Mon Mar 4, 2013, 05:27 PM
Purveyor (13,424 posts)
Republicans Unveil Government Funding Bill That Would Boost Military Readiness, Protect FBI
Source: Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Republicans controlling the House moved Monday to give the Pentagon more money for military readiness while easing the pain felt by such agencies as the FBI and the Border Patrol from the across-the-board spending cuts that are just starting to take effect. The effort is part of a huge spending measure that would fund day-to-day federal operations through September - and head off a potential government shutdown later this month. The measure would leave in place automatic cuts of 5 per cent to domestic agencies and 7.8 per cent to the Pentagon ordered by President Barack Obama Friday night after months of battling with Republicans over the budget. But the House Republicans' legislation would award the Defence and Veterans Affairs departments their detailed 2013 budgets while other agencies would be frozen at 2012 levels - and then bear the across-the-board cuts. --CLIP After accounting for the across-the-board cuts, domestic agencies would face reductions exceeding 5 per cent when compared with last year. But Republicans would carve out a host of exemptions seeking to protect certain functions, including federal prisons and fire-fighting efforts in the West, and to provide new funding for embassy security and modernizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The FBI and the Border Patrol would be able to maintain current staffing levels and would not have to furlough employees. Read more: http://www.medicinehatnews.com/business/republicans-unveil-government-funding-bill-that-would-boost-military-readiness-protect-fbi-20130304.html
|
19 replies, 1589 views
| Author | Time | Post | |
| Purveyor | Mar 2013 | OP | |
| John2 | Mar 2013 | #1 | |
| MyshkinCommaPrince | Mar 2013 | #2 | |
| John2 | Mar 2013 | #17 | |
| Smilo | Mar 2013 | #3 | |
| Oldenuff | Mar 2013 | #19 | |
| Comrade Grumpy | Mar 2013 | #4 | |
| Blue Idaho | Mar 2013 | #5 | |
| Roy Rolling | Mar 2013 | #7 | |
| yourout | Mar 2013 | #6 | |
| cbrer | Mar 2013 | #8 | |
| wandy | Mar 2013 | #9 | |
| kelliekat44 | Mar 2013 | #10 | |
| Plucketeer | Mar 2013 | #11 | |
| Plucketeer | Mar 2013 | #12 | |
| msongs | Mar 2013 | #13 | |
| forestpath | Mar 2013 | #14 | |
| frylock | Mar 2013 | #15 | |
| cstanleytech | Mar 2013 | #16 | |
| OnyxCollie | Mar 2013 | #18 |
Response to Purveyor (Original post)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 05:49 PM
John2 (1,962 posts)
1. So how does this work?
|
Does this Bill override the Sequester or amend the Sequester? Why don't they just get rid of the Sequester period instead of nit picking what they want? I think that is very underhanded by the Republicans and veto the Bill. Then I would explain to the public exactly what the Republicans are doing. Either repeal the Sequester altogether or abide by the law. That should be their only option.
|
Response to Purveyor (Original post)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 06:02 PM
MyshkinCommaPrince (429 posts)
2. Trying to shift blame.
|
Republicans don't want military cuts. They may or may not want this to pass, but I suspect that if it fails they want to use it to shift the dialogue. Democrats alone will then be blamed for military cuts taking place, since Repugs put on a show of trying to prevent those cuts from happening. And the media will give that perspective plenty of coverage. Some of the public, at least, may be successfully confused about where to lay blame for the sequester and its fallout. I think this is a dodge to shift blame, and they don't expect it to pass.
|
Response to MyshkinCommaPrince (Reply #2)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 09:07 PM
John2 (1,962 posts)
17. The President still
|
has the Bully pulpit and I would use it if I was the President. It trumps the media. If they got in the fight to try and influence Public Policy, so be it. If it was me, I would be glad to set the media straight once and for all. It is a play right out of the Republicans' and Ronald Reagan's own play book.
|
Response to Purveyor (Original post)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 06:07 PM
Smilo (1,893 posts)
3. Just more fear from the right
|
bbbbbut we need our DOD - Iceland may attack at any moment.
