Posted on 07/08/2010 11:14:39 AM PDT by Sic Parvis Magna
As members of opposing political parties, we disagree on a number of important issues. But we must not allow honest disagreement over some issues interfere with our ability to work together when we do agree.
By far the single most important of these is our current initiative to include substantial reductions in the projected level of American military spending as part of future deficit reduction efforts. For decades, the subject of military expenditures has been glaringly absent from public debate. Yet the Pentagon budget for 2010 is $693 billion — more than all other discretionary spending programs combined. Even subtracting the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, military spending still amounts to over 42% of total spending.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
That’s what we won’t hear about. No one wants to touch the mandatory spending, which is what really drives up the deficits and debt. Instead, we fiddle with discretionary spending.
Thanks for that mental picture. Ugh.
Very strange bedfellows indeed.
This thread needs that graph showing fed spending...
Oh PUleeze
...
Where is Ron Paul on the OTHER 80% of the budget???
Where is his plan to cut, cut, cut?
This is feeble IMHO. It muddies the water and gives the Democrats ground they ought not stand on.
Frank and Paul could set a good example by putting defense installations and contracts in their districts at the top of the list.
re: military spending still amounts to over 42% of total spending
And the point is? The absolute number one priority of a nation is the defense of its people and land. It should come as a surprise to no one that the cost of handling this responsibility is a large part of our budget, as it should be. There’s no doubt we could find ways to save money all through our defense budget, but I have a lot less problem with it being bigger than necessary than the department that pays farmers not to farm, etc.
Moonbat wackos whine about the $1 trillion spent on wars in Iraq this past decade, but ignore the other $25 TRILLION the Government has spent in the past decade.
And define “waste”. We spend more on discretionary domestic spending and much of that is pure waste.
Not necessarily.
What would make one a "wacko"?
For starters, teaming up to "cut spending" with the man who engineered the massive bloat of Fannie and Freddie and who led the call for a massive bailout program.
One might also be considered a "wacko" if one thought it would be wiser to go after the DoD when the amount of money lost in Medicare and Medicaid fraud would like dwarf military waste.
LMAO
I remember that guy!!! I almost went AWOL and joined his group for a trip to the UFO!
Then if a crisis develops somewhere in the world how will we respond. We will want to put down our foot only to discover we have dug out all the earth beneath us.
Admit it....you just liked the jogging suits!
Now I remember why I don’t like Ron Paul. Slipped my mind for a while there. Defense is supposed to be one of the few legitimate functions of government. I skimmed the article. Was there a mention of entitlements anywhere?
Hardly descriptive of traitorous behavior.
Don’t waste your time presenting logic in front of the peanut gallery.
Then we'll need to replace that regime in North Korea. Then the Shiite Sharia dictatorship that will ultimately take control of Iraq, then one or two despots in Africa, then ...
Hopefully this latest fiasco will kill all of Ron Paul’s future Don Quixote presidential campaigns. He will be 77 in 2012. But I think he is already senile.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.