Senate approves $612 billion for defense spending bill.

[vhx]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200.../usa_defense_senate_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Wednesday overwhelmingly passed a $612.5 billion defense spending bill for fiscal 2009, including $70 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As passed by the Senate on an 88-8 vote, the bill would authorize $103.9 billion for Pentagon procurement, $1.2 billion more than President George W. Bush's request. Overall, Bush had asked for $611.1 billion for national defense.

The bill shifts more of the costs of Iraq's reconstruction onto Baghdad. It also imposes further restrictions on contractor personnel working in Iraq, including prohibitions on interrogations and the performance of "inherently governmental functions" in combat.

The bill must now be reconciled with the version passed by the House of Representatives on May 22.

Just what you all want to see as of late. Why did they stop at $612 billion? Just go for a cool $1 trillion. 88-8, no doubt that would of passed as well.

 

[spidey07]

One of the primary functions of the federal gubment, per The Constitution, is provide for defense. Why would anybody not like this?

 

[Coldkilla]

I say for 1 year cut that $600 billion to $300 billion. We'll still be way the hell above any other nation with defense and we can (maybe) put some heaters/AC inside our elementary schools.

The real war is right here at home.

 

[halik]

And you fools are bitching about FED buying AIG for 80B. How much benefit will you get out of this 600B?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: spidey07
One of the primary functions of the federal gubment, per The Constitution, is provide for defense. Why would anybody not like this?

Because much of the money is being spent on offense, and quite unnecessarily.

 

[Coldkilla]

? *Confused* if you were talking about me. I said in the other thread that our government spends all of our money without consent, then says we wont be getting a return on it.. is highway robbery... I said in this thread that perhaps our defense budget could easily settle for 1/2 of what it is today and we'll still be wayyy further than anyone else.

The budget for the military can be $100 trillion it doesn't matter... because if they don't vote for it "Its against the troops" and therefore anti-patriotic and ruins their chance for reelection.... so they vote 'yay'.

 

[CanOWorms]

We have to be prepared for the war with the Europeans.

 

[JS80]

lol what the fuck are they spending $600 billion for.

 

[Coldkilla]

Alright... This is getting ridiculous. I'm sure the 600 billion was proposed by a republican too.

According to the list of military expenditures we spend TWICE as much as the UN (Combined!)... China only spends about $60 billion a year... we spend $600 billion. People with rocks and aged weapons are bankrupting our country because these IDIOTS in Washington like their cushy chairs and don't wanna lose it so they vote for it because voting against it is "un-American".

 

[dainthomas]

So the total for Iraq through 2009 will be about $870 billion. Before the inevitable supplemental spending request. So we'll probably hit $1 trillion by 2010. $1,000,000,000,000. We could have had a fully operational Martian base for less than that.

 

[bamacre]

Hey, it's not like we can't afford it.

 

[Coldkilla]

Yet no one has the guts to stand up and say anything - they never will ether...

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: spidey07
One of the primary functions of the federal gubment, per The Constitution, is provide for defense. Why would anybody not like this?

How much do other countries pay to provide for 'defense'?

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: dainthomas
So the total for Iraq through 2009 will be about $870 billion. Before the inevitable supplemental spending request. So we'll probably hit $1 trillion by 2010. $1,000,000,000,000. We could have had a fully operational Martian base for less than that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ya but but but, there are no good military targets on Mars to bomb, whats amatter with you boy?

But the dirty deed is done, the 612 billion is appropriated, and GWB can't possibly spend it all before 1/20/2009. At least someone tell me it won't happen as the new quagmire potential keeps getting kiting by GWB.

Which is the good news, after 1/20/2009 maybe we can get some new policy and not burn through military money so fast.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: spidey07
One of the primary functions of the federal gubment, per The Constitution, is provide for defense. Why would anybody not like this?

The advent of social programs we cannot afford means everything else has to be cut back down to the last dime.

 

[winnar111]

Shrug. The Democrats in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s spent a lot more than that.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: spidey07
One of the primary functions of the federal gubment, per The Constitution, is provide for defense. Why would anybody not like this?

How much do other countries pay to provide for 'defense'?

None, we pay for it.

 

[OCGuy]

Theres that overwhelmingly republican senate approving war funds again! Oh, wait....

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: spidey07
One of the primary functions of the federal gubment, per The Constitution, is provide for defense. Why would anybody not like this?

One of the primary functions of the police is to patrol the city. They just spent $1 million per officer for armored limousines and a helicoptor for each officer. What's wrong?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Coldkilla
Yet no one has the guts to stand up and say anything - they never will ether...

8 Senators did. Why don't you donate to their campaigns to help them against the pro-defense backlash coming their way? Surprisingly, the no's were split across the parties.

 

[evident]

i agree with defense spending. it creates high paying US jobs while keeping our nation safe

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: spidey07
One of the primary functions of the federal gubment, per The Constitution, is provide for defense. Why would anybody not like this?

One of the primary functions of the police is to patrol the city. They just spent $1 million per officer for armored limousines and a helicoptor for each officer. What's wrong?

You have no respect for research and development, do you?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: evident
i agree with defense spending. it creates high paying US jobs while keeping our nation safe

Really? Taking that money out of other uses - say, hiring teachers and police - and having such an incredibly bloated military that it irresistably feeds our appetite for empire - makes us more safe, as we go around arm twisting nations to give our corporations breaks at the point of a gun - in effect, robbery? You know something else that keeps us safe? Treating others with justice.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: spidey07
One of the primary functions of the federal gubment, per The Constitution, is provide for defense. Why would anybody not like this?

Just to put in perspective, another one of the primary functions of the federal gubment, per The Constitution, is to promote the general welfare. And you NEVER like that.

There's not a lot of difference between you and the socialists you hate, spidey. I hope you wake up to that fact someday.

Originally posted by: bamacre
Because much of the money is being spent on offense, and quite unnecessarily.

This is correct.

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
The advent of social programs we cannot afford means everything else has to be cut back down to the last dime.

With or without social programs, every aspect of govt should ALWAYS be cut back down to the last dime.

Originally posted by: winnar111
Shrug. The Democrats in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s spent a lot more than that.

BS. Not that we didn't face any more serious and more legitimate threats than Iraq back then.

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Theres that overwhelmingly republican senate approving war funds again! Oh, wait....

Oh wait... the Senate is currently split between the parties. Lieberman might technically caucus with the Dems, giving them the appearance of a 51-49 majority in committee, but it's no secret that he just tried to get the Republican VP pick, and that he votes with the Pubs on most items, especially defense spending. So with a 50-50 tie in the Senate, the Republicans have the advantage because Cheney serves as Senate president and tie-breaker.

Originally posted by: evident
i agree with defense spending. it creates high paying US jobs while keeping our nation safe

Yep. FDR's New Deal was nothing compared to Bush's make-work-through-war program.

 

[heyheybooboo]

I haven't looked thoroughly at the numbers but if what you guys are saying is the $612 billion defense appropriation bill includes $70 billion for Bush's War & Illegal Occupation of Iraq, that would put the "National Defense" authorization at $542 billion for FY2009.

Actual National Defense numbers in FY2007 were $549+ billion and the estimate for FY2008 was $604 billion. Of course ...

FY2006 - - - $520 bil
FY2005 - - - $493 bil
FY2004 - - - $454 bil
FY2003 - - - $405 bil
FY2002 - - - $349 bil
FY2001 - - - $306 bil

(FY #'s do not include the 'off-budget' War Machine)

Raygun's build-up compares on a percentage basis ...

FY1982 - - - $186 bil
FY1989 - - - $304 bil