Economy Fucked Up, This Is One Reason

I see you have run out of arguments. Mate!

not really, dude.

You are my argument.

Your whole idea of how America should be is very irrational. You have no balance in your thinking whatsoever. I balance the good/interest of our country, to the interest of the world. You think everything is a conspiracy theory because you do not like one side of the aisle. Don't you get it, you are the extremist out this forum. That's why you despise my point of view.
 
The thing is when TPTB start considering reducing military spending they don't look at the programs and operations and equipment that cost BILLIONS. They take that money out of the bennies and pay of the troops.

Over the last couple of years the Air Force got rid of alot of people in order to save money. But they kept all of the expensive equipment that costs millions every year to operate.
 
The thing is when TPTB start considering reducing military spending they don't look at the programs and operations and equipment that cost BILLIONS. They take that money out of the bennies and pay of the troops.

Over the last couple of years the Air Force got rid of alot of people in order to save money. But they kept all of the expensive equipment that costs millions every year to operate.

Thats a good idea too. Sell the equipment, and over pay the staff. I mean who needs STEALTH bombers anyway. It's unfair for the United States to have that type of technology anyway.
 
not really, dude.

You are my argument.

Your whole idea of how America should be is very irrational. You have no balance in your thinking whatsoever. I balance the good/interest of our country, to the interest of the world. You think everything is a conspiracy theory because you do not like one side of the aisle. Don't you get it, you are the extremist out this forum. That's why you despise my point of view.

Take your head out of sand. People are tired of the right wing. Obama won a greater percentage than Bush did both times he was so called ellected. Who did you vote for? Now who is the radical?
 
Take your head out of sand. People are tired of the right wing. Obama won a greater percentage than Bush did both times he was so called ellected. Who did you vote for? Now who is the radical?

I would agree that people are tired of the right wing but I can't help but notice Obama voted with Bush often:

1) FISA
2) Re-Authorization of the Patriot Act
3) Warrantless Wiretaps
4) The $800 billion Banker Takeover Bill
5) Continued War Funding
6) The 2005 Energy Bill, written in secret by Vice President Cheney and the energy lobby

I could go on but you get my drift, So who's radical?
 
Take your head out of sand. People are tired of the right wing. Obama won a greater percentage than Bush did both times he was so called ellected. Who did you vote for? Now who is the radical?

ok thought, cut the military, and raise taxes and see what happens...

Until then, stfu! :D
 
I would agree that people are tired of the right wing but I can't help but notice Obama voted with Bush often:

1) FISA
2) Re-Authorization of the Patriot Act
3) Warrantless Wiretaps
4) The $800 billion Banker Takeover Bill
5) Continued War Funding
6) The 2005 Energy Bill, written in secret by Vice President Cheney and the energy lobby

I could go on but you get my drift, So who's radical?

Yes, I know this. If you search on the threads on this board, I pointed these out. Obama was the lesser of the evils. Some accused me of being anti Obama. I hope he understands that circumventing the constitution with the excuse of not weakening the presidency is one reason we are some of the messes we are in.
 
The only part of government that truly works is the military. So, lets cut the military by 90 percent, and put all of that money into failed government programs to make everyone happy. I mean our enemies are just RAG TAG third world countries..... We can afford to do that. Lets use all of that money for the programs like......BIRTH CONTROL. Yeah, that sounds like a good plan don't you agree THOUGHT. I bet your side would be happy that we put all that money on a program that only 10 percent of the population would use. That 10 percent is better than protecting 100 percent of the population right?

Thought is a fucking genius!!!!

source: BBC

BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions

By Jane Corbin
BBC News

A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.

The BBC's Panorama programme has used US and Iraqi government sources to research how much some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding.

A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations.

The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies.

War profiteering

While Presdient George W Bush remains in the White House, it is unlikely the gagging orders will be lifted.

To date, no major US contractor faces trial for fraud or mismanagement in Iraq.

The president's Democratic opponents are keeping up the pressure over war profiteering in Iraq.

Henry Waxman, who chairs the House committee on oversight and government reform, said: "The money that's gone into waste, fraud and abuse under these contracts is just so outrageous, it's egregious.

"It may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history."

In the run-up to the invasion, one of the most senior officials in charge of procurement in the Pentagon objected to a contract potentially worth $7bn that was given to Halliburton, a Texan company which used to be run by Dick Cheney before he became vice-president.

Unusually only Halliburton got to bid - and won.

