Skip to content

Defense Spending is Always the First to Go, how Lovely

May 8, 2009

Imagine that.  The new budget is in the trillions and like 1 pecercent of cuts that all originate with defense equaling around 17 billion suppose to affect something? No, something this small has zero impact on anything therefore there must be another reason for this..  Is it just me or does it seem as if Defense is always singled out? Not just Defense but just military period. Sorry the evidence speaks for itself. Message? Instead of making enemies and looking for enemies within, lets pay attention to the enemy at the gate. But apparently that is us to according to DHS. We just can’t win for losing:

 

Washington, D.C. (AHN) – President Barack Obama recommended cuts in more than 100 federal programs on Thursday that could save the federal government $17 billion next year. However, the largest cuts would be in defense spending.

Obama would cut nearly $3.4 billion from proposed equipment purchases, such as the F-22 fighter plane and combat systems for vehicles, as well as recruitment and retention for the armed forces.

Defense spending customarily accounts for about 20 percent of the federal budget.

Obama would reduce or eliminate funding for 121 programs including ending a navigation system that has been made obsolete by the Global Positioning System, canceling remodeling of the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center, and ending a children’s education program that the administration said was overhead-heavy.

 

The Air Force Times has an article about the whole *doing away with* the Air Force article written by hater Kane.  So you can’t help but think this administration really wishes it didn’t have one. Sorry. Nothing I see leads me to believe that they have our best interest at heart. But yet again the guy who actually created a spread sheet to show the enemy, china,russia, terrorists, world exactly what would be cut is at it again:

 

Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget, released a statement in conjunction with the president’s comments.

The president’s cuts “are part of the administration’s larger effort to change how Washington does business and put the nation’s fiscal house in order,” the statement said. “Today represents a significant installment in our commitment to review the federal budget line by line.”

The recommended cuts amount to about one half of one percent of the more than $3.5 million in approved spending for 2010.

 

In the spirit of the DHS  (dictionary) Lexicon, here are two new definitions you need to understand for this administration:

Defense Cuts:  The ability to do away, cut or eradicate beneficial programs that allow a agency or company to have the capability to provide security to a country, state or county.  These measures are in direct contrast with the ability to effectively execute and ensure measures for national security as well as having a possible negative impact on operational security.  Race, nationality or demographics is not important. The key factor in determining and identifying these individuals is simple.  They are the ones who answer to a higher calling or agenda or even ideology that is similar to the rap group Wu Tang Clan: “Cash rules everything around Me”.  The individuals in question do not transcribe to a specific affiliation because they will change there mind, words, remarks, agenda, thought process at the drop of a dime, and usually do.

Defense Spending: Giving just enough money to barely get by.  You can spot the individuals who use this word in public  because they are the one who like the phrase “support the troops” but behind closed doors they are the ones who will strip out every single measure and every single dollar that will allow said troops us to perform a job that they send us to.  These individuals are the ones who care only for one select group of individuals and hold strong partisan beliefs.

 Left up to them we would probably deploy without weapons or any form of weapon system because it might not *lift* our moral standing and all. Or maybe someone would get hurt, no, not us, cause apparently we are expendable.What did anyone expect? I knew exactly what we would get because they campaigned on a “anti military” message. I mean come on, remember this from the campaign: “air raiding  villages and killing civilians”.  I was so pissed. I don’t recall that phrase ever part of our mission statement while deployed.

Nor do I recall it being on our orders, or briefed by anyone. I mean that is one hell of a description. Well reading is one thing, when I personally heard it, well, I was very unhappy because I couldn’t believe anyone would make that statement attempting to be president. Really who or what country  policy advisor can brief that  was our mission was *air raiding villages and killing civilians*.  Because those  people in those “villages” might just believe this is what is happening .  But for those who don’t remember here it is again:

 

 

 

Advertisements
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: