Senate Approves $612 Billion Defense Spending Bill

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

Amid all the recent insanity surrounding this $700 billion bailout, you may have missed this sweet bill that was recently approved…

Why stop there? Go all out and approve $1 trillion…maybe $2 trillion for an even number. Who cares right? They’ll just print more!

Weeeeeeeeeeeeee

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080917/pl_nm/usa_defense_senate_dc

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

As passed by the Senate on an 88-8 vote, the bill 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.

The bill shifts more of the costs of Iraq’s reconstruction onto Baghdad. It also imposes further restrictions on contractor personnel working in Iraq, including prohibitions on interrogations and the performance of “inherently governmental functions” in combat.

The bill must now be reconciled with the version passed by the House of Representatives on May 22.

2

That’s disgusting! I had totally missed this.
We’re throwing money we DON’T HAVE down the drain.

FUBAR

3

[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
Amid all the recent insanity surrounding this $700 billion bailout, you may have missed this sweet bill that was recently approved…

Why stop there? Go all out and approve $1 trillion…maybe $2 trillion for an even number. Who cares right? They’ll just print more!

Weeeeeeeeeeeeee

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080917/pl_nm/usa_defense_senate_dc

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

As passed by the Senate on an 88-8 vote, the bill 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.

The bill shifts more of the costs of Iraq’s reconstruction onto Baghdad. It also imposes further restrictions on contractor personnel working in Iraq, including prohibitions on interrogations and the performance of “inherently governmental functions” in combat.

The bill must now be reconciled with the version passed by the House of Representatives on May 22.[/quote]

You’re kidding right? I think we could reduce spending for sure, and I think the war should be ended, but you should be thankful that we spend as much as we do on defense. The second our military becomes trivial we lose all influence on the international stage. Look at Russia for an example…

The fact that it passes 88-8 AND was for more than asked for should tell you something.

4

this is money that is actually “budgeted” for. I am sure there is just as much waste as in other programs but it’s actually consitutionally supported spending.

5

(sarcasm on)Oh no!!! Don’t tell me the senate approved funds for our countries national defense. That money could have been better spent funding welfare and other social programs.(sarcasm off)

6

[quote]snipeout wrote:
(sarcasm on)Oh no!!! Don’t tell me the senate approved funds for our countries national defense. That money could have been better spent funding welfare and other social programs.(sarcasm off)[/quote]

Uhhh…where is this money coming from.

Besides, I’d rather feed hungry grandmothers and babies than drop bombs on brown people.

7

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
snipeout wrote:
(sarcasm on)Oh no!!! Don’t tell me the senate approved funds for our countries national defense. That money could have been better spent funding welfare and other social programs.(sarcasm off)

Uhhh…where is this money coming from.

Besides, I’d rather feed hungry grandmothers and babies than drop bombs on brown people.[/quote]

I’d rather the government spend money it is constitutionally obligated to instead of playing wet nurse to a bunch of lazy fucks and supporting yet another worthless, money draining bureaucracy.

If you want to feed hungry grandmothers and babies - who the fuck is stopping you? I spend plenty of money helping to feed hungry people - not counting the black hole of government programs I am punitively forced to support.

8

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
snipeout wrote:
(sarcasm on)Oh no!!! Don’t tell me the senate approved funds for our countries national defense. That money could have been better spent funding welfare and other social programs.(sarcasm off)

Uhhh…where is this money coming from.

Besides, I’d rather feed hungry grandmothers and babies than drop bombs on brown people.[/quote]

We all know there is a huge deficit, the reason there is a huge deficit is because of over spending.

In my opinion as far out of control as the fed govt has gotten their main function is defense of this country and protection of its citizens.

Maybe if we got rid of alot of these entitlement programs we wouldn’t be so far in the red. Since when did it become governments responsibility to care for everyone thats to lazy to get a job or to stupid to do some forward thinking and save towards retirement?

9

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
snipeout wrote:
(sarcasm on)Oh no!!! Don’t tell me the senate approved funds for our countries national defense. That money could have been better spent funding welfare and other social programs.(sarcasm off)

Uhhh…where is this money coming from.

Besides, I’d rather feed hungry grandmothers and babies than drop bombs on brown people.[/quote]

Then go ahead and feed them. No one is stopping you or anyone else from feeding hungry grandmothers.

10

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Then go ahead and feed them. No one is stopping you or anyone else from feeding hungry grandmothers.[/quote]

I’m just stating my preference if I had a choice what my money were to be spent on. I don’t get to choose when it comes to how my money should be spent on defense.

11

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Then go ahead and feed them. No one is stopping you or anyone else from feeding hungry grandmothers.

I’m just stating my preference if I had a choice what my money were to be spent on. I don’t get to choose when it comes to how my money should be spent on defense.[/quote]

Spending money on defense is what we are supposed to do according to the constitution. Social programs are not mentioned in the constitution.

You might have forgotten or never learned, but it goes like this: We the People of the Unite States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, for ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.

now the rest of it specifically spells stuff out. It doesn’t say free health care, money for lazy asses that could work but don’t because they’re lazy asses, bailing out banks who made stupid loans and dumbasses who took out the loans.

But it does call for defense spending. Funny how all the libs love all the things that it doesn’t call for spending money on and hate the thing that we are supposed to spend on.

12

[quote]tom63 wrote:
But it does call for defense spending. Funny how all the libs love all the things that it doesn’t call for spending money on and hate the thing that we are supposed to spend on.
[/quote]

8 senators voted against this, and only 2 of them were democrats (Byrd and Feingold).