Missing billions

The search for the missing billions also led the programme to a house in Acton in west London where Hazem Shalaan lived until he was appointed to the new Iraqi government as minister of defence in 2004.

He and his associates siphoned an estimated $1.2bn out of the ministry. They bought old military equipment from Poland but claimed for top-class weapons.

Meanwhile they diverted money into their own accounts.

Judge Radhi al-Radhi of Iraq's Commission for Public Integrity investigated.

He said: "I believe these people are criminals.

"They failed to rebuild the Ministry of Defence, and as a result the violence and the bloodshed went on and on - the murder of Iraqis and foreigners continues and they bear responsibility."

Mr Shalaan was sentenced to two jail terms but he fled the country.

He said he was innocent and that it was all a plot against him by pro-Iranian MPs in the government.

There is an Interpol arrest warrant out for him but he is on the run - using a private jet to move around the globe.

He stills owns commercial properties in the Marble Arch area of London.

source: Guardian

US army was told to protect looted museum

The United States army ignored warnings from its own civilian advisers that could have stopped the looting of priceless artefacts in Baghdad, according to leaked documents seen by The Observer.

Iraq's national museum is identified as a 'prime target for looters' and should be the second top priority for securing by coalition troops after the national bank, says a memo sent last month by the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA), set up to supervise the reconstruction of postwar Iraq.
Looting of the museum could mean 'irreparable loss of cultural treasures of enormous importance to all humanity', the document concluded. But the US army still failed to post soldiers outside the museum, and it was ransacked, with more than 270,000 artefacts taken.

General Jay Garner, the head of ORHA, is said to be 'livid'. 'We asked for just a few soldiers at each building or, if they feared snipers, then just one or two tanks,' said one ORHA official. 'The tanks were doing nothing once they got inside the city, yet the generals refused to deploy them, and look what happened.'

More than two weeks after the March memo was sent, ORHA was told it had not even been read. The official admitted, however, that ORHA had not identified hospitals - which were also ransacked - as a potential target, as they had not imagined that the Iraqis would resort to 'killing their own people'.

The warnings were echoed yesterday by American archaeologists, who have tried for three months to persuade the Bush administration of the risk to antiquities.

Its sacking was 'completely predictable', says the president of the Archaeological Institute of America, Jane Walbaum. A week before the looting, one of the institute's members, Patty Gerstenblith of De Paul University, wrote to Major Christopher Varhola, a US army civil affairs officer in Kuwait, asking for troops to be stationed at the museum.

'I am stressing this hard to the ground commander, but unfortunately I do not have good news for you,' Major Varhola replied.

The Observer has seen documents submitted to senior US generals by ORHA on 26 March, listing 16 institutions that 'merit securing as soon as possible to prevent further damage, destruction and or pilferage of records and assets'. First was the national bank, next came the museum. The Oil Ministry, which has been carefully guarded, came sixteenth on a list of 16.

The memo said 'looters should be arrested/detained', yet US troops continued to pass by looters carting off their booty, and no tanks appeared in front of these buildings for days.

'It's a tragedy and a disaster for our image and for rebuilding Iraq,' said one ORHA official.

Around 20 artefacts stolen from the museum have been returned, but thousands remain missing. The US has sent a team of FBI agents to investigate claims that some items may have been stolen to order.

Martin Sullivan, the chair of President Bush's Advisory Committee on Cultural Property, has already resigned over the issue, saying it was 'inexcusable' that the museum should not have had the same priority as the Iraqi Oil Ministry.

The US military argues that its primary job in the first few days was to quell armed resistance in Baghdad, and that it could not tackle looters until it had finished fighting a war.
 
source: BBC

BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions

By Jane Corbin
BBC News

A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.

The BBC's Panorama programme has used US and Iraqi government sources to research how much some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding.

A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations.

The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies.

War profiteering

While Presdient George W Bush remains in the White House, it is unlikely the gagging orders will be lifted.

To date, no major US contractor faces trial for fraud or mismanagement in Iraq.

The president's Democratic opponents are keeping up the pressure over war profiteering in Iraq.

Henry Waxman, who chairs the House committee on oversight and government reform, said: "The money that's gone into waste, fraud and abuse under these contracts is just so outrageous, it's egregious.

"It may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history."

In the run-up to the invasion, one of the most senior officials in charge of procurement in the Pentagon objected to a contract potentially worth $7bn that was given to Halliburton, a Texan company which used to be run by Dick Cheney before he became vice-president.

