• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate passes $631B defense policy bill 98-0

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
27,581
Reaction score
4,664
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The Senate on Tuesday passed a massive, wide-ranging $631 billion defense authorization bill that restores threatened Pentagon biofuels programs, issues new sanctions against Iran and changes U.S. detention policy for American citizens.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed the Senate unanimously 98-0 after the bill was debated for five days and hundreds of amendments were considered on the floor.

Senate passes $631B defense policy bill 98-0 - The Hill's DEFCON Hill

Isnt this proof that congress has no interest in cutting spending? Even the democrats, who always list defense as the first thing to be cut, voted unanimously to INCREASE defense spending at the very same moment a discussion is going on about the huge deficit and debt.
 
That is obscene on so many levels. Here is all this talk and panic of the fiscal cliff, the integrity of the US government is threatened, and the American Military has long been talked about as one of the major budget items that must be cut, from both parties.

Then your Senate vote unanimously in favour of INCREASING?! defence spending?!

That is stupid. So, so stupid.

I don't even...
 
Isnt this proof that congress has no interest in cutting spending? Even the democrats, who always list defense as the first thing to be cut, voted unanimously to INCREASE defense spending at the very same moment a discussion is going on about the huge deficit and debt.

They just want to make sure we have solar powered jets with wind turbines on the wings.
 
They just want to make sure we have solar powered jets with wind turbines on the wings.

That's a likely explanation. Because defense is so important, Congress does tend to stick a lot of irrelevant pork and political payoffs into the defense appropriation bills.
 
i can't support it.

honor (and increase) our commitments to veterans, bring the rest home, and start scaling back other programs. a lot of this money would be so much better spent on long term domestic energy innovation and on infrastructure.
 
That's a likely explanation. Because defense is so important, Congress does tend to stick a lot of irrelevant pork and political payoffs into the defense appropriation bills.

What I recall hearing on NPR was that the defense Department was concerned about not having funding for biofuels because they supposedly have seen the utility of those in the long-run and want to be able to make the conversion.
 
i can't support it.

honor (and increase) our commitments to veterans, bring the rest home, and start scaling back other programs. a lot of this money would be so much better spent on long term domestic energy innovation and on infrastructure.

We cant afford either.
 
We cant afford either.

but we can afford to defend our foreign energy interests in perpetuity? i'd argue that the better investment is to develop novel domestic energy technologies which will become exportable as the world begins to transition from oil. and infrastructure? what are we going to do, let it all rot?
 
This bill I can't support. It allows for "a ban on same-sex ceremonies on military bases and language that says military chaplains can’t be punished for opposing same-sex marriage," continues sanctions against Iran, and allows for Gitmo to continue to be opened. While it changes the indefinite detention regarding the NDAA, it still doesn't change the fact that the President can still assassinate American citizens.
 
but we can afford to defend our foreign energy interests in perpetuity? i'd argue that the better investment is to develop novel domestic energy technologies which will become exportable as the world begins to transition from oil. and infrastructure? what are we going to do, let it all rot?

We can afford to defend the lives and property of american citizens within the borders of the USA. There is no need to defend foreign energy interests, and its not the job, or the power, of the federal govt to develop energy technology or infrastructure. The states and individuals will take care of that themselves. The purpose of the military is to defend the states from invasion.
 
Same old same old. I wonder that the new rating for congress will be. 0%
 
Same old same old. I wonder that the new rating for congress will be. 0%

That's an interesting point. Most if not all in Congress make $250K or more a year, I would bet they have exempted themselves.

I'm thinking the logical solution is for the people to start stealing from the government to suppliment their income. Maybe jack a few military vehicles to cut up fro scrap. Just imagine how much chain link fence surrounds a military base. Then there are (or all there?) those FEMA camps people keep sending me emails about...
 
