House OKs $642 billion defense bill

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House on Friday passed a $642 billion defense bill that abandons the deficit-cutting agreement that President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans backed last summer.

On a 299-120 vote, lawmakers backed the spending blueprint that adds $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.

Click to expand...

That's quite a spending increase. I do have one question here. Who controls the House?

The answer: He who smelt it dealt it. Needless to say, I support Obama's threatened veto on all this pork.

Article is here.

Wooot, deficit!

Reducing nuclear weapons arsenal: only ok when Republicans do it.

Shockingly hypocritical and, frankly, unnecessary. Once you have enough nukes to kill all life on Earth, you're good. You've got that "mutually assured destruction" thing covered, so cool it, already.

And the real beauty part is that the bill violates the debt ceiling promise that Republicans made last year ... AND they pretend that the spending hike is paid for by pointing to their dead-on-arrival Ryan budget. :roll:

What is that, roughly a 2% increase? Not that it makes an increase right without necessity. It appears there are at least a few things, probably a whole lot more that could go on the chopping block that are total fluff and add nothing to our defense capabilities. When it says about which aircraft and ships the DOD would have done away with for cost cutting measures that means only that. Not that they actually wanted to do away with them. I would imagine though that the DOD feels they can do without those the most, so one must wonder why so many members of the house (and not just the GOP mind you) still want it around? Especially the east coast missile system the DOD does not even want at all. That is just plain old corruption right there. Nothing like adding things in the defense budget the DOD does not need or want so that a small amount of very wealthy people can get even more wealthy. The jobs created are likely far less than the cost of building the thing.

As for the nukes, I am sure we have enough and could spare losing a few... and I am fine with that. However, when considering the MAD scenarios, Its which nukes, their location, yield and the age of them. Nuclear war scenarios are not the same as they were 40 years ago. We actually have a lot less yield in most nukes these days than we used to. Nowadays, wiping out Moscow or where ever will not be an automatic win. It only take a few of those bad boys to do the job so that the opposing government knows that there won't be anything left to defend.

That works for the sane leaders. Not so much for those who would rather see the U.S. be destroyed at the cost of their own country. We don't have that scenario in play right now, but that doesn't mean we never will. Last I can recall, building and maintaining a nuclear deterrent takes a little longer than paper airplane construction or a city of legos.

I am fine with cutting nukes, it costs a lot to maintain them and the systems which carry them. We have plenty I am sure to do the job of worst case MAD scenario. What I am concerned with is that politician use numbers alone and not reasonable logic when cutting arsenal.

How does a budget about two times that of any three other countries combined sound?

Is this the bill that included recertification of language allowing the military to take US citizens into custody and detain them indefinitely under the War on Terror banner?

You know in the past when a war ended the defense budget actually dropped.

danarhea said:

That's quite a spending increase. I do have one question here. Who controls the House?

The answer: He who smelt it dealt it. Needless to say, I support Obama's threatened veto on all this pork.

Article is here.

Click to expand...

But the vote was 299-120. That means there was wide bipartisan support for this bill. And here I thought bipartisanship=good.

I am pretty sure I saw a story about this bill earlier today saying the Dems and Tea Partiers came together to try and strike it down. It includes the language I mentioned above about detaining American citizens indefinitely without warrant or probable cause under the War on Terror banner. Sad day when something like that gets approved......again.

So glad the Republicans honored the super commitee agreement....just be ready for part 2 of the "Honoring", which will entail cuts in virtually all programs most Americans use.

First they force damage to our credit with a freakin' temper tantrum over debt limit...then they want massive cuts , and agree to defense when the dems agree to societal program cuts.

Them they renig on defense and want deeper cuts elsewhere to compensate ....WTF.

Actually, defense spending was at 683.7 billion in 2010 and 711 billion in 2011. Just sayin.

GhostlyJoe said:

Shockingly hypocritical and, frankly, unnecessary. Once you have enough nukes to kill all life on Earth, you're good. You've got that "mutually assured destruction" thing covered, so cool it, already.

Click to expand...

*whistles*

No we don't. Sure about 2/3rds of these are underground, buttah all life on Earth was not wiped out.

danarhea said:

That's quite a spending increase. I do have one question here. Who controls the House?

The answer: He who smelt it dealt it. Needless to say, I support Obama's threatened veto on all this pork.

Article is here.

Click to expand...

642 billion....wow....we can easily slash 200bill off that and still be in good shape.

Matt Foley said:

*whistles*

No we don't. Sure about 2/3rds of these are underground, buttah all life on Earth was not wiped out.

Click to expand...

You get different results when you drop them on cities.

danarhea said:

That's quite a spending increase. I do have one question here. Who controls the House?