Nice touch saying DOD and adding in the VA/snark. Tough - GOPT - we don't need more spent money on the military - we need less. In fact the whole darned military needs a good house cleaning. If Obama goes along with this he might as well give them everything - because these are the bullet point items the GOPT really want. |
Response to Smilo (Reply #3)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 11:53 PM
Oldenuff (493 posts)
19. I wish they would stop calling it Defense...
|
It hasn't been Defense in eons.Call it what it is.Department of Offense....and the sheeple of this country love to be fooled into shoveling acres of money into the abyss of the Military Industrial Complex.
|
Response to Purveyor (Original post)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 06:14 PM
Comrade Grumpy (3,716 posts)
4. Typical GOP: Money for wars and cops, everyone else doesn't matter.
Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #4)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 06:24 PM
Blue Idaho (1,097 posts)
5. Typical GOP - avoid blame at all costs.
|
All republican legislation can be boiled down to a finger pointing exercise.
Party Hacks not Patriots. |
Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #4)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 06:35 PM
Roy Rolling (1,016 posts)
7. Yeah you right
|
Money for wars and cops. Money to put people in jail. No money for teachers, kids, the hungry, and the poor.
Morons |
Response to Purveyor (Original post)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 06:31 PM
yourout (6,161 posts)
6. Not just...no. FUCK NO.
|
It's everything or nothing bitches.
|
Response to Purveyor (Original post)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 06:47 PM
cbrer (1,831 posts)
8. Political Maneuvering for 2016
|
We have the strongest, most viable, most robust Army in the world. The FBI is busy creating "terrorist attacks". The Border Patrol are unnecessarily overstaffed.
But if Liberals come out against these bills, they'll be painted as weak and soft. Budget cuts in the necessary departments, in the necessary amounts are NOT going to happen. This maneuvering is going to cost "we the people" very dearly in the near future. |
Response to Purveyor (Original post)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 06:49 PM
wandy (1,754 posts)
9. Just taking care of the people who pay them.....
|
Homless mothers, hungry children, you or I. What do we pay them.
Tax dollars that contribut to their salery? What a joke. A pintance when compaired to donations from their benifactors. Opeanly shamless. 2014: Get the vermin out of the house. |
Response to Purveyor (Original post)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 06:53 PM
kelliekat44 (1,390 posts)
10. I hope the Dems stick together on this. The "soft on terroism" meme no longer works for GOP
|
The President must stand up to these worthless bullies.
|
Response to Purveyor (Original post)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 07:12 PM
Plucketeer (6,327 posts)
11. OF COURSE! - OF COURSE! - OF COURSE!
|
What we need ABOVE ALL ELSE is SECURITY! Security and our mercenary forces and let the rest fend for itself.
|
Response to Purveyor (Original post)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 07:16 PM
Plucketeer (6,327 posts)
12. MAy I also say....
|
I do not hate this country. I just am sickeningly disgusted with the crew of belligerent gremlins led by Bay-nerd and McCONell. And some of the ones with a (D) next to their name? That letter could righteously stand for DUMMY as much as Democrat!
|
Response to Purveyor (Original post)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 07:26 PM
msongs (30,790 posts)
13. in a bipartisan response, democrats agree to end social security and medicare. repubs STILL balk nt
Response to Purveyor (Original post)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 07:47 PM
frylock (19,317 posts)
15. if the military isn't ready with all the jack we throw their way, they never will be
Response to frylock (Reply #15)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 07:55 PM
cstanleytech (5,487 posts)
16. Not to mention its 3x what the other world superpowers combined spend. nt
Response to Purveyor (Original post)
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 09:08 PM
OnyxCollie (6,739 posts)
18. If I was cynical,
|
I would say that this is Republicans tipping their hand to the forthcoming false flag terrorist attack to usher in our new austerity/police state.
But I'm not cynical. |

