House OKs $642 billion defense bill

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Aug 27, 2008
18,450
1,823
205
The House on Friday passed a $642 billion defense bill that abandons the deficit-cutting agreement that President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans backed last summer.

On a 299-120 vote, lawmakers backed the spending blueprint that adds $8 billion for the military for next year. The bill calls for a missile defense site on the East Coast that the military opposes and restricts the ability of the president to reduce the arsenal of nuclear weapons under a 2010 treaty with Russia. It also preserves ships and aircraft that the Pentagon wanted to retire in a cost-cutting move.

The Associated Press: House OKs $642 billion defense bill

My question is, if Republicans are unwilling to give up their sacred cow, military spending, then why should Democrats give up theirs, welfare spending?

However, the most depressing part is this:

Earlier Friday, the House reaffirmed the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists, even of U.S. citizens captured on American soil.

A coalition of Democrats and tea party Republicans fell short in their effort to end the controversial policy established last year and based on the post-Sept. 11 authorization for the use of military force that allows indefinite detention of enemy combatants.

The House rejected an amendment by Reps. Adam Smith, D-Wash., and Justin Amash, R-Mich., that would have barred indefinite detention and rolled back mandatory military custody. The vote was 238-182.

"The frightening thing here is that the government is claiming the power under the Afghanistan authorization for use of military force as a justification for entering American homes to grab people, indefinitely detain them and not give them a charge or trial," Amash said during hours of House debate.

The policy's supporters argued that ending it would weaken national security and coddle terrorists.

Here's the roll call for the Smith-Amash amendment.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll270.xml

For those who argue that the language in the NDAA did not originally permit indefinite detention of American citizens in the first place, then why not pass this amendment to make it absolutely clear?
 
Unreal.

The people braying about spending..just put together a bill that spends more.

Bunch of lousy hypocrites.

Big government RINOs don't bray about spending, only about spending on programs they don't like.

Libertarians do the most braying about spending...and we stand against this bill along with all the other unnecessary, unconstitutional and ultimately harmful spending.

As to the "coalition of Democrats and tea party Republicans" that fell short of stopping the bill, I commend their efforts. Now if we could just get the Democrats to join the Libertarians and Tea Party fiscal conservatives to support spending less on anything other than just the military, we'd have ourselves a future.
 
Unreal.

The people braying about spending..just put together a bill that spends more.

Bunch of lousy hypocrites.

Big government RINOs don't bray about spending, only about spending on programs they don't like.

Libertarians do the most braying about spending...and we stand against this bill along with all the other unnecessary, unconstitutional and ultimately harmful spending.

As to the "coalition of Democrats and tea party Republicans" that fell short of stopping the bill, I commend their efforts. Now if we could just get the Democrats to join the Libertarians and Tea Party fiscal conservatives to support spending less on anything other than just the military, we'd have ourselves a future.

While I am not big on cutting social services..getting rid of waste and inefficiencies is in everyone's best interest. Which is perplexing that a good many people were upset with Obama's "cuts" to Medicare..which was essentially meant to do that.

I sat on a jury trial of a pharmacist charged with using scripts to steal money. It was a complex scheme that was broken by a partnership of police and medicare fraud investigators. I would like to see more of that..and less of the crime.
 
My question is, if Republicans are unwilling to give up their sacred cow, military spending, then why should Democrats give up theirs, welfare spending?
You're absolutely right!
Earlier Friday, the House reaffirmed the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists, even of U.S. citizens captured on American soil.
For those who argue that the language in the NDAA did not originally permit indefinite detention of American citizens in the first place, then why not pass this amendment to make it absolutely clear?
Answer: Because the Gov't (and the Bankers that control them) WANT it in there! :lol:
 
Unreal.

The people braying about spending..just put together a bill that spends more.

Bunch of lousy hypocrites.

Big government RINOs don't bray about spending, only about spending on programs they don't like.

Libertarians do the most braying about spending...and we stand against this bill along with all the other unnecessary, unconstitutional and ultimately harmful spending.

As to the "coalition of Democrats and tea party Republicans" that fell short of stopping the bill, I commend their efforts. Now if we could just get the Democrats to join the Libertarians and Tea Party fiscal conservatives to support spending less on anything other than just the military, we'd have ourselves a future.

McConnel and Rand got their pork for the Gaseous Diffusion plant in Paducah, KY.
 
My question is, if Republicans are unwilling to give up their sacred cow, military spending, then why should Democrats give up theirs, welfare spending?
You're absolutely right!
Earlier Friday, the House reaffirmed the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists, even of U.S. citizens captured on American soil.
For those who argue that the language in the NDAA did not originally permit indefinite detention of American citizens in the first place, then why not pass this amendment to make it absolutely clear?
Answer: Because the Gov't (and the Bankers that control them) WANT it in there! :lol:

Exactly. Even if it were only ambiguous, which it isn't, they want that ambiguity so they can argue later that that's exactly what it means despite saying that it doesn't now.
 
Does that include amounts for other countries such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. or is that just for the U.S. military?...
:confused:
House Approves Massive $606 Billion Military Spending Bill
July 19, 2012 : 326-90 Vote Avoids Making Any Meaningful Cuts to Spending
The realities of budget problems and huge Pentagon budgets appear to be lost on the House of Representatives. In a 326-90 vote, the House passed another massive military spending bill, approving another $606 billion in spending.

