48 PM
“The [service chiefs] are caught between a rock and a hard place,” one Senate aide acknowledges. “The administration’s position was, ‘there’s no more money for defense.’ It’s very difficult for them to then stand up and say they need more money. They feel they have to salute and move forward with what they get.”
Days before the service chiefs testified before the Senate, they met privately with President Clinton at Fort McNair in Washington. It was after that meeting the administration changed its position on the issue of Defense spending.
http://www.govexec.com/features/0199/0199s2.htm
The Above, from my last link..this is Deja Clinton. REMEMBER Bill Clinton brags he left the country with a Surplus…yeah and then 9/11 happened. Why doesn’t anyone question where that surplus came from? Do I think our National Security was compromised? Do I think The American Military’s “readiness” was compromised. You Betcha. Look Obama has decided we are going to do it all over again.
Dr Evil on January 31, 2009 at 12:49 PM
Teachers and social works can be funded at the local/state level. That’s not the function the federal government was intended to serve, nor does it do it effectively or efficiently.
DarkCurrent on January 31, 2009 at 12:49 PM
DeathToMediaHacks on January 31, 2009 at 12:48 PM
Who do you consider a media hack? (You seem to agree wholeheartedly with most of the media hacks.)
Disturb the Universe on January 31, 2009 at 12:52 PM
If HA were a democracy would DeathToMediaHacks still be here?
DarkCurrent on January 31, 2009 at 12:54 PM
True. Most teachers despise No Child Left Behind, which is a federal mandate. (And they put all the blame on Bush, and conveniently forget Kennedy’s involvement.)
Disturb the Universe on January 31, 2009 at 12:55 PM
This has been my analysis also, for some time now. Everything that happens confirms it.
They are taking our country away from us, under our very eyes, with each and every passing day.
Alana on January 31, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Oh dear, well let me tell you.
Chris Matthews
Keith Olbermann
Fox and Friends
Bill O’Reilly
Sean Hannity
Anderson Cooper
Wolf Blitzer
Campbell Brown
Shep Smith
Tim Russert
David Gregory
Basically anyone with the name “political analyst” or “pundit” at the end of their title or an anchor of a major news show. But the “hackery” I refer to is hacking for corporation, which they all do because their shows are paid for by them. And hacks for partisanship rather than good ideas, which they all are. Just because I happen to be a lefty and there is this myth that the media is more leftist (despite tons of evidence that it’s actually corporatist and favors right wingers regardless of party identification). What the media is, is STUPID. And people who claim that Fox is “objective” while the others are “biased” are hacks also because what they really mean is Fox agrees with me and I am, clearly 100% objective. Which is dumb, no one is.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 31, 2009 at 12:57 PM
My God, the people you’re talking about get money hand over fist. And I’ll tell you what, I’m a whole lot happier with KBRs track record than I am the public school system. Plus, they’re not getting indirect fire where they work. If we paid people overseas the same wage we paid government workers stateside without consideration of the harms ways they were in, your “side” would bitch about that.
Hack, what does a municipality pay for their police force? If you don’t believe there are evil people all over who are bent on doing us harm then I’m sure you might think spending money on a corrupt organization like ACORN or (did you really mention contraception funding again) planned parenthood makes more sense and then fine. Whatever!
But don’t ever try to tell me George Bush and his administration somehow didn’t do everything they could for me and my unit with your media propaganda. You lost that argument. We got what we needed as best they could give it to us for the fight and I’m damned thankful for him and his administration. I certainly don’t see the same coming from this administration. Or people like you.
What conflict did we not succeed in as a result of those policies.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 31, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Geez, I could go on and on with Clinton policy but Somalia for one. He let the UN take over his forces and used PC considerations in how he equipped the forces sent there. We’re still in Bosnia. First WT attack. USS Cole. And we were attacked on 9-11 due in a great part to information missed by his administration by unnecessary barriers to information sharing caused by Jamie Gorelick. Ir was “SO” much better under Clinton. Do we want to talk about shooting missiles at aspirin factories?
hawkdriver on January 31, 2009 at 12:57 PM
It is an inanimate object. It does not live nor breath.
(I bet you are one of those people who thinks a poem means anything they want it to mean.)
Disturb the Universe on January 31, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Never get tired of saying this–I wore the uniform with PRIDE, yet when I see these young men and women serving today, I feel humbled.