Unusually only Halliburton got to bid - and won.

Missing billions

The search for the missing billions also led the programme to a house in Acton in west London where Hazem Shalaan lived until he was appointed to the new Iraqi government as minister of defence in 2004.

He and his associates siphoned an estimated $1.2bn out of the ministry. They bought old military equipment from Poland but claimed for top-class weapons.

Meanwhile they diverted money into their own accounts.

Judge Radhi al-Radhi of Iraq's Commission for Public Integrity investigated.

He said: "I believe these people are criminals.

"They failed to rebuild the Ministry of Defence, and as a result the violence and the bloodshed went on and on - the murder of Iraqis and foreigners continues and they bear responsibility."

Mr Shalaan was sentenced to two jail terms but he fled the country.

He said he was innocent and that it was all a plot against him by pro-Iranian MPs in the government.

There is an Interpol arrest warrant out for him but he is on the run - using a private jet to move around the globe.

He stills owns commercial properties in the Marble Arch area of London.

source: Guardian

US army was told to protect looted museum

The United States army ignored warnings from its own civilian advisers that could have stopped the looting of priceless artefacts in Baghdad, according to leaked documents seen by The Observer.

Iraq's national museum is identified as a 'prime target for looters' and should be the second top priority for securing by coalition troops after the national bank, says a memo sent last month by the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA), set up to supervise the reconstruction of postwar Iraq.
Looting of the museum could mean 'irreparable loss of cultural treasures of enormous importance to all humanity', the document concluded. But the US army still failed to post soldiers outside the museum, and it was ransacked, with more than 270,000 artefacts taken.

General Jay Garner, the head of ORHA, is said to be 'livid'. 'We asked for just a few soldiers at each building or, if they feared snipers, then just one or two tanks,' said one ORHA official. 'The tanks were doing nothing once they got inside the city, yet the generals refused to deploy them, and look what happened.'

More than two weeks after the March memo was sent, ORHA was told it had not even been read. The official admitted, however, that ORHA had not identified hospitals - which were also ransacked - as a potential target, as they had not imagined that the Iraqis would resort to 'killing their own people'.

The warnings were echoed yesterday by American archaeologists, who have tried for three months to persuade the Bush administration of the risk to antiquities.

Its sacking was 'completely predictable', says the president of the Archaeological Institute of America, Jane Walbaum. A week before the looting, one of the institute's members, Patty Gerstenblith of De Paul University, wrote to Major Christopher Varhola, a US army civil affairs officer in Kuwait, asking for troops to be stationed at the museum.

'I am stressing this hard to the ground commander, but unfortunately I do not have good news for you,' Major Varhola replied.

The Observer has seen documents submitted to senior US generals by ORHA on 26 March, listing 16 institutions that 'merit securing as soon as possible to prevent further damage, destruction and or pilferage of records and assets'. First was the national bank, next came the museum. The Oil Ministry, which has been carefully guarded, came sixteenth on a list of 16.

The memo said 'looters should be arrested/detained', yet US troops continued to pass by looters carting off their booty, and no tanks appeared in front of these buildings for days.

'It's a tragedy and a disaster for our image and for rebuilding Iraq,' said one ORHA official.

Around 20 artefacts stolen from the museum have been returned, but thousands remain missing. The US has sent a team of FBI agents to investigate claims that some items may have been stolen to order.

Martin Sullivan, the chair of President Bush's Advisory Committee on Cultural Property, has already resigned over the issue, saying it was 'inexcusable' that the museum should not have had the same priority as the Iraqi Oil Ministry.

The US military argues that its primary job in the first few days was to quell armed resistance in Baghdad, and that it could not tackle looters until it had finished fighting a war.

It seems like you do not understand what I mean by my statement. OUT OF EVERYTHING THE GOVERNMENT DOES, the military is the only part that is efficient on what its good for. The military is made to kill the enemy. BOTTOMLINE. Out of all of the other government plans, the military is the only one that truly does what its set out to do.

So do you rather have a weak military?
 
It seems like you do not understand what I mean by my statement. OUT OF EVERYTHING THE GOVERNMENT DOES, the military is the only part that is efficient on what its good for. The military is made to kill the enemy. BOTTOMLINE. Out of all of the other government plans, the military is the only one that truly does what its set out to do.

So do you rather have a weak military?

