First off... I would love to know where this person is getting his information and where the hell he read that the budget was not cut... There is so much crap going on around the base that I live on about the budget cuts... Some Marines can't even afford gas for their work trucks!
He also told me that if there is some sort of uprising that the military would not take the side of the civilians. Um... Think again. I've heard many Marines talking about "screw the government, I won't lift a finger for them. I'll defend my family".
You know, I never had a bad run in with a Canadian, but this guy is making me hate them all... This dumbass comes to our country, criticizes us as Americans then tells me I am wrong about the military budget not being cut. He also told me that Obamacare will work. Ha! With what money!?
Quote:
First, I want to thank you for taking the extra step of looking for a source. I do appreciate your efforts.
Now let me respond - you stated that the "military is constantly having their funds cut." This statement is simply incorrect. Since you used the President's 2010 proposed budget, I will respond on the basis of that budget. President Obama's 2010 proposed budget had a base defense budget of $534 billion or an increase of about $21 billion over the 2009 defense budget of $513 billion. This budget represented the 11th straight year that the defense budget has been increased. Additionally, the President requested about $130 billion more for "overseas contigency operations." As a result, President Obama's proposed 2010 defense budget was $663.8 billion, not including an additional $37 billion requested for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan that was approved by the Senate but rejected by the Republicans in the House.
The President did request cuts in certain programs (as the article you cited states), but he offset those cuts with increases in other areas of the defense budget. The President requested increases in:
1.the Grow the Force Initiative - to increase the size of the Army, Marine Corps, and special operations forces to relieve the stress on the current forces in these areas.
2.the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles - these vehicles are currently in high demand in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
3.the Littoral Combat Ship - a key component for the military to provide stability and counterinsurgency operations in coastal regions.
4.the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - a less costly alternative to the F-22 that will enable the US to maintain air superiority for the future.
5.and Missile Defense - funding to improve theatre missile defense technologies (while cutting programs with technological problems)
The President request cuts or reductions in the following areas:
1.F-22 Raptor - a plane that the military has consistently asked to be terminated and that has never been used in combat operations. This costly fighter continues to be supported by both Democrats and Republics in the House and Senate whose districts are involved in the manufacturing of the plane.
2.Future Combat Systems Vehicles - these vehicles cannot function in our current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Additionally, their designs make them vulnerable to attacks commonly used by insurgents.
3.Presidential Helicopter - the cost of this program has doubled and is years behind schedule. If continued, the expected cost would be more than Air Force One.
The President's proposed budget also provided for substantial funding increases to better care for service members upon their return home. His budget increased funding for programs dealing with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injuries by $300 million. His budget also increase overall spending for research and development programs in battlefield injuries by $400 million. Finally, his budget recommended a $200 milllion increase for improvements in childcare, spousal support, lodging, and education for military families.
With references to your Washington Times article. The Washington Times presented a very misleading write-up in their article. Why? I do not know, but the Washington Times is known as a very politically conservative paper. Instead of presenting a more balanced view of the proposed cuts, it appears that the paper decided to present a biased report and not even talk about the President's corresponding defense increases.
Additionally, the paper quotes Senator Chambliss' outrage over the cuts. Senator Chambliss received a copy of the president's budget and knew full well what it contained. Instead of dealing factually with the issues, Senator Chambliss make a completely false statement to serve his own political needs.
Comments?
Now let me respond - you stated that the "military is constantly having their funds cut." This statement is simply incorrect. Since you used the President's 2010 proposed budget, I will respond on the basis of that budget. President Obama's 2010 proposed budget had a base defense budget of $534 billion or an increase of about $21 billion over the 2009 defense budget of $513 billion. This budget represented the 11th straight year that the defense budget has been increased. Additionally, the President requested about $130 billion more for "overseas contigency operations." As a result, President Obama's proposed 2010 defense budget was $663.8 billion, not including an additional $37 billion requested for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan that was approved by the Senate but rejected by the Republicans in the House.
The President did request cuts in certain programs (as the article you cited states), but he offset those cuts with increases in other areas of the defense budget. The President requested increases in:
1.the Grow the Force Initiative - to increase the size of the Army, Marine Corps, and special operations forces to relieve the stress on the current forces in these areas.
2.the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles - these vehicles are currently in high demand in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
3.the Littoral Combat Ship - a key component for the military to provide stability and counterinsurgency operations in coastal regions.
4.the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - a less costly alternative to the F-22 that will enable the US to maintain air superiority for the future.
5.and Missile Defense - funding to improve theatre missile defense technologies (while cutting programs with technological problems)
The President request cuts or reductions in the following areas:
1.F-22 Raptor - a plane that the military has consistently asked to be terminated and that has never been used in combat operations. This costly fighter continues to be supported by both Democrats and Republics in the House and Senate whose districts are involved in the manufacturing of the plane.
2.Future Combat Systems Vehicles - these vehicles cannot function in our current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Additionally, their designs make them vulnerable to attacks commonly used by insurgents.
3.Presidential Helicopter - the cost of this program has doubled and is years behind schedule. If continued, the expected cost would be more than Air Force One.
The President's proposed budget also provided for substantial funding increases to better care for service members upon their return home. His budget increased funding for programs dealing with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injuries by $300 million. His budget also increase overall spending for research and development programs in battlefield injuries by $400 million. Finally, his budget recommended a $200 milllion increase for improvements in childcare, spousal support, lodging, and education for military families.
With references to your Washington Times article. The Washington Times presented a very misleading write-up in their article. Why? I do not know, but the Washington Times is known as a very politically conservative paper. Instead of presenting a more balanced view of the proposed cuts, it appears that the paper decided to present a biased report and not even talk about the President's corresponding defense increases.
Additionally, the paper quotes Senator Chambliss' outrage over the cuts. Senator Chambliss received a copy of the president's budget and knew full well what it contained. Instead of dealing factually with the issues, Senator Chambliss make a completely false statement to serve his own political needs.
Comments?
