Jump to content

10% cut in defense in FY10


bigsixfive

Recommended Posts

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.

Some overall budget figures are expected to be announced Monday.

Obama met Friday at the White House with a small group of military advisers, including Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman, and Gen. Jim Jones, National Security Council chairman.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/30...se-budget-cuts/

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.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/31/a-10...t-the-pentagon/

Link to comment
https://www.aufamily.com/topic/55916-10-cut-in-defense-in-fy10/
Share on other sites





But, but, but. Come on rr spin this.

Aren't you gonna feel stupid when radical Islam surrenders to The One because of his magnanimous self.....you'll see. We won't even need have a military by the end of his first term.

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.

Some overall budget figures are expected to be announced Monday.

Obama met Friday at the White House with a small group of military advisers, including Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman, and Gen. Jim Jones, National Security Council chairman.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/30...se-budget-cuts/

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.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/31/a-10...t-the-pentagon/

The governemnt's sole responsibility is to protect all of our rights. We are to have a militia to protect the nation. Read the constitution.

First sentence:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

First sentence:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Surely we could have raised a militia to destroy Hitler before he overran the world. We could have rapidly developed the helicopters, night vision and tactics that enabled us to topple the Mullahocracy in Afghanistan in the blink of an eye.

BF, do you really believe we should have no standing army in 2009? We would be sitting ducks, and there's no way you can convince me the founding fathers would want that. Tyranny and slavery are opposed only by guns and jet fuel. A militia is totally appropriate but wholly inadequate.

First sentence:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Surely we could have raised a militia to destroy Hitler before he overran the world. We could have rapidly developed the helicopters, night vision and tactics that enabled us to topple the Mullahocracy in Afghanistan in the blink of an eye.

BF, do you really believe we should have no standing army in 2009? We would be sitting ducks, and there's no way you can convince me the founding fathers would want that. Tyranny and slavery are opposed only by guns and jet fuel. A militia is totally appropriate but wholly inadequate.

Maybe not, but there is still 2.3 trillion dollars unaccounted for.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/396.html

I've said it before and I'll say it again, you guys b*tch about spending and deficits and then you complain when budget cuts come into a play. Nothing really more to say.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, you guys b*tch about spending on ridiculous social and entitlement programs and creating massive deficits while inflating the government to an enormous size and then you complain when budget cuts on necessities, like defense, come into a play. Nothing really more to say.

Well at least you are honest. You don't want decreased spending. You just want decreased spending on things you don't like.

Why do you not like national defense? Why do you like all of the silliness in this "stimulus" package?

Well at least you are honest. You don't want decreased spending. You just want decreased spending on things you don't like.

Why do you not like national defense? Why do you like all of the silliness in this "stimulus" package?

He thinks Robin Hood was a good guy. Plus, he has a nice, predictable September 10th mindset.

Well at least you are honest. You don't want decreased spending. You just want decreased spending on things you don't like.

Why do you not like national defense? Why do you like all of the silliness in this "stimulus" package?

He is simply one of those typical, bleeding-heart liberals that believe tax dollars are better spent on butter than guns; and you will never convince him otherwise...

Well at least you are honest. You don't want decreased spending. You just want decreased spending on things you don't like.

Why do you not like national defense? Why do you like all of the silliness in this "stimulus" package?

Evidently you have not been following my posts. I would allocate the stimulus package out as follows: tax cuts, infrastructure spending, defense spending.

Well at least you are honest. You don't want decreased spending. You just want decreased spending on things you don't like.

Why do you not like national defense? Why do you like all of the silliness in this "stimulus" package?

Evidently you have not been following my posts. I would allocate the stimulus package out as follows: tax cuts, infrastructure spending, defense spending.

Yes, but since you don't get to have your perfect bill you'll just support this piece of crap like a good dhimmi.

