Pentagon to cut spending by $78 billion, reduce troop strength.

[PoliticAverse]

Source: Washington Post

The Pentagon will have to cut spending by $78 billion over the next five years, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Thursday, forcing the Army and Marine Corps to shrink the number of troops on active duty and eventually imposing the first freeze on military spending since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/06/AR2011010603628.html?hpid=topnews

[MannyGoldstein]

1. 3% of their budget

A small price to pay in exchange for being able to say "See! We cut military spending, now we have to cut Social Security... I have to, I'm being held hostage... it's all the Professional Left's fault..."

[emulatorloo]

8. No offense Manny but that is a non-sequitur.

The political reality is that most people (including teabaggers) think cutting Social Security for deficit reduction is a very bad idea.



As to Washington, Simpson's dumb-ass report couldn't get enough votes to certify it, and most Dems on the committee came down hard on the notion of cutting SS. (I don;t know what the f*ck was up with Dick Durbin, but that is probably a whole nother thread)

I know there are a lot of speculative pieces on FireDogLake and elsewhere. But for what it is worth every time I have seen some of those authors on the Lawrence O'Donnell show, they don't seem that well informed.

On the other hand I'm still calling my reps and Senators to remind them of what a VERY BAD IDEA this would be

[bossy22]

10. the best deficit reduction

is job creation

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Oh, it'll happen - I'm taking bets on it

"Democrats" will say "we had to - we were held hostage" and Republicans will just boast that they got 'er done.

[emulatorloo]

13. It is political suicide. For Republicans as well.

[MannyGoldstein]

14. Why? Realistically, we'll either vote for Republicans or Democrats

The Dems will say "we tried, sorry" - they believe that's worked every time. And the Republican backers will buy into the "shared-sacrifice/government-sucks" nonsense.

Obama really, really wants to cut Social Security - there's no other explanation for appointing the two most accomplished attackers of Social Security to lead the commission to recommend ways to "be responsible".

[emulatorloo]

19. "there's no other explanation" - how about this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x122865#123521

inna - I wonder why the fuck Obama went out of his way to create that dumbass commission

----------

thelordofhell - Because it took SS out of the republican mantra for 2 years

That commission was a brilliant move. The repigs couldn't bring up whacking SS because the response was, "Well we have a commission looking at that.....and other things."

Now that the commission is done and couldn't make any recommendations, President Obama can now cherry pick other suggestions made like raising the cap or cutting defense spending and point to the commission for making those suggestions.

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

[MannyGoldstein]

21. I'm willing to bet cash on this

I think it's a done deal.

[emulatorloo]

24. Betting cash on "Obama's Secret Plan To Destroy America"?

I am not going to bother pointing out to you that there is nothing in Obama's career in the Illinois State House, the US Senate, or the Presidency that indicates "Obama really, really wants to cut Social Security"

Now you may find some dumbass 'speculation' in a blog by somebody using debunked "facts" to create a Tea-Leaf reading about "Obama's Secret Plan" But don't confuse wild speculation for fact.

That being said, I am STILL going to call my reps and Senators and tell them what a SERIOUS MISTAKE they would be making if they consider this.

P.S, ON EDIT

Just saw your thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x129975

THAT IS A TERRIFIC IDEA.

[MannyGoldstein]

25. Simpson and Bowles

Congress rejected setting up that commission, but Obama picked it up and appointed the two nastiest people imaginable. Since I've yet to see evidence that anything Obama does is 4-dimensional chess, I gotta go with he's trying to cut it.

Plus, on at least three occasions, Obama's parroted the fringe-right lie that FDR did not start Social Security for retirees - this is a set-up to be able to say that it's not being used as originally intended so we need to adjust it.

[emulatorloo]

26. What was the context of those statements? Can you point to them?

Are you sure you aren't reading something into them that he is not actually saying?

As you well know Social Security has evolved historically. I can buy he said something about that evolution, I do no buy he was "Repeating Republican Talking Points"

Additionally, the notion that Obama is suddenly going to go all "Strict Constructionist" on us seems pretty far out. He has never been a strict constructionist.

So you think he is going to argue that Women and Minorities should be left out because that's not FDR's version?


(As far as I can tell Simpson and Bowles were loose cannons - again they did not listen to the committee they did whatever the fuck they wanted)

[MannyGoldstein]

29. Here

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/dec/08/barack-obama/barack-obama-description-how-social-security-medic/

And on Jon Stewart:

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/10/28/obama-incorrectly-tells-jon-stewart-social-security-was-originally-wi

(Nasty source, I know - but you can easily find the video, Newsbusters is right)

I can dig up the third instance if you want - let me know.