Why don't they call it the Military Offense budget. We've been on offense as long as I can remember. Vietnam, Granada, Panama, Nicaragua, Iraq, Afghanistan, or more precisely at war with any Nation that has resources that our powerful Corporations covet. We get what those Corporations want. We foot the bill and they divide the profits. I keep forgetting that those Corporations have personhood via Citizens United.
 
i can't support it.

honor (and increase) our commitments to veterans, bring the rest home, and start scaling back other programs. a lot of this money would be so much better spent on long term domestic energy innovation and on infrastructure.

You mean like wind and solar that does not save one drop of oil, and infrastructure. How about paying down our debt? I didn't see you mention that.
 
You mean like wind and solar that does not save one drop of oil, and infrastructure. How about paying down our debt? I didn't see you mention that.

Um.... when you are using wind and solar, you are not using oil. -Logic 101
 
You mean like wind and solar that does not save one drop of oil, and infrastructure. How about paying down our debt? I didn't see you mention that.

a key priority, which will require spending cuts and tax increases. as for wind and solar, I understand and disagree with the "only oil forever" / "get a horse" position.
 
Um.... when you are using wind and solar, you are not using oil. -Logic 101

That is a brilliant statement. Now try using wind and solar when you need oil. Like when I drive my big ass coach across the country and I get 7 MPG of diesel, no wind or solar is going to help me out there. Like I said wind and solar does not save one drop of oil. All wind and solar does is make electricity, it is no substitute for what oil can and does do.
 
That is a brilliant statement. Now try using wind and solar when you need oil. Like when I drive my big ass coach across the country and I get 7 MPG of diesel, no wind or solar is going to help me out there. Like I said wind and solar does not save one drop of oil. All wind and solar does is make electricity, it is no substitute for what oil can and does do.

Using solar to power a home frees up oil which can then be made in to gasoline to power a car. Once again, Logic 101.
 
i can't support it.

honor (and increase) our commitments to veterans, bring the rest home, and start scaling back other programs. a lot of this money would be so much better spent on long term domestic energy innovation and on infrastructure.

That's one of the biggest wastes of my money, ever.
 
Any increase in defense spending is reprehensible if not disastrous. I do blame the GOP more for this, since it and the rightwing noise machine have spent years poisoning the well of our political discourse on national security and attacking anybody who is against more spending as unpatriotic.

Romney did that in the last election.

So I condemn any democrat who voted for this, but I blame the GOP more for its paranoid rhetoric on national security.
 
Using solar to power a home frees up oil which can then be made in to gasoline to power a car. Once again, Logic 101.

If someone wants to spend their money on a solar system for their home, I say have at it.
 
Any increase in defense spending is reprehensible if not disastrous. I do blame the GOP more for this, since it and the rightwing noise machine have spent years poisoning the well of our political discourse on national security and attacking anybody who is against more spending as unpatriotic.

Romney did that in the last election.

So I condemn any democrat who voted for this, but I blame the GOP more for its paranoid rhetoric on national security.

Why, because they are the majority in The Senate? :rofl
 
That's one of the biggest wastes of my money, ever.

I disagree.

conservatives often argue that they don't want their grandchildren to have to deal with our debt. I concur. however, I would add that our grandchildren should not have to suffer our refusal to acknowledge that oil and fossil fuels are finite resources, and that the global relations will be infinitely more volatile as supplies diminish.

in a century, the energy market is not going to revolve around oil. I support figuring out what the transportation energy model will look like, developing it first, and then reaping the benefits.
 
I disagree.

conservatives often argue that they don't want their grandchildren to have to deal with our debt. I concur. however, I would add that our grandchildren should not have to suffer our refusal to acknowledge that oil and fossil fuels are finite resources, and that the global relations will be infinitely more volatile as supplies diminish.

in a century, the energy market is not going to revolve around oil. I support figuring out what the transportation energy model will look like, developing it first, and then reaping the benefits.

One word: Solyndra

If alternative energy is such a winner and not just another money pit that will lose more money than it makes, the private sector should invest private money in the technology and get the ball rolling. How much of your money have you invested in it?
 
Back
Top Bottom