It would be an honor beyond measure to wear that uniform again with you people.
FWIW, the problem of adequate funding is and was an ongoing one. Even in my era (61-67) it was a hassle. I can only hope that the Pentagon shoves this one right back in Obama’s face.
irongrampa on January 31, 2009 at 12:58 PM
My God, the people you’re talking about get money hand over fist. And I’ll tell you what, I’m a whole lot happier with KBRs track record than I am the public school system. Plus, they’re not getting indirect fire where they work. If we paid people overseas the same wage we paid government workers stateside without consideration of the harms ways they were in, your “side” would b*tch about that.
Hack, what does a municipality pay for their police force? If you don’t believe there are evil people all over who are bent on doing us harm then I’m sure you might think spending money on a corrupt organization like ACORN or (did you really mention contraception funding again) planned parenthood makes more sense and then fine. Whatever!
But don’t ever try to tell me George Bush and his administration somehow didn’t do everything they could for me and my unit with your media propaganda. You lost that argument. We got what we needed as best they could give it to us for the fight and I’m damned thankful for him and his administration. I certainly don’t see the same coming from this administration. Or people like you.
What conflict did we not succeed in as a result of those policies.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 31, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Geez, I could go on and on with Clinton policy but Somalia for one. He let the UN take over his forces and used PC considerations in how he equipped the forces sent there. We’re still in Bosnia. First WT attack. USS Cole. And we were attacked on 9-11 due in a great part to information missed by his administration by unnecessary barriers to information sharing caused by Jamie Gorelick. Ir was “SO” much better under Clinton. Do we want to talk about shooting missiles at aspirin factories?
hawkdriver on January 31, 2009 at 12:58 PM
DeathToMediaHacks on January 31, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Training funds are one of the first areas which are hit by budget cuts. So are O&M funds (depending on your unit). If you have less money to send fewer troops to a training which is ostensibly needed to increase the troops knowledge/experience level, yet you have to send those very troops on deployment later sans training, isn’t that a risk to the troops?
If I don’t have the money to purchase enough training ammo to qualify students on a course of fire, or if I have to reduce ammo expenditures somewhere else to cover the ammo lost (say taking away an instructors proficiency ammo to keep the training level up) isn’t that a risk? It’s a two fold risk because you are robbing the firearms instructor of his equipment needed to MAINTAIN proficiency so his instruction is where it needs to be, and if his training budget gets affected in such a manner, ultimately the quality (and eventually quantity) or said instruction is going to falter. That isn’t a risk to the troops?
Those are just minor examples.
As someone else already pointed out, the government doesn’t have a Constitutional mandate to fund teachers, contraception, etc. It does have that mandate for Defense. Yet what government program has Obama proposed reducing OTHER than Defense?
catmman on January 31, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Discription of DeathToMediaHacks:
Think of a conservative and remove all concept of reason, common sense and logic.
thomasaur on January 31, 2009 at 12:58 PM
God Damnit! Here we go.
ronsfi on January 31, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Should no one in the media express an opinion, then?
And if corporations should not pay for these shows, who should?
Disturb the Universe on January 31, 2009 at 1:01 PM
A few things still to remove, a lot more to add.
DarkCurrent on January 31, 2009 at 1:03 PM
hawkdriver on January 31, 2009 at 12:58 PM
+1
Disturb the Universe on January 31, 2009 at 1:05 PM
catmman on January 31, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Dead on Bingo. The ripple effect, except that in this case it can be literally a life and death affair.
irongrampa on January 31, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Perhaps, but with those 3 no intelectually honest person would not be able to come his conclusions.
thomasaur on January 31, 2009 at 1:07 PM
this is very good!! let the liberals defend THEIR country and risk THEIR lives for their savior. and if they don’t have the weapons to do it, give em a butter knife.
any conservatives in the military should get out.
glad I don’t live in NY or DC. oh well elections have consequences, and I’m all for the blue devils getting the consequences of an obama administration.
right4life on January 31, 2009 at 1:08 PM
would not should be would
thomasaur on January 31, 2009 at 1:08 PM
And add back a hint of treason and you have an Obamist.
JonRoss on January 31, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Hack-E-sack……….
