FoxNews: Senate passes $662B Defense spending bill, first cut since Clinton admin

[Little-Acorn]

Fox News has sent out an email alert saying that the Senate has now followed the House in passing a $662B Defense spending bill.

If true, this is the first cut in Defense spending since the Clinton administration.

Past Defense spending ($billions), from http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s047a.xls :

2011 $768.2 (estimate)
2010 $693.6
2009 $661.0
2008 $616.1
2007 $551.3
2006 $521.8
2005 $495.3
2004 $455.8
2003 $404.7
2002 $348.5
2001 $304.7
2000 $294.4
1999 $299.3

The $662 billion authorized by this bill, amounts to a 13.5% cut from the amount spent in the 2011 fiscal year.

Note that this is a genuine CUT, not a Washington-style "slight reduction in the rate of increase". We'll actually SPEND LESS next year, than we did this year. If this bill holds.

Now that Defense (a Federal function authorized by the Constitution) has been cut, when can we expect to see matching cuts in Social Security, Medicare, OSHA, EPA, ATFE (none of which are mentioned anywhere in that document), etc.?

------------------------------------------------

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/15/congress-poised-to-pass-massive-defense-bill

Congress Poised to Pass Massive Defense Bill

Published December 15, 2011
Associated Press

WASHINGTON – Congress neared completion of a massive defense bill Thursday with lawmakers fiercely defending provisions on suspected terrorists against criticism that it would infringe on Americans' constitutional rights.

The Senate was poised to vote on the measure and send it to President Obama for his signature. The bill would authorize $662 billion for military personnel, weapons systems, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and national security programs in the Energy Department for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.

The legislation is $27 billion less than Obama wanted and $43 billion less than Congress gave the Pentagon this year, a reflection of deficit-driven federal budgets, the end of the Iraq war and the drawdown in Afghanistan.

In a rare show of bipartisanship, the House voted 283-136 for the measure late Wednesday.

 

[dogtowner]

really reduced or is it just that Iraq shut down ?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

You must be torn by your love of cutting spending verses your love of expensive things to blow up things and kill.

 

[GenSeneca]

You must be torn by your love of cutting spending verses your love of expensive things to blow up things and kill.

Do you ever get tired of posting strawmen and sarcasm? Oh, silly question... That's all you have to offer.

As to the actual topic... I'll believe it when I see it. I don't trust these D-bags to do anything that actually reduces spending. I can already hear the phrase, "emergency supplemental spending bill" shattering the myth of a smaller defense budget. Of course, I'd slash the snot out of Def spending... Taxpayers would be amazed by how little it costs to defend our own country (as opposed to our own plus several others).

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Do you ever get tired of posting strawmen and sarcasm? Oh, silly question... That's all you have to offer.

As to the actual topic... I'll believe it when I see it. I don't trust these D-bags to do anything that actually reduces spending. I can already hear the phrase, "emergency supplemental spending bill" shattering the myth of a smaller defense budget. Of course, I'd slash the snot out of Def spending... Taxpayers would be amazed by how little it costs to defend our own country (as opposed to our own plus several others).

what is the strawman...that the Republicans like Military spending or that they don't want to reduce federal spending...last I check both are very true.

 

[GenSeneca]

what is the strawman...that the Republicans like Military spending or that they don't want to reduce federal spending...last I check both are very true.

I'll quote LA from the OP:

Now that Defense (a Federal function authorized by the Constitution) has been cut, when can we expect to see matching cuts in Social Security, Medicare, OSHA, EPA, ATFE (none of which are mentioned anywhere in that document), etc.? - LA

He doesn't sound too torn about cuts in defense spending. Additionally, not one single person has lamented the cuts saying anything along the lines of, 'we can't kill as many people and blow up as much stuff.' So the strawman you've presented is none other than the famous mythical Republican stereotype that only exists in the minds and blogs of radical leftists.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I'll quote LA from the OP:

Now that Defense (a Federal function authorized by the Constitution) has been cut, when can we expect to see matching cuts in Social Security, Medicare, OSHA, EPA, ATFE (none of which are mentioned anywhere in that document), etc.? - LA

He doesn't sound too torn about cuts in defense spending. Additionally, not one single person has lamented the cuts saying anything along the lines of, 'we can't kill as many people and blow up as much stuff.' So the strawman you've presented is none other than the famous mythical Republican stereotype that only exists in the minds and blogs of radical leftists.

Such Bull, I guess you can't recall 8 years of Republicans crying about Clinton Reducing the Military ....followed by more after Sept 11 saying we should have had more spending the whole time...before they went and spent as much as possible.......But I guess that never happened...Republicans have always been very vocal about there support for a smaller less expensive Military....

and if you believe that, you should just stop posting...

 

[GenSeneca]

Republicans have always been very vocal about there support for a smaller less expensive Military...

Name one person on the forum who has said we should be spending more, not less, on our military... one... Or just admit that you were talking about a stereotype and not an actual forum member when you said:

You must be torn by your love of cutting spending verses your love of expensive things to blow up things and kill. - Pocket

Tell us... Which forum member were you referring to?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I was talking about the Right in General...for the last 50 years. Less goverment, more Military...name the last time the Republican party pushed for less Military...

Don't worry, I am sure when the time comes and the right wingers on here get there Fox talking points...they will scream that Obama is killing weak on the Defense for not spending enough.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

The US has spent a trillion dollars murdering innocent people in the middle east.

It was initiated by the semi literate alcoholic lunastic Bush and Rumsfled and Cheyney massive increased spending on all sorts of mad military projects esp star wars.

Is that a reduction in spending on the military

 

[dogtowner]

Such Bull, I guess you can't recall 8 years of Republicans crying about Clinton Reducing the Military ....followed by more after Sept 11 saying we should have had more spending the whole time...before they went and spent as much as possible.......But I guess that never happened...Republicans have always been very vocal about there support for a smaller less expensive Military....

and if you believe that, you should just stop posting...

thats why I wondered if this was really a cut or just a temporary expense ending.

 

[GenSeneca]

I was talking about the Right in General...

In other words, you were attacking a Strawman... Just as I said.

Fallacy: The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.​