The answer: He who smelt it dealt it. Needless to say, I support Obama's threatened veto on all this pork.

Article is here.

Click to expand...

8 billion on about 634 billion or less than a 2% increase, that is a lot to you? Less than inflation. How much of this 8 billion is giving people in the military housing, retirement pay and the cost of decent health care for the people who come back with these needs. Is the reason you put this out that this less than 1.5% increase is way higher than the overall increase in spending.

Saying all this I think we spend too much on defense spending, but not sure what you are getting at. If the vote was 299-120, there actually had to be democratic votes as well.

Deuce said:

You get different results when you drop them on cities.

Click to expand...

No, you don't. That's Hollywood/Media programming your brain.

washunut said:

8 billion on about 634 billion or less than a 2% increase, that is a lot to you? Less than inflation. How much of this 8 billion is giving people in the military housing, retirement pay and the cost of decent health care for the people who come back with these needs. Is the reason you put this out that this less than 1.5% increase is way higher than the overall increase in spending.

Saying all this I think we spend too much on defense spending, but not sure what you are getting at. If the vote was 299-120, there actually had to be democratic votes as well.

Click to expand...

$8 billion is $8 billion more spending than Republicans PROMISED to cut when they threatened to destroy the full faith and credit of the U.S., purportedly because they were so concerned about overspending.

It's also about 16 times more than the government lost in the Solyndra bankruptcy that Republicans have obsessed over.

They should raise 8 billion in taxes or cut something else by 8 billion. Put up or shut up time.

AdamT said:

$8 billion is $8 billion more spending than Republicans PROMISED to cut when they threatened to destroy the full faith and credit of the U.S., purportedly because they were so concerned about overspending.

It's also about 16 times more than the government lost in the Solyndra bankruptcy that Republicans have obsessed over.

Click to expand...

Wish you would stop with the trite partisan responses. The sad part is for whatever reason I actually get the sense you are better than this. Not sure lying about the opposing party's position on defense spending would be considered by many to be artful "political debate".

It is somewhat interesting that you are able to get this response from someone who feels we can/should defense spending by at least $100 billion a year. Just that your arguments seem so superficial.

washunut said:

Wish you would stop with the trite partisan responses. The sad part is for whatever reason I actually get the sense you are better than this. Not sure lying about the opposing party's position on defense spending would be considered by many to be artful "political debate".

It is somewhat interesting that you are able to get this response from someone who feels we can/should defense spending by at least $100 billion a year. Just that your arguments seem so superficial.

Click to expand...

Here's a helpful suggestion: why don't you try to back up your assertions with facts, and stop pretending that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. I don't know what's happened to you in the last few months, but you really need to change your lean to "Slightly conservative".

The fact is, as the article linked in the OP states, that Republicans broke the deal the cut last year by approving $8 billion more in defense spending than they originally agreed to. If you want to spin that you should at least make an effort.

Wiseone said:

You know in the past when a war ended the defense budget actually dropped.

Click to expand...

In the past we made the foolish mistake of thinking that war actually ends, Wiseone. The only way for war to ever end is for there to be only one side left. Until that happens there will always be war and the truly wise people understand that unless one is prepared for war at all times, you are subject to losing the next one.

if we're going to police the world, we need a world tax to reimburse us. a world police force, however, would require oversight more significant than the UN.

i'd argue that we should end police actions and just be a nation. there's a lot of nation building to be done right here at home.

honor commitments to veterans, keep a reserve force, maintain equipment, and cut a lot of the rest. i think we've passed the point of diminishing returns when it comes to military spending.

AdamT said:

Here's a helpful suggestion: why don't you try to back up your assertions with facts, and stop pretending that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. I don't know what's happened to you in the last few months, but you really need to change your lean to "Slightly conservative".

The fact is, as the article linked in the OP states, that Republicans broke the deal the cut last year by approving $8 billion more in defense spending than they originally agreed to. If you want to spin that you should at least make an effort.

Click to expand...

I am not going to change my lifelong leanings because so many fellow party members have turned into lemmings for this administration. The Democrat party used to rail against deficits of Reagan and the Bushes, remember Clinton. My sense if he could really speak his mind he would reject trillion dollar deficits with no end in sight.

I have acknowledged that the defense budget in my view should be cut by at least $100 billion a year. I did go to a town hall meeting with by congressperson and told him I would not vote for him ever again if he voted to add troops in Afghanistan. I will wait for a real democrat to take him on in a primary.

That being said going back and forth with faux outrage about some tiny change to the defense budget seems stupid.

To keep calling one side or the other liars seems counterproductive, yet it seems that is all we get from this site.

Perhaps what has happened over the last couple of months is the frustration that an internet site, is probably a silly place to think there can be reasoned debate. Although from time to time there are some great nuggets.