Lemme ask you somethin, How do you feel about the U.S. taxpayer having to foot the bill to enforce UN Mandates around the globe? Same thing with nation-building?
 
It seems like you do not understand what I mean by my statement. OUT OF EVERYTHING THE GOVERNMENT DOES, the military is the only part that is efficient on what its good for. The military is made to kill the enemy. BOTTOMLINE. Out of all of the other government plans, the military is the only one that truly does what its set out to do.

So do you rather have a weak military?

If you think killing people for $500 billion (not including all of the shadow programs) a year is efficient then as usual the conservative point of view is to pour money in to the military industrial complex to shield corporate apologist from operating the economy from a realist model. Why are you equating me wanting a weaker military with demanding accountability? This further exposes your hypocrisy. Eliminate what you see is unworthily, but continue to support waste in the military.
 
If you think killing people for $500 billion (not including all of the shadow programs) a year is efficient then as usual the conservative point of view is to pour money in to the military industrial complex to shield corporate apologist from operating the economy from a realist model. Why are you equating me wanting a weaker military with demanding accountability? This further exposes your hypocrisy. Eliminate what you see is unworthily, but continue to support waste in the military.

What do you want to do thought?

Seriously?

Oh I get it, your mad because I was mocking your stance on OUR military. Thus, you can not effectively tell me a better solution that would actually work. The fact is, our military is the reason why we are able to have this conversation WITHOUT fear of being seized. Oh wait, I guess that's too "conservative" for you to understand that, right?

How much accountability do you need? BTW, if you believe in a higher being *like.....GOD* you wouldn't be so worried about punishing people so much. I would go out on a limb, and say that your faith is a testament of your politics. Most of the shit you are worried about can not be fixed. Sometimes you got to put things in their rightful place.
 
What do you want to do thought?

Seriously?

Oh I get it, your mad because I was mocking your stance on OUR military. Thus, you can not effectively tell me a better solution that would actually work. The fact is, our military is the reason why we are able to have this conversation WITHOUT fear of being seized. Oh wait, I guess that's too "conservative" for you to understand that, right?

How much accountability do you need? BTW, if you believe in a higher being *like.....GOD* you wouldn't be so worried about punishing people so much. I would go out on a limb, and say that your faith is a testament of your politics. Most of the shit you are worried about can not be fixed. Sometimes you got to put things in their rightful place.

Thank GOD your type of thinking is on the way out!
 
Will Obama veto it?

source: The Hill

Lawmakers defy veto threat on F-22 fighter

Congress on Thursday moved forward with plans to build more Lockheed Martin F-22 fighter jets, disregarding a veto threat from the Obama administration.


Lawmakers also moved to authorize the funding for an alternative engine for the Joint Strike Fighter F-35.

Congress is setting the stage for a showdown over the 2010 defense authorization bill with the administration and in particular Defense Secretary Robert Gates, as the Office of Management and Budget issued a statement outlining the veto threat Wednesday over both issues.


Gates proposed the cuts earlier this year as part of an effort that he said would better spend taxpayer dollars on military priorities. He has said he’s confident the Air Force will have enough F-22s.

Lawmakers pushing to save the programs say the F-22 and second engine for the F-35 are vital to national security.

They also argue eliminating the F-22 program would kill off jobs during a brutal recession.


The F-22 is built in Georgia, though parts for the planes are also manufactured all over the country.


The Senate committee’s action was a victory for Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), one of Congress’s strongest F-22 backers.


“It is regrettable that the administration needs to issue a veto threat for funding intended to meet a real national security requirement that has been consistently confirmed by our uniformed military leaders,” Chambliss said in a statement on Thursday.


Congress is in the incipient phase of approving Pentagon funding for fiscal 2010, and it could be a prolonged fight between the executive and legislative branches over the F-22 and Joint Strike Fighter issues.


The House on Thursday approved a Defense bill that authorizes funds for more F-22s down the line, even as a panel of Senate defense authorizers agreed on giving the green light for the purchase of seven F-22s in 2010. The price tag for seven more F-22s is $1.7 billion.


The Pentagon did not request any funds for the F-22 in 2010 and wants to see the production end after the 187th airplane is delivered.


Defense authorizers in both the House and Senate only narrowly approved keeping the F-22 alive, however.


Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and ranking member John McCain (R-Ariz.) voted against funding more F-22s. Both senators said they hoped to prevail when the bill hits the Senate floor after the July 4 recess.