Roads and bridges will not fix the economy. They didn't break it. Our problem is we are spending money we don't have and it's time to pay the piper. This is going to be ugly.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, you guys b*tch about spending and deficits and then you complain when budget cuts come into a play. Nothing really more to say. (Yeah there is lot's more to say. What else is being cut in this deficit spending bill to beat all deficit spending bills?)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. You are a pathetic hypocrite, if Obama says it, you believe it, if Obama leads you will follow.

I want a bill about half the proposed size and I want most spending to focus on infrastructure and defense.

Look, I’ve already expressed my displeasure about some things in the bill. I want a bill about half the proposed size and I want most spending to focus on infrastructure and defense. (Your Messiah is already planning big cuts in defense.)

Do you realize that the current stimulus bill includes about $10B for Defense and Veterans Affairs?

-$350MM for Department of Defense Research

-$3.75B for new Defense Medical Facilities

-$2.1B for Military Facilities Renovations

-$1.2B for Troop Housing

-$360MM for Child Development Centes on military bases

-$400MM for Guard and Reserve Training and Operations Centers and Utilities Infrastructure

-$950MM for Veterans Medical Facilities

-$50MM for Veterans Cemeteries

-$1.15B for Border Ports of Entry

http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=55853

This thread is indicative of what happens when FoxNews is taken at face value. The DoD's proposed 2010 budget is $581B. FauxNews says Obama wants to cut it "by more than 10 percent -- about $55 billion." First, I believe $55B is less than 10% and, second, there is DoD money in the stimulus plan which means that some budgeted money is either no longer needed or can be used elsewhere in the budget. $581B minus the $55B still results in a budget INCREASE from 2009's $512B budget. To suggest that this amounts to "big cuts in defense" is patently false.

While this stimulus plan isn't perfect, a large portion of it is and I suspect that between the Senate version and the joint committee tweaking, it'll get better. Tigerheat, of course bridges didn't cause the economic problems we have now, however, repairs to infrastructure have historically been very good economic boosters. See, to build or repair that bridge takes people to do it. If I own a bridge-building company, I'll probably have to hire some more people to build it beyond what I normally employ. I'll probably have to hire an architect and maybe even an AU engineer. I'll have to buy concrete, rebar and bolts. I'll have to rent cranes, platforms and trucks. I'll purchase a myriad of things from the local area where the job site is like food and gas. My workers will, too. And, speaking of those workers again, do we get more bang for the buck by paying them $500 per week for being unemployed or paying them to actually perform a needed service? I say that employing them is better because when they make more money they put more back into the economy. They become more productive. Again, this stimulus plan isn't perfect, but, I don't think the perfect should be the enemy of the good.

It's amazing to see that the republicans have suddenly become spending hawks again. For the last 8 years you guys had relatively unhindered control of the executive and legislative branches and, unless your name is 'otterinbham', there was rarely any objection here as to how ANYTHING was done. You republicans gave us your best and brightest for 8 years and the current economic situation is what we've been left with. Yet, amazingly, you suddenly know best how to run the country again? Sorry, republicans had their chance and they failed.

As for the subject of this thread, a 10% budget reduction for 2010 that still results in a budget increase isn't going to impair our ability to defend ourselves and to suggest that is silly.

Al, not picking a fight, but this isnt a stimulus bill for the most part. It is a pork and lard payback bill. It spends money on crazy ideas that have sero to do with recovery. Pelosi and few others drafted it. The Dem Committee chairs in the House didnt have much if any at all input into it. The Republicans had zilch input.

The govt expenditures for highways, bridges, etc is not going to hit the streets for maybe 2-3 years. The jobs must be written, quoted, bid, contractors chosen etc. That can take 15 months minimum. Factor in some weather and availbility issues and two years is a no brainer.

Hey, If you want to fix the roads, do it.

If you want to fix the bridges, buildings, etc Do it.

Just dont call it "emergency stimulus" because it isnt and wont.