Lets see, whom should I believe; an active serving member of the US military or you? Add my words to the many other commentators in this thread, when you fail to grasp the implications of this “request” to our countries security and ignore the hypocrisy Obama demonstrates by demanding the passage of the democrats so called economic stimulus package…. you are thick as a brick. Death, you suck plain and simple, go back to your handlers at Kos or DU, you offer us nothing of value.
dmann on January 31, 2009 at 1:09 PM
Barack Obama is still an unknown. I can’t figure out is he is Jimmy Carter’s second term or Bill Clinton’s third? It’s a tough call.
Dr Evil on January 31, 2009 at 1:10 PM
I guess Obama was listening to Reverend Wright!! Goddamn America!!!
izoneguy on January 31, 2009 at 1:10 PM
You are a liar is what you are and not a very good one. There is no language in the Constitution to make anyone 3/5ths of a person.
Maxx on January 31, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Hack-E-sack……….
:)
Disturb the Universe on January 31, 2009 at 1:11 PM
It’s hard to know where to start with such an absurb equivalence… Teachers and soldiers don’t put their lives on the line for America. They don’t endure months away from their families, living in sh*t conditions 24/7, so that teachers and social workers can do their very important jobs within the borders of a safe country.
The demand for a reduction is defense spending at the same time congress is poised to spend billions of ACORN, condoms, and mountains of other crap that has nothing whatsoever to do with economic stimulus, but everything to do with pent up Democratic desire to intrude government further and further into peoples’ lives, though, is entirely consistent with the Obamessiah’s forays into foreign policy in his first 10 days. He is both sufficiently delusional and arrogant enough to think that by sheer dint of his personality he can ensure America’s safety. Meanwhile, Iran is laughing at him and Israel is sharpening its nails to take Iran on on its own.
ProfessorMiao on January 31, 2009 at 1:13 PM
President Obama: Fearlessly forging ahead in the path of defeatism first blazed by that giant in American history — President James “Jimmy” Earl Carter!
May President Obama’s place in history be equally exalted and admired by all!
/sarc
sanantonian on January 31, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Sigh… nice Ad Hom attack… too bad its, as usual, very wide of the mark.
I was against the creation of Homeland Security.
We are a REPUBLIC… at least supposed to be. Thats a society based on Law. If you wish to change the Constitution, there are rules to do so, just as with the 3/5ths arguement…
Problem is that folks like you just wish to IGNORE the Constitution, not change it.
Changing it allows us to debate the change… ignoring it, like with the current takeover of power, allows for no debate, its shoved down the peoples throats.
The Constitution is NOT a LIVING Document… Last time I checked Legal Documents had not evolved to the point of Life… its a stinking Legal Document, that needs to be clear in its meaning… and was right up until folks like you decided it was changeable, without bothering with the Amendment process.
But please, don’t let Law, or History, get in the way of your beliefs…
Cutting Military Budgets in time of War?
Hmmmm…. was gonna call it suicide… but its not, its murder.
Romeo13 on January 31, 2009 at 1:14 PM
I honestly believe Obama is closer to Castro than to Carter or Clinton.
JonRoss on January 31, 2009 at 1:16 PM
He is both sufficiently delusional and arrogant enough to think that by sheer dint of his personality he can ensure America’s safety. Meanwhile, Iran is laughing at him and Israel is sharpening its nails to take Iran on on its own.
ProfessorMiao on January 31, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Professor so that is Obama’s plan to keep the homeland safe…for a minute I was worried/sarc. I guess he will just switch on his halo and everything will be fine.
Dr Evil on January 31, 2009 at 1:17 PM
In actuality Liberals view the Constitution as a Rorschach Test; they look at it and see anything they want to see.
Disturb the Universe on January 31, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Shut up and teach!
Parting word to Hack. This is why Conservatives scoff at the crocodile tears you guys shed for teachers. They obviously don’t have military kids best interests at heart and if they spent more time teaching academics than preaching Liberalism, you might get above a 75 percent grad rate in Michigan.
What other job can you fail at a quarter of the time and deserve even more money?
Oh that’s right, always adding more money to education improves it. (That always works) Decreasing money to the military is what improves it. (Always works)
Hack, your arguments are “so” compelling. I leave today convinced. sarc/
hawkdriver on January 31, 2009 at 1:19 PM
I think he has a logic of sorts, it’s just not fully connected with objective reality. Fundamentally it’s the common sense that seems to be lacking. It could just be due to a lack of suffcient real-world experience. He strikes me as a child prodigy.