Levin does support funding for a second engine on the F-35, which is built by General Electric and Rolls-Royce.
 
The Military Industrial Complex again!

source: New York Times

Defense Chief Criticizes Bid to Add F-22s

CHICAGO — Saying he “didn’t molt from a hawk into a dove on Jan. 20, 2009,” Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates sharply criticized Congress on Thursday for trying to push more F-22 fighter jets into the Pentagon budget than he and President Obama say the country needs.

“If we can’t get this right, what on earth can we get right?” Mr. Gates said in an acerbic, sometimes withering speech to the Economic Club of Chicago. “It is time to draw the line on doing defense business as usual.” From his point of view, that means overbuying weapons for wars the nation is unlikely to fight.

Mr. Gates, a Republican who served as defense secretary during the last two years of the George W. Bush administration, is in a standoff with the Senate over the F-22, the world’s most expensive combat plane. Mr. Gates wants to cap the number at 187, but last month the Senate Armed Services Committee approved an amendment to set aside $1.75 billion for seven more.

To the consternation of the Pentagon and the White House, liberal Democrats like Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry of Massachusetts have said they support the additional planes, arguing that their production can help preserve jobs in districts across the country.

In response, Mr. Obama reiterated a threat on Monday to veto next year’s military spending bill unless the extra planes are removed. Mr. Gates went to Chicago to reinforce the message.

“The president has drawn that line, and that line is with regard to a veto, and it’s real,” Mr. Gates told the club, an 82-year-old civic group that is a favored forum for presidents, presidential candidates and cabinet secretaries to deliver important messages. In this case, Mr. Gates and his aides asked club members late last month if he could speak to them. The White House, Mr. Gates told reporters, helped set up the event.

A Senate vote on the amendment is expected in days. Mr. Gates told reporters on Thursday that it looked “pretty close.”

Although Mr. Gates focused much of his speech on the F-22 and other programs he wants to cut back or scrap, like a new presidential helicopter — he said it would allow “the president, among other things, to cook dinner while in flight under nuclear attack” — he also made his larger argument for changing the way the Pentagon does business. In the half-trillion-dollar Pentagon budget for 2010 that Mr. Gates proposed in April, billions are to be shifted from traditional weapons systems to new technology to fight insurgencies like those in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But the F-22, designed for cold-war aerial combat, has become the poster plane for each side. Mr. Gates argued to the economic club that it was a “niche, silver-bullet solution” for only a few potential situations, specifically “the defeat of a highly advanced enemy fighter fleet,” and that the cheaper F-35, which is to start production in 2012, is a more versatile fighter. The F-22’s supporters say it not only provides jobs but also ensures American dominance of the skies.

Senator Saxby Chambliss, a Republican from Georgia who has led the fight for the plane, said in an interview this week that the F-22’s strongest support had come from veteran senators in both parties who want continued American air superiority. “That is what resonates,” he said.

Mr. Chambliss said the concern about losing military jobs had also been important, particularly for senators who are “on the fence.” Lockheed Martin Corporation assembles the plane in Mr. Chambliss’ home state, in Marietta, and uses suppliers in 44 states.

Mr. Gates, in speaking to reporters, said with some exasperation that “the more they buy of stuff we don’t need, the less we have available for the stuff we do,” adding: “It’s just as simple as that. It ain’t a complicated problem.”

In his speech, he said that in more than four decades in government, “I have generally been known as a hawk on national security,” and that “I haven’t changed.”

Earlier in the day, in a visit to Fort Drum, N.Y., Mr. Gates said he was looking at a proposal by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, to increase temporarily the size of the Army by 30,000 more personnel than already planned, up to some 577,000.
 
source: ABC

Pentagon Waste: Could Billions Have Been Saved Through Smarter Ordering System?

Defense Logistics Agency Needs Only Half of What it Orders, Wasting $7 Billion

There is no question that with the United States involved in two wars, the troops need lots of equipment and plenty of spare parts to keep things running.
That is where the Pentagon's Defense Logistics Agency comes in. It is the DLA's job to manage and buy huge amounts of spare parts to make certain that the military is ready and operating.
However, a new report from the Government Accounting Office found that the agency is ordering so many supplies, it is leading to tremendous waste. The DLA has bought billions of dollars worth of equipment at taxpayer expense that is not even needed by the military.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont, is outraged by the spending.
"The Pentagon is wasting an enormous amount of money. In this case it's the Defense Logistics Agency," he told ABC News. "They have $13 billion in inventory [...] $7 billion of that is spare parts they don't need."