Budget cuts weren’t the order of the day. Indeed, some weapons programs that the Pentagon had hoped to get rid of were re-funded by the bill, and cuts in direct war spending were replaced with a massive increase to a “contingency operations” budget, to be set aside for other wars that the president might start between now and the end of Fiscal 2013.

The only spending not approved were things not proposed in the first place, bans on military aid to Iran and Syria, and barring funds from being used in relation to certain Russian companies. Perhaps the oddest move was that exactly two months after the House itself had ended the military’s NASCAR sponsorships, they decided to put them back in. It was one of the few close votes of the day, with 216 voting against keeping the ban in place and 202 wanting it to stay.

All in all the bill weighed in at several billion dollars more than the Pentagon had sought in the first place, and even further than that above the “spending cap” they were supposed to adhere to. The bill is likely to face another major battle in the Senate, though there seems to be little appetite in either house of Congress for meaningful cuts.

Source

See also:

Obama Adds $70 Million to Israel Military Aid
July 27, 2011 — President Barack Obama has committed another $70 million in U.S. military aid for Israel. The president has been concentrating heavily on Israel, as his likely election opponent prepares to visit Jerusalem.
Obama said Friday the additional military aid will help Israel expand a system called Iron Dome, which has blocked rocket attacks by Palestinian militants in Gaza. “This is a program that has been critical, in terms of providing security and safety for Israeli families. It is a program that has been tested, and has prevented missile strikes inside of Israel,” said the president. The new funding for Iron Dome is in addition to $205 million approved for the program last year. The $70 million addition was announced in May.

The president said last week’s deadly attack on Israeli tourists in Bulgaria underscores the need for more U.S. support for Israeli defense. “The tragic events that we saw in Bulgaria emphasize the degree to which this continues to be a challenge, not just for Israel, but for the entire world - preventing terrorist attacks and making sure that the people of Israel are not targeted,” said Obama. The president also signed legislation increasing overall civilian and military cooperation with Israel. “In many ways, what this legislation does is bring together all the outstanding cooperation that we have seen, really at an unprecedented level between our two countries, to underscore our unshakable commitment to Israel’s security,” said Obama.

The president spoke just before likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney visits Israel. The former Massachusetts governor is to meet Sunday with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Romney has vigorously criticized Obama’s policy toward Israel. At the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention earlier this week, Romney said the president has not shown Israeli leaders enough respect. “He has undermined their position, which was tough enough as it was, and even at the United Nations, to the enthusiastic applause of Israel’s enemies, he spoke as if our closest ally in the Middle East was the problem.”

The Obama administration has focused a great deal of attention lately on Israel. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan all have visited the Jewish state in the past two weeks. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is to visit Israel on Monday to discuss Iran’s nuclear program and the unrest in Egypt and Syria. A White House official said this week the president will visit Israel next year if he is elected to a second term. Obama stopped in Israel during his 2008 campaign, but has not visited since he took office. Both the president and Romney are seeking support from Jewish voters, but recent polls show that a majority of Jews plan to vote Democratic in November.

Source]
 
Calls for planes that the military do not want?

Pork for the MIC.
Pure and simple.

Never trust a republican to keep a deal they make.

so it's only rebuplicans you piss on w/o full disclosure of your left up the butt pals....raise taxes in a recession.. follows...less purchasing power for alll..... and so how do you grow out of that....got to have the confidence about small business, period.
 
Defense spending is Constitutional. Welfare, meh, not so much.

Having said that, I am totally up for a review of defense spending so that it is focused on what the military need in order to protect the nation. I am against lining the pockets of the private sector by using the military as an excuse for corporate greed.
 
House OKs $642 billion defense bill

That’s the price of fear these days, the fear of non-existent ‘enemies’ and ‘terrorism.’

For those who argue that the language in the NDAA did not originally permit indefinite detention of American citizens in the first place, then why not pass this amendment to make it absolutely clear?

Perhaps because the NDAA never authorized citizen detention in the first place:

The NDAA is really a codification in statute of the existing authority the administration claims. It puts Congress’s stamp of approval behind that claim for the first time, and that’s no small thing. But it does not—notwithstanding the widespread belief to the contrary—expand it. Nobody who is not subject to detention today will become so when the NDAA goes into effect.

Lawfare › NDAA FAQ: A Guide for the Perplexed

But it’s more likely fearful lawmakers not wanting to look ‘weak on terror.’

And a Federal judge ruled this May that the ‘counterterrorism provision’ of the Act is un-Constitutional on First Amendment grounds.

Federal district Judge Katherine B. Forrest issued an injunction against use of the provision on behalf of a group of journalists and activists who had filed suit in March, claiming it would chill free speech.

Federal judge blocks National Defense Authorization Act provision - Los Angeles Times
If any American or LPRA is detained on ‘terrorism’ charges, he’ll have access to habeas and an attorney.

Again, the ‘villain’ in this saga isn’t Congress or the Administration, it’s the fearful, ignorance American voter who willingly abdicates his liberty for the illusion of security.
 
Exactly what is being defended?

The true interests of real Americans is only endangered by most of this bellicose excess.
 

Forum List

Back
Top