DarkCurrent on January 31, 2009 at 1:22 PM
This guy’s own stupid POLL shows the exact opposite of what he’s claiming! It shows that most Americans wanted about the same amount spent on the military or more.
And he thinks it means most want less!
Plus all this other inanity he keeps spouting. What is wrong with these people? And why are they all over the Internet thinking others will accept their total lack of logic?
I don’t know. For some reason, a lot of liberals think if they just keep SAYING that two plus two equals five, they will get people to agree just from the sheer repetition.
I think that’s because they think other people are incredibly stupid, as opposed to their own very clever selves. But what could be more stupid than offering up a poll that actually shows the OPPOSITE of what you are claiming?
Alana on January 31, 2009 at 1:24 PM
I just spoke to a couple of child prodigies and they are quite insulted….
Pianobuff on January 31, 2009 at 1:24 PM
That would be a great Poll Question, Barack Obama back to the future…Give everyone three choices. OBama the continuation of either Carter, Clinton or Bush. Obama isn’t Lincoln- Obama has not freed anyone. Obama is not JFK he was a Military Veteran from WWII, Obama is not FDR, who stated this and quoted on his monument.
No I am not feeling the optimism maybe because all Obama does is criticize a talk show host, and talks down the American Economy.
Most people like to call Hitler a “Fascist”, but he was in fact a Socialist. Don’t forget the name of his party: “Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei” (NSDAP). or in English:
“National Socialist German Workers’ Party” thus “Nazi”, which is actually German slang.
Still FDR led us to a Victory against Hitler and his ilk. No I don’t get the comparisons to previous Presidents.
Dr Evil on January 31, 2009 at 1:25 PM
True enough. But of course liberals are attempting to equate “living document” with a document that changes WITHOUT the amendment process or at the whim of the courts. The courts, including the Supreme Court, have no authority to add to, or subtract from the plain meaning of the Constitution.
Yes, the Constitution is alive in the sense that it is the Law of the Land, but that doesn’t mean it’s meaning changes.
Maxx on January 31, 2009 at 1:27 PM
As it has already been mentioned, the poll was conducted nearly two years ago, well before the surge in Iraq was deemed a success, among other things. And it looks like even from this out dated poll that 55% would not be in favor of cuts.
But the graph is useful. Take a good look at the data point for January 1981. 50% of people thought defense spending was too low – far away from the others who either thought it was about right or over funded. Because that is where we could be headed.
tartan on January 31, 2009 at 1:27 PM
***
The Messiah is doing his Jimmy Carter II imitation now. Getting weaker militarily did not help–it only emboldened our enemies.
***
One report I read stated that the Russians seriously evaluated attacking the U.S.A. near the end of Jimmy Peanut’s reign–only the uncertainty of the U.S. Navy’s nuclear missile armed submarine locations made the attack impossible to pull off.
***
Anti-Missile defense will probably be cut back or eliminated. Also the new DDX ships being tested now–as well as stealth aircraft. The failure to keep ahead of the real enemies (China and Russia) will cost a lot of lives in the future.
***
Read the history of how one WW2 German tank flamed 4 or 5 U.S. Sherman tanks and their crews in France during the war. The G.I.’s called our tanks RONSONS–after a bad cigarette lighter that caught fire at random. We fought with some far inferior weapons in many past wars.
***
Bad military decisions result in the unneeded deaths of our soldiers. The dead G.I.’s won’t care much about reduced “global warming” or “STD” prevention progress. And the military draft may have to be reinstated. We can throw sophisticated weapons at the enemy–or we can use our military as “cannon fodder”–like in Vietnam.
***
John Bibb
***
rocketman on January 31, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Thank you for your service.
tartan on January 31, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Hey, it got Obamessiah elected, didn’t it?
ProfessorMiao on January 31, 2009 at 1:30 PM
+1
I’m in favor of cuts in inefficiency all across the board. I’m in favor of reviewing how the government spends money in every way, but I agree we need to be reasonable about how and where we are cutting.
tartan on January 31, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Time is money. The vast shift of resources into the government sector, accompanied by huge deficits, is the act of enslaving the future to serve the desires of the present. In this delirious explosion of socialist spending, we are being told that we are no longer free to use our time, and the fruits of our labor, as we wish… a few points in an election victory trumps millions of lifetimes of combined experience. We’re going to let these tyrants take five billion dollars away from the children who live in “communities” and give it to the people who will “organize” and “stabilize” them.