13

Why someone would stard a thread that defense spending is a BAD thing must live in Berkely, or la la land.

Our nuts will be totally cut off when Obama takes office, we will all be forced to learn French and how to say Pock-E-Ston correctly so as not to offend others.

14

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Why someone would stard a thread that defense spending is a BAD thing must live in Berkely, or la la land.

Our nuts will be totally cut off when Obama takes office, we will all be forced to learn French and how to say Pock-E-Ston correctly so as not to offend others.[/quote]

Why? Do you think that Obama wants to reduce the military budget?

15

[quote]Gael wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
Why someone would stard a thread that defense spending is a BAD thing must live in Berkely, or la la land.

Our nuts will be totally cut off when Obama takes office, we will all be forced to learn French and how to say Pock-E-Ston correctly so as not to offend others.

Why? Do you think that Obama wants to reduce the military budget?[/quote]

He vowed on camera to reduce military spending and totally cut military development. so… Yes.

16

[quote]tom63 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Then go ahead and feed them. No one is stopping you or anyone else from feeding hungry grandmothers.

I’m just stating my preference if I had a choice what my money were to be spent on. I don’t get to choose when it comes to how my money should be spent on defense.

Spending money on defense is what we are supposed to do according to the constitution. Social programs are not mentioned in the constitution.

You might have forgotten or never learned, but it goes like this: We the People of the Unite States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, for ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.

now the rest of it specifically spells stuff out. It doesn’t say free health care, money for lazy asses that could work but don’t because they’re lazy asses, bailing out banks who made stupid loans and dumbasses who took out the loans.

But it does call for defense spending. Funny how all the libs love all the things that it doesn’t call for spending money on and hate the thing that we are supposed to spend on.

[/quote]

Question for you. What does “insure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general welfare” mean to you? Since you brought this up. Just curious.

17

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
tom63 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Then go ahead and feed them. No one is stopping you or anyone else from feeding hungry grandmothers.

I’m just stating my preference if I had a choice what my money were to be spent on. I don’t get to choose when it comes to how my money should be spent on defense.

Spending money on defense is what we are supposed to do according to the constitution. Social programs are not mentioned in the constitution.

You might have forgotten or never learned, but it goes like this: We the People of the Unite States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, for ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.

now the rest of it specifically spells stuff out. It doesn’t say free health care, money for lazy asses that could work but don’t because they’re lazy asses, bailing out banks who made stupid loans and dumbasses who took out the loans.

But it does call for defense spending. Funny how all the libs love all the things that it doesn’t call for spending money on and hate the thing that we are supposed to spend on.

Question for you. What does “insure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general welfare” mean to you? Since you brought this up. Just curious.[/quote]

Exactly what it says, to me. It does not say to take from many to give to the few. General welfare is the general welfare of the states, not the general welfare of a single person or select few. They are certainly not promoting my general welfare when they take 40% of my salary.

18

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
tom63 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Then go ahead and feed them. No one is stopping you or anyone else from feeding hungry grandmothers.

I’m just stating my preference if I had a choice what my money were to be spent on. I don’t get to choose when it comes to how my money should be spent on defense.

Spending money on defense is what we are supposed to do according to the constitution. Social programs are not mentioned in the constitution.

You might have forgotten or never learned, but it goes like this: We the People of the Unite States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, for ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.

now the rest of it specifically spells stuff out. It doesn’t say free health care, money for lazy asses that could work but don’t because they’re lazy asses, bailing out banks who made stupid loans and dumbasses who took out the loans.

But it does call for defense spending. Funny how all the libs love all the things that it doesn’t call for spending money on and hate the thing that we are supposed to spend on.

Question for you. What does “insure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general welfare” mean to you? Since you brought this up. Just curious.[/quote]

I think he was just alluding to the Constitution in general, not specifically the preamble. Article 1 Section 8 covers defense spending pretty well.

Some lines taken directly from Sec. 8:
[i]The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States

To raise and support armies

To provide and maintain a navy

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States[/i]

19

[quote]tom63 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Then go ahead and feed them. No one is stopping you or anyone else from feeding hungry grandmothers.

I’m just stating my preference if I had a choice what my money were to be spent on. I don’t get to choose when it comes to how my money should be spent on defense.

Spending money on defense is what we are supposed to do according to the constitution. Social programs are not mentioned in the constitution.

You might have forgotten or never learned, but it goes like this: We the People of the Unite States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, for ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.

now the rest of it specifically spells stuff out. It doesn’t say free health care, money for lazy asses that could work but don’t because they’re lazy asses, bailing out banks who made stupid loans and dumbasses who took out the loans.

But it does call for defense spending. Funny how all the libs love all the things that it doesn’t call for spending money on and hate the thing that we are supposed to spend on.

[/quote]

I don’t care about the constitution any more.

The Declaration of Independence is all that matters.

20

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Gael wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
Why someone would stard a thread that defense spending is a BAD thing must live in Berkely, or la la land.

Our nuts will be totally cut off when Obama takes office, we will all be forced to learn French and how to say Pock-E-Ston correctly so as not to offend others.

Why? Do you think that Obama wants to reduce the military budget?

He vowed on camera to reduce military spending and totally cut military development. so… Yes. [/quote]

When did he say that? I’ve heard him say cut our spending in Iraq and make them pay for things out of their $78 billion dollar surplus and get the troops out of harms way, but never what you just said.