Most of the commission voted in favor of what Simpson and Bowles suggested.

[emulatorloo]

30. Thanks Manny, big ass factual error -I want you to note that his point was that the programs EVOLVED

that the evolution was a good thing. That's the kind of thing that Republicans scream bloody murder about, this notion that laws and programs can and should evolve.

(Dumbass fact mistake that is for sure.)

[but the report was not certified and the Dems voting against it were very straightforward about the unacceptability of cutting Social Security.

[MannyGoldstein]

31. Dumbass mistake by accident three times?

It's not a small error. Social Security started out as a huge, huge program, and it started out specifically for retirees. It evolved, but it was 80% (or something like that) of its eventual size at the start.

Obama's a very, very smart guy, and he's surrounded by hundreds of people looking at every word he says. Do you think that he could really make a mistake like this three times?

Also - Dick Durbin voted in favor of Simpson & Bowle's fuck-working-Americans-o-rama.

[Bigmack]

2. That's fucking insulting! ....

We simply cannot afford an Empire.. and these supposedly intelligent people - both parties - refuse to see it.

[Kolesar]

3. 14% cut in five years. Gates had previously said that there would be no cuts

Only terminations of unneeded spending like the F-22 and the huge command structure in Germany.

[bossy22]

5. its not actually a "cut"

its a reduction in potential spendint...in reality the defense budget could increase over those years- just by very little though

[PoliticAverse]

7. Right. It's a reduction of an increase.

"The Pentagon will see a short-term boost in its budget next year to about $554 billion, excluding the cost of fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. After that, however, annual spending increases will dwindle until they flatten completely in 2015 and 2016, with no extra money beyond the rate of inflation."

[bossy22]

9. which in reality is the smartest way to go

it gives the pentagon a chance to work out a new structure instead of imposing one on them.

but again we must remember that congress can turn this around and shove more money into these programs. I wouldnt be surprised if the budget proposal for next year does reach 566 billion with all the add-ons congress loves. I foresee the EFV still being funded (though maybe only with the idea in mind to purchase 200) and with continued production of the C-17

[MannyGoldstein]

6. 14%? How do you figure?

Spending this year is $685B. This is a cut of less than $20B per year. That's less than 3%.

[soryang]

16. Right, if you look at the budget just passed...

...it's about two percent. But's who's counting? They are going to increase troop levels in Afghanistan a little and start deploying troops in Pakistan both extremely expensive and pointless efforts.

Gates is doing some tactical PR to offset these increased and insane commitments with no end in sight.

[PoliticAverse]

4. Reductions aren't happening til 2015.

Which gives them plenty of time to be undone.

[WCGreen]

12. Over five years.....

Five years....

Watch, they'll get around it by limiting itto "growth"...

[L0oniX]

15. This is BULL SHIT! They know there's a backlash coming and this is pure pre-emptive psych.

Mean while they are sending another 1400 troops over there.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." - Dwight Eisenhower

That worst outcrop of herd life, the military system, which I abhor . . . This plague-spot of civilization ought to be abolished with all possible speed. Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism–how passionately I hate them! – Albert Einstein

[Marblehead]

17. how about

$2 trillion they lost(announced the day before 9-11)and the $9 billion lost in iraq(chump change in comparison)

[AtheistCrusader]

18. Guarantee the 'unveiling' of a 'potential competitor' to the F-22 built by China yesterday, is no co

incidence.

[unkachuck]

20. "...to cut spending by $78 billion over the next five years..."

....what is that, 15 billion a year?

....that's chump change....the pentagon probably spends more than a year on toothpicks....

....are we still in Iraq? Are we still in Afghanistan? Why? Those are trillion dollar black-holes....

....excuse me, I forgot, we're making the pukes, corporations and their filthy owners rich....Americas' number one job!

[Tx4obama]

22. Pentagon Defense Cut

Source: Politico

DEFENSE CUT: President Obama on Thursday issued an order allowing the Pentagon to abolish the U.S. Joint Forces Command. Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced in August that he planned to shut down the command in Norfolk, Va., which employs some 5,000 people, as a cost-cutting measure. But the proposal has run into opposition in Congress, particularly from Virginia members.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/politico44/wbarchive/whiteboard01062011.html

[postalanthrax]

23. It's only a "defense cut" when the Pentagon Budget is reduced.

You can't claim to be cutting the defense budget when they still get the money.

Turning the lights out and removing the placard from the doors of an empty bldg doesn't equal "cutting defense"

[Tx4obama]

28. It is not a budget cut it is a program cut. My OP shouldn't have been combined on this thread. n/t

[freshwest]

27. I understand the skepticism, but still glad to see a turn from the madness.