It would be simpler and more efficient to just let federal commissars come into each town and take an able-bodied son from every third family to serve them. The Democrats have actually cooked up a form of government less efficient than feudalism.
What I love the most about Obama’s 11% cut in military funding is the same President is perfectly comfortable with dropping trillions of dollars in deficits on the next generation. What difference would another 11% make? Has anyone crunched the numbers on what the tax rate on middle-class and young workers will have to be, in the 2010s and 2020s, to pay for these deficits? If they’re going to pay 65% of their income directly to the federal government to cover its debts, why not make it 66% and be able to tell them that at least we took the necessary steps to keep them safe?
Doctor Zero on January 31, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Gov spending is out of control. I mean
they’rewe’re paying 400,000 a year on a suit.- The Cat
MirCat on January 31, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Cry me a river. I’m MARRIED to a public school teacher, and in no way would I considering us “suffering” to the degree that military families suffer. Nor do the students suffer.
In fact, there is a lot of waste that could be easily cut from the public school systems. I know.
Nor do I think we deserve more money than the military. (And we already make more.)
And bloody hell – teachers in NO WAY have as “critically important job” as the military. That’s a total laugh.
Think about it, if you can. Without the military, we could either have no teachers, or have no point to having any teachers!
We OWE our military for making us safe TO teach in the first place!
Get your priorities in gear. The military is what makes life for ALL of us possible. You should be giving thanks to every military person you ever run across. They risk their very LIVES for teachers and social workers and everybody else, just so we can keep enjoying ours.
Jerk.
Alana on January 31, 2009 at 1:35 PM
I’ll second that… thanks to Hawkdriver and everyone else who serves. In fact, I have some out-of-the-box thinking for the Obama Administration to consider: if he thinks the military can handle its current and future commitments on 11% less funding than they’re getting now, he must think the military leadership consists of some amazingly frugal and resourceful people. So, why not give 100% of the “stimulus” money to the military, and put them in charge of allocating it to domestic spending? They obviously know how to get some serious bang for their bucks, if you’ll pardon the pun. The guys who handled the logistics for the Iraq surge should make terrific community organizers! And, as liberals never tire of pointing out when Republicans occupy the White House, a large percentage of military recruits come from the most disadvantage regional and ethnic backgrounds, so they’ve got intimate knowledge of those communities. It’ll be like the Salvation Army, except they have close air support. Whaddya say, Mr. Obama?
Doctor Zero on January 31, 2009 at 1:37 PM
You need to read up on FDR. I’m not really sure who’s side FDR was on.
The worst U.S foreign policy “mistake” ever was made by a Democrat. At the close of World War II, Franklin Deleno Roosevelt gave away all of Eastern Europe to the fascist Joseph Stalin in the agreement at Yalta, after the Western Allies had successfully fought and won its freedom. As far as biggest “mistake” ever in U.S. foreign policy, this one easily wins the prize.
Perhaps the second worst U.S foreign policy “mistake” ever was also made by a Democrat. Soon after becoming President in 1977, Jimmy Carter launched a deliberate campaign to undermine the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlevi, a good friend and ally of the United States. The Shah of Iran fell from power as a direct result of Jimmy Carter’s withdrawal of support and Iran fell into the hands of the tyrannical and anti-American Ayatollah Khomeini. This was the key event in history that led to the terrorist supporting state of Iran today that now threatens to develop nuclear weapons to destroy both the United States and Israel. (Pretty big “mistake” hun?)
I am fairly sure the top one-hundred worst U.S. foreign policy “mistakes” ever made were all by Democrats, but I just don’t have time to run them all down.
Maxx on January 31, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Here are the Congressional Armed Services Committee:
House of Representatives
Senate
Click on the names and you go to that person’s website.
I’ve got two senators on the committee. I’ll have to call and tie this outrage in with the stimulus outrage.
The Dems want to throw money away with both hands on items like ACORN and STD prevention while diminishing the military.
Talk about fiddling while Rome burns.
INC on January 31, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »