Replies

Republicans don't like the $500 billion defense spending cuts, but they can stomach them.

Well, isn't that special?

"They" can "stomach" them.

That is so generous of our Republican masters. The problem is the military cannot "stomach" them.

Dempsey: Sequestration Will Gut the Military

Air Force calls sequester cuts 'dangerous'

Sequestration already cutting into national defense

Defense secretary warns military readiness crisis coming if automatic budget cuts are allowed

Someone go back and read every single story in December and January about what the "Fiscal Cliff" was. It was defined as the tax raises AND the deep Sequestration cuts, especially to the military.

The ONLY thing they addressed was taxes. The Republicans didn't want to lift a finger about Sequestration and the devastation it would do to the military. It was Democrats who had to bring it up at the midnight hour.

Our military has already taken $450 Billion in cuts (over ten years) that started in 2001.

Sequestration is $600 Billion on top of that. This chart is before Sequestration.

Thanks a lot GOP "leadership!" Ronald Reagan you ain't.

So here is what the wonderful Republican "leadership" will allow:

- job losses of between 1 to 2 million

- breaking faith with our men and women in uniform

- degrading our military to dangerous levels

- furloughs of defense workers

- economic malaise

That sure is a terrific plan.

We need cuts in the give away programs. We are NOT going broke because of our military.

The real source of our debt problems (Entitlements and Welfare spending) are not addressed one iota.

Don't break your arms patting yourselves on the back.

500 billion on the 10 year plan is only 50 billion a year. That is less than 8% of the defense budget with the wars included, iirc, and about 8.5% without the war budget included.

Now, I have heard how devastating this would be, but I know, having been in the military a long time that military units carefully spend their money until the last fiscal quarter, when they do a lot of last minute spending just to keep their request for the following year from being cut.

I think they could cut 8.5%, excepting salaries, across the board and not really hurt anything. Accounting for salaries, I think they could cut 10% across the board, not touching salaries, and simply become more efficient.

So, the bugaboo is 500 billion dollars....but that’s over 10 years.

The problem is the military cannot "stomach" them.

Get a grip. The military budget is not being "cut".

The projected growth in the Pentagon's budget will be reduced by $50 billion a year. Spending on the military will still increase spectacularly.

And when Panetta tells you that he's been "forced" to keep the "Harry S. Truman" in port because of budget cuts, just think of your local county executive who is "forced" to cut ambulance services because his selfish constitutents don't want another tax increase.

It's all designed to get defenders of the military upset. He's got choices. He has a budget the size of a medium-sized country to manage. He chooses to cut what he knows will outrage.

- economic malaise

Nonsense. Military spending does not create economic growth. Sure, it puts people to work, but so does adding a few thousand IRS auditors. Anything the government spends goes down an economic rathole.

Now, you may approve of military spending more than you do, say, EPA spending. I do, too. But defend military spending on military reasons -- not economic reasons. It doesn't fly.