The list of missed savings opportunities goes on, for a $7 billion total. That could have covered the entire budget for the National Science Foundation or paid for half the cost of the 2010 Census. In fact, $7 billion in savings could actually take care of the Defense Department's own budget reduction goal.

In a statement to ABC News the DLA said they welcome the report and that they have "been taking positive steps to decrease our inventory of spare parts. "

The statement goes on to say they will continuing using the GAO's reccomendations to make improvements and that they "have also redefined our processes and implemented a new information systems architecture to improve our demand forecasting, and we continue with these efforts."

"The communications between the Army, Navy, Air Force and the Defense Logistics Agency, according to the GAO, is very, very poor," said Sanders.

The problem lies in DLA's ability to adjust to demand needs.

"Sometimes they are saying they need parts when in fact that is not accurate," he said. "Here's some irony here, in some instances, we don't have the parts that the military actually needs, in the middle of two wars. So the communications process is very, very faulty."

Sanders said that while some of the spare parts are sold, others are simply thrown away.

It's now too late for savings from spare parts, because taxpayers have already paid the bill. But the GAO hopes that this time, lessons have been learned.

Click here to read the full Defense Losgistics Agency statement.
 
<font size="5"><center>
Pentagon belt-tightening
will cut thousands of jobs</font size>
<font size="4">

Gates to shut major command in Va. that employs
5,000 people; first major step by Gates to find
$100 billion in savings in the next five years</font size></center>


Associated Press
By ANNE FLAHERTY
and ANNE GEARAN
August 9, 2010


WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday that tough economic times require that he shutter a major command that employs some 5,000 people around Norfolk, Va., and begin to eliminate other jobs throughout the military.

The announcement was the first major step by Gates to find $100 billion in savings in the next five years. Gates says that money is needed elsewhere within the Defense Department to repair a force ravaged by years of war and to prepare troops for the next fight.

Gates and other Pentagon officials would not put a dollar figure on cuts outlined Monday, but the savings is expected to be less than what the individual military services are trying to trim on their own.

Big cuts are essential considering the straitened economy and the likelihood that Congress no longer will give the Pentagon the sizable budget increases it has enjoyed since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Gates said.


<font size="4">Political Backlash Swift</font size>

The political backlash was swift and fierce from lawmakers fearful that jobs would be lost in their districts.

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican, said in a hastily called news conference that eliminating Norfolk's Joint Forces Command would deal a devastating blow to the state at a time of runaway federal spending on lower priorities.

Likewise, Republican Rep. J. Randy Forbes called the decision "further evidence of this administration allowing its budget for social change" and the "piecemeal auctioning off of the greatest military the world has ever known."

Democrats, including Sens. Mark Warner and Jim Webb of Virginia, also condemned the move. Warner said he could see "no rational basis" for eliminating a command created to improve the services' ability to work together and find efficiencies.

"In the business world, you sometimes have to spend money in order to save money," said Warner.

In a Pentagon press conference, Gates was optimistic that Congress would eventually swing behind his plan despite lawmakers' control of the budget. He said in the case of Virginia, the state could wind up with additional jobs if the savings found by closing Joint Forces Command enables a boost in shipbuilding.


<font size="4">President's Position</font size>

Eliminating the command would take the backing of President Barack Obama. Obama applauded the overall belt-tightening in a statement Monday but did not mention JFCOM or two smaller offices set for closure.

"The funds saved will help us sustain the current force structure and make needed investments in modernization in a fiscally responsible way," Obama said. "Change is never easy."

Gates described his initiative as just the beginning in his hunt for inefficiencies across the Defense Department, which commands a nearly $700 billion annual budget including war spending.

"The department must start setting priorities, making real trade-offs and separating appetites from real requirements," Gates said.


<font size="4">No Sacred Cows</font size>

Gates vowed to review every corner of the budget, including the military's rising health care costs.

"There are no sacred cows," Gates said.

Besides shutting down Joint Forces Command, Gates wants to:

  • Trim by 10 percent the budget for contractors who support the Defense Department;

  • Freeze the number of employees working for his office, defense agencies and combatant commands for the next three years; and

  • Cut at least 50 general and flag officer positions and 150 senior civilian executive positions over the next two years.

Savings from closing Joint Forces Command will be offset by the cost of shifting some jobs and roles elsewhere, Gates said.

The command, which holds more than 1 million square feet of real estate in Suffolk and Norfolk, Va., lists its mission as training troops from all services to work together for specific missions. It tries to make sure equipment used by different services works together and looks for gaps in capabilities within military services that could be filled by a specially trained joint force.

The command is headed by a four-star military officer, the highest grade currently in use. Marine Gen. James Mattis was its commander until named last month to replace Army Gen. David Petraeus as head of U.S. Central Command. His replacement will be Gen. Ray Odierno, now the war commander in Iraq. Odierno's job will be to eliminate his own office, officials said.

The plan Gates outlined was similar to one suggested last month by the Defense Business Board, a panel of company executives who advise the Pentagon. The panel identified Joint Forces Command as contributing to much of the contractor bloat because it had more contractors than government employees on its payroll.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.





http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38632261/ns/politics
 
We'll see how many republicans vs, how many democrats support/oppose this. This will tell if there is no difference between the two parties.
 
Perhaps, the now dead racist was right: "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Republicans and Democrats."
 
We'll see how many republicans vs, how many democrats support/oppose this. This will tell if there is no difference between the two parties.

hold on, Are you comin over to the darkside? I've been sayin this for a looong time!

In my lifetime, both parties have contributed to:

More Wars
More prisons
More Surveillance

Less freedoms!
 
hold on, Are you comin over to the darkside? I've been sayin this for a looong time!

In my lifetime, both parties have contributed to:

More Wars
More prisons
More Surveillance

Less freedoms!


Fortunately the world has existed way before your lifetime. And in my lifetime, the two parties were distinctively different!

Democrats, the party of FDR, Truman, Kennedy and Carter. Republicans, the party of Hoover, Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush!

See the difference?
 
source: Huffington Post


<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> threeup_js('World', '847257', '2'); </SCRIPT><!-- Design style from perl code: -->
<!--ASKCRAWL--><!-- Entries --><!-- Reporter --><!-- Entry -->Global Military Spending Hits High But Growth Slows

r-GLOBAL-MILITARY-SPENDING-large570.jpg



Worldwide military spending edged up in 2010 to a record $1.6 trillion, a leading think-tank said on Monday.


Global spending rose 1.3 percent in real terms, a slowdown from 5.9 percent the year before as the economic downturn caused by the 2008 financial crisis hit military spending, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute said.

"In many cases, the falls or slower increases represent a delayed reaction to the global financial and economic crisis that broke in 2008," it said in a statement, adding that there were regional differences.

Spending in Europe shrank 2.8 percent to $382 billion as governments started to rein in soaring budget deficits.

The biggest cuts were in small economies in central and eastern Europe, and in crisis-struck southern European countries such as Greece.

"Further cuts are expected in most of Europe in 2011 and subsequent years, although these are likely to remain relatively modest in the major spending countries," SIPRI, which conducts independent research on international security, armaments and disarmament, said in a statement.

The Unites States, with costly military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, increased spending by 2.8 percent to $698 billion -- about six times as much as China, the second-biggest spender ahead of Britain, France and Russia. In 2009, U.S. spending grew 7.7 percent.

"The United States has increased its military spending by 81 percent since 2001," SIPRI said. "At 4.8 percent of gross domestic product, U.S. military spending in 2010 represents the largest economic burden outside the Middle East," said SIPRI Military Expenditure Project chief Sam Perlo-Freeman
 
Ya think?:rolleyes:

yeah, i know. I thought Dick Cheney was out of the White House but it looks like his foreign policy is still intact!


Lameduck House Approves Largest Military Spending Bill In History


In a vote of 314-48, the House of Hyenas yesterday approved the largest military spending bill in history. This $725 billion monster brisked through the House with barely any public discussion or debate. It will soon head for the Senate.

In any "defense" spending bill, there is tax-slave money that goes to the maintenance, production, and further research of nuclear weapons, the vast array of nearly 1,000 military bases that litter the globe, and the many killing machines that the state has at its disposal.

And this doesn't even cover the costs of the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan!
 
Yea, but will the no regulation, market based crowd in congress make any attempt to cut the largest military spending bill in history?

I know you want to label crop of Republicrats as "market-based", but they truly don't beleive in "free markets". If they did, there would be more of an attempt to allow interest rates to be determined in the market as opposed to letting Bernanke set "artifically low" interest rates, thus distorting the free market.

