House OKs Defense Bill

[The Right]

The House has passed a $642 billion defense bill despite a White House veto threat.
The vote Friday was 299-120. The bill breaks the deficit-cutting agreement that President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans backed last summer, instead adding $8 billion for the military for next year.
The bill calls for a missile defense site on the East Coast that the military opposes and restricts the ability of the president to reduce the arsenal of nuclear weapons under a 2010 treaty with Russia. It also preserves ships and aircraft that the Pentagon wanted to retire in a cost-cutting move.
Lawmakers also rejected the military's request for another round of domestic base closings. Earlier Friday, the House reaffirmed the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists, even of U.S. citizens captured on American soil.

Congress doing this against the recommendations of the military really doesn't make sense to me.....And it adds to the deficit.

[Guerilla poster]

Originally Posted by The Right

Congress doing this against the recommendations of the military really doesn't make sense to me.....And it adds to the deficit.

Lets be honest, the House's only objective these days is to have a pissing contest with the Senate and the President (and vice versa).

Of course, a bill to increase the military budget is unlikely to ever be vetoed especially in an election year.

[Egghead]

This is one of the problems with a government selected by the general population. Elections are typically tight, so candidates want to minimize the number of people they tick off. Most people don't understand these issues, but they feel sorry for folks losing their jobs due to government cuts, so they'll turn against anyone responsible, regardless if it was the smart thing to do.

This is yet another reason why I believe a strong economics education should be required for graduation from high school.

[Guerilla poster]

Originally Posted by Egghead

This is one of the problems with a government selected by the general population. Elections are typically tight, so candidates want to minimize the number of people they tick off. Most people don't understand these issues, but they feel sorry for folks losing their jobs due to government cuts, so they'll turn against anyone responsible, regardless if it was the smart thing to do.

This is yet another reason why I believe a strong economics education should be required for graduation from high school.

That is why you need to demonize the people you want to "screw over", be it the rich, welfare queens or government workers, insurance companies.

[independent]

And three days ago Boehner said:

Yes, allowing America to default would be irresponsible. But it would be more irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling without taking dramatic steps to reduce spending and reform the budget process.

We shouldn’t dread the debt limit. We should welcome it. It’s an action-forcing event in a town that has become infamous for inaction.

That night in New York City, I put forth the principle that we should not raise the debt ceiling without real spending cuts and reforms that exceed the amount of the debt limit increase.

So he wants to increase the military budget right before he uses the debt limit to force "real spending cuts and reforms".

[Standtall]

Originally Posted by independent

And three days ago Boehner said:



So he wants to increase the military budget right before he uses the debt limit to force "real spending cuts and reforms".

Why no link?

[BigBen]

Originally Posted by Standtall

Why no link?

http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/15/news...ling/index.htm

Google is friend.

Shorter Boehner - "We need to cut spending, but don't ask me to do it. It's not like I'm in charge of the House of Reps..."

Edit: gross, I just wrote 'shorter Boehner'

[independent]

Originally Posted by Standtall

Why no link?

Sorry, this is the full text: http://johnboehner.house.gov/News/Do...umentID=294691