It's amazing to see that the republicans have suddenly become spending hawks again. For the last 8 years you guys had relatively unhindered control of the executive and legislative branches and, unless your name is 'otterinbham', there was rarely any objection here as to how ANYTHING was done. You republicans gave us your best and brightest for 8 years and the current economic situation is what we've been left with. Yet, amazingly, you suddenly know best how to run the country again? Sorry, republicans had their chance and they failed.

So after all of these years of complaining that Republicans spent too much you celebrate the largest pork bill in the history of the Republic. Amazing, truly dumbfounding amazing.

Al, the point is we have been yelling for years for the need to cut spending. As far as I have seen or heard defense it the only place the dims want to cut and then thump their chest about what great fiscal leaders they are. CUT SPENDING across the board. If defense needs cuts, do it, but don't cut there and so you can spend millions BILLIONS else where.

It's amazing to see that the republicans have suddenly become spending hawks again. For the last 8 years you guys had relatively unhindered control of the executive and legislative branches and, unless your name is 'otterinbham', there was rarely any objection here as to how ANYTHING was done. You republicans gave us your best and brightest for 8 years and the current economic situation is what we've been left with. Yet, amazingly, you suddenly know best how to run the country again? Sorry, republicans had their chance and they failed.

You just made the perfect argument AGAINST this so called Stimulus Bill. What the Republicans did wrong was spend too much, and now that we are in power we are going to do it much worse.

As I've been saying since Obama got in front of Hillary; this is the second term for Carter, the parallels are already headed that way, massive socialist spending and appeasement to Islamic fundamentalists. The only positive I see right now is that it will open the door big time for the next true Republican, like Reagan, to come to our rescue in 2012. Not to mention we will probably see a replay of 1994 in the Congress when 2010 elections come along. If this massive, wasteful, socialist spending bill passes, especially with the protectionism provisions, we will be in this mess even worse in 2 years...

It's amazing to see that the republicans have suddenly become spending hawks again. For the last 8 years you guys had relatively unhindered control of the executive and legislative branches and, unless your name is 'otterinbham', there was rarely any objection here as to how ANYTHING was done. You republicans gave us your best and brightest for 8 years and the current economic situation is what we've been left with. Yet, amazingly, you suddenly know best how to run the country again? Sorry, republicans had their chance and they failed.

You just made the perfect argument AGAINST this so called Stimulus Bill. What the Republicans did wrong was spend too much, and now that we are in power we are going to do it much worse.

As I've been saying since Obama got in front of Hillary; this is the second term for Carter, the parallels are already headed that way, massive socialist spending and appeasement to Islamic fundamentalists. The only positive I see right now is that it will open the door big time for the next true Republican, like Reagan, to come to our rescue in 2012. Not to mention we will probably see a replay of 1994 in the Congress when 2010 elections come along. If this massive, wasteful, socialist spending bill passes, especially with the protectionism provisions, we will be in this mess even worse in 2 years...

This being a parallel to Carter is possible...however, there is a much more dangerous possibility. Instead of 1977, this could be 1937 Germany. Socialist government eating a democracy with an unassailable head. No criticism allowed, and policy by fiat. Add in The One's posturing himself as The Answer and him telling us how this is going to be years of hardship....wow.

I expect us to be bankrupt soon.

This thread is indicative of what happens when FoxNews is taken at face value. The DoD's proposed 2010 budget is $581B. FauxNews says Obama wants to cut it "by more than 10 percent -- about $55 billion." First, I believe $55B is less than 10% and, second, there is DoD money in the stimulus plan which means that some budgeted money is either no longer needed or can be used elsewhere in the budget. $581B minus the $55B still results in a budget INCREASE from 2009's $512B budget. To suggest that this amounts to "big cuts in defense" is patently false.

EXCELLENT points. Let me follow-up on this analysis with a few more tidbits that have not been mentioned:
"A senior Pentagon advisory group, in a series of bluntly worded briefings, is warning President-elect Barack Obama that the Defense Department's current budget is not sustainable. The briefings were prepared by the Defense Business Board, an internal management oversight body."

"Pentagon insiders and defense budget specialists say the Pentagon has been on a largely unchecked spending spree since 2001 that will prove politically difficult to curtail but nevertheless must be reined in."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...cuts_essential/

So just to be clear, these recommendations came from within the Pentagon. Kinda debunks the far right talking points that "the Democrats" are shredding Defense spending.

2008pie_budget.gif

Second, I'd like to add that because Defense makes over half of the annual budget, it makes sense that this line item gets a lot of attention. But even further, I suspect we'll see cuts across the board. So just stop with the nonsense that Obama is cutting Defense spending to direct towards Social programs, unless you can back it up with hard facts (the official FY 2010 budget will not be released until February).

This thread is indicative of what happens when FoxNews is taken at face value. The DoD's proposed 2010 budget is $581B. FauxNews says Obama wants to cut it "by more than 10 percent -- about $55 billion." First, I believe $55B is less than 10% and, second, there is DoD money in the stimulus plan which means that some budgeted money is either no longer needed or can be used elsewhere in the budget. $581B minus the $55B still results in a budget INCREASE from 2009's $512B budget. To suggest that this amounts to "big cuts in defense" is patently false.

EXCELLENT points. Let me follow-up on this analysis with a few more tidbits that have not been mentioned:
"A senior Pentagon advisory group, in a series of bluntly worded briefings, is warning President-elect Barack Obama that the Defense Department's current budget is not sustainable. The briefings were prepared by the Defense Business Board, an internal management oversight body."

"Pentagon insiders and defense budget specialists say the Pentagon has been on a largely unchecked spending spree since 2001 that will prove politically difficult to curtail but nevertheless must be reined in."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...cuts_essential/

2008pie_budget.gif

Second, I'd like to add that because Defense makes over half of the annual budget, it makes sense that this line item gets a lot of attention. But even further, I suspect we'll see cuts across the board. So just stop with the nonsense that Obama is cutting Defense spending to direct towards Social programs, unless you can back it up with hard facts (the official FY 2010 budget will not be released until February)

I missed the headline about Obama directing a 10% cut in the air conditioning boondoggle occurring in the nation's housing projects. There will be no social spending cuts. Money spent on defense will move towards health care and feel good things like morale and housing. Weapons systems and training will suffer. It's part of the playbook. Clinton did the same thing.

This thread is indicative of what happens when FoxNews is taken at face value. The DoD's proposed 2010 budget is $581B. FauxNews says Obama wants to cut it "by more than 10 percent -- about $55 billion." First, I believe $55B is less than 10% and, second, there is DoD money in the stimulus plan which means that some budgeted money is either no longer needed or can be used elsewhere in the budget. $581B minus the $55B still results in a budget INCREASE from 2009's $512B budget. To suggest that this amounts to "big cuts in defense" is patently false.

EXCELLENT points. Let me follow-up on this analysis with a few more tidbits that have not been mentioned:
"A senior Pentagon advisory group, in a series of bluntly worded briefings, is warning President-elect Barack Obama that the Defense Department's current budget is not sustainable. The briefings were prepared by the Defense Business Board, an internal management oversight body."

"Pentagon insiders and defense budget specialists say the Pentagon has been on a largely unchecked spending spree since 2001 that will prove politically difficult to curtail but nevertheless must be reined in."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...cuts_essential/

So just to be clear, these recommendations came from within the Pentagon. Kinda debunks the far right talking points that "the Democrats" are shredding Defense spending.

2008pie_budget.gif

Second, I'd like to add that because Defense makes over half of the annual budget, it makes sense that this line item gets a lot of attention. But even further, I suspect we'll see cuts across the board. So just stop with the nonsense that Obama is cutting Defense spending to direct towards Social programs, unless you can back it up with hard facts (the official FY 2010 budget will not be released until February).

I suspect I trust your speculation less than I do anything Joe Biden says.

Unless you can back up your speculation with hard facts, stop the cheerleading for anything Obama says.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...