Face it Thought, the neocons like the "cheap money" because it allows them to speculate and manipulate the market. Think this stuff through bruh!
 
wish we could roll spending back to where it was at during the Clinton admin.......since things were so good! :(
 
source: Raw Story

U.S. military spending up 81 percent since 2001: report


STOCKHOLM — Growth in global military spending slowed to its lowest level since 2001 last year as the world economic crisis hit defence budgets, Swedish think-tank SIPRI said Monday.

World military spending rose only 1.3 percent in 2010 to $1.63 trillion (1.14 trillion euros), after average annual growth of 5.1 percent between 2001 and 2009, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) said as it released its latest report on international military expenditures.

"In many cases, the falls or slower increase represent a delayed reaction to the global financial and economic crisis that broke in 2008," the group said in a statement.

The United States significantly slowed its military investments last year but remained by far the biggest defence spender in the world and still accounted for almost all of global growth.

US defence spending grew by only 2.8 percent in 2010 to $698 billion, after averaging growth of 7.4 percent between 2001, when SIPRI began publishing its reports, and 2009.

Despite the slowdown, the United States' spending increase of $19.6 billion still accounted for nearly all of the $20.6 billion global increase last year.

"The USA has increased its military spending by 81 percent since 2001, and now accounts for 43 per cent of the global total, six times its nearest rival China," Sam Perlo-Freeman, the head of SIPRI's Military Expenditure Project, said in a statement.
<!-- Raw_Embedded_300 --><SCRIPT type=text/javascript ?>GA_googleFillSlot("Raw_Embedded_300");</SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/ads?correlator=1302711062812&output=json_html&callback=GA_googleSetAdContentsBySlotForSync&impl=s&client=ca-pub-5155643920455169&slotname=Raw_Embedded_300&page_slots=Raw_Embedded_300&cookie=ID%3Db5ae5e1a1790daa0%3AT%3D1295899829%3AS%3DALNI_MYSlFiV3g0K_TyCd0WnSs-BBKptZg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rawstory.com%2Frs%2F2011%2F04%2F11%2Fglobal-military-spending-growth-slowest-since-2001%2F&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.911truth.org%2Farticle.php%3Fstory%3D20110412053655214&lmt=1302711062&dt=1302711062843&cc=14&oe=utf-8&biw=657&bih=331&ifi=1&adk=3720233247&u_tz=-240&u_java=true&u_h=512&u_w=683&u_ah=489&u_aw=683&u_cd=32&flash=10.2.153.1&gads=v2&ga_vid=224019965.1295899791&ga_sid=1302711063&ga_hid=1831236785&ga_fc=true"></SCRIPT>

"At 4.8 percent of GDP, US military spending in 2010 represents the largest economic burden outside the Middle East", he said.

The region with the largest increase in military spending last year was South America with 5.8 percent growth, reaching a total of $63.3 billion

"This continuing increase in South America is surprising given the lack of real military threats to most states and the existence of more pressing social needs," said Carina Solmirano, the project's Latin America expert.

In Europe, military spending fell by 2.8 percent as governments cut costs to address soaring budget deficits, SIPRI said, noting that cuts were particularly heavy in the more vulnerable economies of Central and Eastern Europe and in Greece.

In Asia, the region's weaker economic performance in 2009 saw defence expenditures grow by only 1.4 percent, with China leading the way with an estimated $119 billion in defence spending last year.

"The Chinese government, for example, explicitly linked its smaller increase in 2010 to China?s weaker economic performance in 2009," SIPRI said.

Countries in the Middle East spent $111 billion on arms last year, an increase of 2.5 percent over 2009, with Saudi Arabia the region's biggest spender.

In Africa, spending increased by 5.2 percent, led by major oil-producers such as Algeria, Angola and Nigeria.

The think tank, which specialises in research on conflicts, weapons, arms control and disarmament, was created in 1966 and is 50-percent financed by the Swedish state.
 
I know you want to label crop of Republicrats as "market-based", but they truly don't beleive in "free markets". If they did, there would be more of an attempt to allow interest rates to be determined in the market as opposed to letting Bernanke set "artifically low" interest rates, thus distorting the free market.

Face it Thought, the neocons like the "cheap money" because it allows them to speculate and manipulate the market. Think this stuff through bruh!


Face it Thought, the neocons like the "cheap money" because it allows them to speculate and manipulate the market. Think this stuff through bruh

And speculation is not capitalism?:confused: Can get more Free Market than that.
 
Back
Top