U.S. Senate Passes $612 Billion Defense Spending Bill

U.S. Senate Passes $612 Billion Defense Spending Bill

www.alertnet.org

WASHINGTON, Sept 17 (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a $612.5 billion defense spending bill for fiscal 2009, including $70 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As passed on an 88-8 vote, the measure would authorize $103.9 billion for Pentagon procurement, $1.2 billion more than President George W. Bush's request. Overall, Bush had asked for $611.1 billion for national defense.

(visit the link for the full news article)

YAY!

Why didn't you guys just make it an even TRILLION? I mean, what does it even matter anymore, you've got your perpetual occupations, with more opening up (Pakistan / Iran, etc.).

Who cares if us peon tax-payers just have to keep funding all of the War contractors and M.I.C.? We can start skipping meals to keep your endless war profits going!

Sickening.

www.alertnet.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
Who cares if us peon tax-payers just have to keep funding all of the War contractors and M.I.C.? We can start skipping meals to keep your endless war profits going!

Sickening.

Yeah, skipping meals. Cause with gas prices the way they are, I'm having trouble making it to work, which is an hour away. I don't know where these idiots are expecting us to pay for this from, given everything else that is going on. Is it any wonder Biden is calling paying additional taxes a patriotic act? No, no- a truly patriotic act was going to war over 15% taxation. They keep this up, a war is what they're going to get alright.

Here we've got wall street crumbling, the American dollar becoming worthless by the day, and what's the first order of business for these fools? Feeding the already obese MIC more fat. Just great.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


I'm complaining that it is less than a trillion dollars. They should give 2 trillion. I wonder why they stop at about 600 billion. This doesn't make sense when we are fighting in two countries.

so when the economy is meltdown the cia gets over 100 billion for one year!?,and 600 billion goes towards building and using weaponry!?

tsk tsk tsk no wonder old george refused the imf an audit of the us's finances,he was afraid of the world seeing where most of thier money goes....

reply to post by welivefortheson


Over 100 billion in one year by the CIA? Where you get those numbers?

I believe that congress agree to approve enough money to have the next coming president going until he gets his hands on running the presidential seat.

So while is a big budget is less of what it was proposed by Bush.

I guess China already promised to buy enough debt to support this budget

this is funny ..... americans are getting poorer day by day , losing homes and being forced by their genocidal fascist govt to bailout corporations for the blunders their directors made , and yet , fund the MIC like theres no tomorrow

man, looking at the conditions that USA today has, I have one thing to say, Soviet union of 70's looks like paradise , compared to today's USA

in 70's there was no poverty or starvation in USSR , no one was poor , everybody had equal income ,everyone had a home, people worked 10-12 hours max..

todays america , many people are homeless, penniless, many are struggling to make ends meet , and have to work 14-16 hours on multiple jobs to make ends meet

reply to post by manson_322


This kind of talk reminds me of the Kitchen Debate between Khruschev and Nixon.


O yeah why did the Soviet Union collapsed? Was socialism suppose to lead to that objective?

[edit on 18-9-2008 by deltaboy]

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
Why didn't you guys just make it an even TRILLION?

That was my question. Then I saw the 88-8 vote and suddenly I got the feeling that the numbers and dollar amounts are designed in that they are power numbers. Could be off but that's the feeling I got.

Regardless, the whole article is ridiculous.

If we were to cut that budget down by a third, or in half, would that make us any more vulnerable to attack?

Any country or group that attacks the US and/or its' interests will be overwhelmingly outmatched when it comes to military funding. Would it really hurt to cut down on our spending? We can still have a HUGE edge on the "competition" while taking some of those funds and putting into something like, I don't know, health care? Education?

Edit: Grammar, damn public schools and their lack of funding

[edit on 18-9-2008 by kawz1]

For "defense", yah, that's a good one.

It used to be called the Department of War but then the propaganda got wise.

Seems like the soviet union before their collapse. They were spending huge money on their military even as the floor was collapsing in on them. Disgusting.

reply to post by deltaboy


Amen to that, although I think 800 billion would be enough to meet all of the services wish list items. I really do fear for our military if the next POTUS cuts defense spending, we are not procuring enough systems to meet our future needs. We could (at the time) afford a gutting of the military in the 90s, and we are seeing the consequences of that appear now. However at this crucial juncture in history we absolutely cannot afford another such thing in the next decade. If there's one thing I'd pay higher taxes for, it's military spending.



[edit on 18-9-2008 by WestPoint23]

reply to post by mybigunit


I guess you forgot that during the Cold War the U.S. was spending a huge amount of money when competing with the Soviet Union. Our economy in the 80s wasn't exactly healthy.

reply to post by WestPoint23


The collapse of the Soviet Union led to cut in the defense spending and manpower. While our responsibilities tend to expand further around the world in the name of peacekeeping and nation building of the 90s and in the 21st century. Even in times of war there is bureaucracy on how much equipment and ammo should be bought. Remember the MRAP vehicles for example, that was delayed for years until Pentagon and the politicians saw how much of a threat by IEDs which wounded and killed thousands. Shortage of body armor where troops had to share when leaving the base. Troops equipped with old M14s that were in storage.

That number makes me sick

How much do we spend on education in this country? That is where our money really needs to go. A lack of education is one of the reasons why we are here in this mess today. If only $70 billion is for Iraq and Afghanistan, where the hell is the rest of it going?

[edit on 18-9-2008 by b4christ15]

reply to post by WestPoint23

Amen to that, although I think 800 billion would be enough to meet all of the services wish list items. I really do fear for our military if the next POTUS cuts defense spending, we are not procuring enough systems to meet our future needs. We could (at the time) afford a gutting of the military in the 90s, and we are seeing the consequences of that appear now. However at this crucial juncture in history we absolutely cannot afford another such thing in the next decade. If there's one thing I'd pay higher taxes for, it's military spending.

Are you effin' kidding????We wouldn't need even nearly 600 and some un-godly number of dollars if we were not throwing rocks at hornets nests all over the world.

I suggest you make the ultimate sacrifice then....drop out of your comfy little school and go enlist with all the poor folk bullet sponges. Seems to me you haven't any idea the realities of war....

Unbelievable.

reply to post by deltaboy


I know. Least I mention the USAF and USN, both of which suffered the most, in terms of what happened under Clinton. Without the USAF the US military would not be the most capable in the world, no disrespect to the other services, simply the truth. The current crisis facing the Air Force, and the much larger looming problems in the future would be comical if they were not so terrible. All due to underfunding and a past and sadly present thought (among the civilian leadership) which disregards high end military systems and near peer adversaries. Even when all past historical and current events staring them in the face say otherwise!

reply to post by Grafilthy


The US military is the muscle of US foreign policy. And without that muscle we'd be Russia and relegate future dominance of this planet via political, cultural, economical and military means to another power. That is not acceptable, especially when we have it within our ability to maintain the status quo. You do not realize how fortunate we are to live in this country and just how much our military has contributed to what we now take for granted. Do you want to be shut out of the energy market by foreign powers? Do you want all political influence to be determined by a foreign power? Do you want a foreign power surrounding the US with military bases? Unless you can back up attained power in this world you will not have any.

I'm not sugarcoating this post, that's the harsh realty. No matter what you hear by either party, and no matter who wins this November they all know this point.