07-11-2011, 11:25 PM
Republicans seemingly want to cut medi-care and social security, democrats want to let the Bush tax cuts expire (I HATE that the media refers to that as raising taxes) no, it's returning tax levels to where they were previously FFS.
So, what do YOU want?
I'm all in favor of cutting entitlement programs AND allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire (at least to some degree)... Some middle ground. Cut entitlements and maybe moderate the Bush tax cuts.
And then there's this:
On a 336-87 vote Friday, the Republican-controlled House overwhelmingly backed a $649 billion defense spending bill that boosts the Defense Department budget by $17 billion. This was reported in an article on MSNBC by Donna Cassata. This was a bipartisan vote that came at the same time that the White House and congressional negotiators are facing an Aug. 2 deadline to raise the nation’s debt limit so we do not default on payments authorized by Congress.
Republican leaders have slashed billions from the proposed budgets for other agencies, hitting food aid for low-income women, health research, energy efficiency, and much more. However, the military budget gets a double-digit increase beginning Oct. 1—the only agency to get one.
It’s the old guns or butter dilemma. Guns take priority over food for kids, Pell grants, and renewable energy, apparently.
Bill increases spending on wars that are supposed to be winding down
The bill provides $530 billion to the Pentagon and $119 billion to cover the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would buy various warships, aircraft and weapons, including jet engines and a C-17 cargo plane that the Pentagon did not request. This is good news for defense contractors who are big campaign contributors including Boeing. Apparently, hungry children and students don’t contribute enough to candidates.
http://www.examiner.com/economic-policy-...nding-cuts
WTH?
And all of you who say we shouldn't be in Afghanistan or Libya or Iraq, please STFU because obviously since we shouldn't be there in the first place, you wouldn't vote to increase defense spending for those operations...right?
I think we should have taken the recommendations of the bi-partisan deficit reduction panel but no, we're too partisan to actually swallow what a bi-partisan commission recommends. Grrr.
So, what do YOU want?
I'm all in favor of cutting entitlement programs AND allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire (at least to some degree)... Some middle ground. Cut entitlements and maybe moderate the Bush tax cuts.
And then there's this:
On a 336-87 vote Friday, the Republican-controlled House overwhelmingly backed a $649 billion defense spending bill that boosts the Defense Department budget by $17 billion. This was reported in an article on MSNBC by Donna Cassata. This was a bipartisan vote that came at the same time that the White House and congressional negotiators are facing an Aug. 2 deadline to raise the nation’s debt limit so we do not default on payments authorized by Congress.
Republican leaders have slashed billions from the proposed budgets for other agencies, hitting food aid for low-income women, health research, energy efficiency, and much more. However, the military budget gets a double-digit increase beginning Oct. 1—the only agency to get one.
It’s the old guns or butter dilemma. Guns take priority over food for kids, Pell grants, and renewable energy, apparently.
Bill increases spending on wars that are supposed to be winding down
The bill provides $530 billion to the Pentagon and $119 billion to cover the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would buy various warships, aircraft and weapons, including jet engines and a C-17 cargo plane that the Pentagon did not request. This is good news for defense contractors who are big campaign contributors including Boeing. Apparently, hungry children and students don’t contribute enough to candidates.
http://www.examiner.com/economic-policy-...nding-cuts
WTH?
And all of you who say we shouldn't be in Afghanistan or Libya or Iraq, please STFU because obviously since we shouldn't be there in the first place, you wouldn't vote to increase defense spending for those operations...right?
I think we should have taken the recommendations of the bi-partisan deficit reduction panel but no, we're too partisan to actually swallow what a bi-partisan commission recommends. Grrr.
Commando Cunt Queen