• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Senator Kyl: I'll Walk if any Defense Cuts are Proposed

W

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
General summary:

Senator John Kyl (R), Arizona, a member of the deficit reduction Super Committe, threatened to walk from the committee if there is talk of any defense cuts whatsoever:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904103404576558993243510256.html

Several salient points:

1. Is it constructive for anyone on that committee to threaten to walk based on a single issue litmus test?

2. Given that 50% of the $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts that will occur if the committee fails to arrive at consensus will come from the DoD, isn't Kyl's stance rather self-defeating and frankly idiotic? If he opposes defense cuts shouldn't he stay on the committe and try to negotiate a smaller defense cut?

3. Why should defense be off the table as deficit reduction?

I'm particularly curious if anyone here would actually defend the Senator's stance on this, and if so on what ground.

- wolf
 
woolfe9999 said:
General summary:

Senator John Kyl (R), Arizona, a member of the deficit reduction Super Committe, threatened to walk from the committee if there is talk of any defense cuts whatsoever:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904103404576558993243510256.html

Several salient points:

1. Is it constructive for anyone on that committee to threaten to walk based on a single issue litmus test?

2. Given that 50% of the $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts that will occur if the committee fails to arrive at consensus will come from the DoD, isn't Kyl's stance rather self-defeating and frankly idiotic? If he opposes defense cuts shouldn't he stay on the committe and try to negotiate a smaller defense cut?

3. Why should defense be off the table as deficit reduction?

I'm particularly curious if anyone here would actually defend the Senator's stance on this, and if so on what ground.

- wolf
Click to expand...

Let him walk. If he walks, defense cuts kick in automatically.
 
senseamp said:
Let him walk. If he walks, defense cuts kick in automatically.
Click to expand...

Actually no, since him walking would not end the work of the committee. However, if he walks that gives the dems a majority on the committee right? I have to think that no way is Kyl going to actually walk. This has to be posturing.
 
woolfe9999 said:
Actually no, since him walking would not end the work of the committee. However, if he walks that gives the dems a majority on the committee right? I have to think that no way is Kyl going to actually walk. This has to be posturing.
Click to expand...

Either way, let him walk.
 
Extremely bad sign that this committee is going to do anything if a member threatens to walk out after one meeting.

Also sounds like whoever interviewed this guy for this committee either did a horrible job or wants the committee to fail. Lets see hwo Mitch McConnell spins his screwup and/or intentional torpedoing of the Super Committee into Obama's fault.
 
I am sure there are plenty of republicans that want to cut defense spending, but it will look bad to their constituency. However, this way he can both look good to his voters and get the defense cuts.

edit: if the committee doesn't work, it also cuts things democrats don't want cut.
 
Thump553 said:
Extremely bad sign that this committee is going to do anything if a member threatens to walk out after one meeting.

Also sounds like whoever interviewed this guy for this committee either did a horrible job or wants the committee to fail. Lets see hwo Mitch McConnell spins his screwup and/or intentional torpedoing of the Super Committee into Obama's fault.
Click to expand...

Good point. It's one thing to send people who posture for no tax increases under any circumstances since that is the vast majority of the GOP right now and it would be hard to find anyone with a different stance. However, there are some in the GOP these days who seem at least grudingly willing to tolerate defense cuts. Sending a "no defense cuts" warhawk when McConnell had other choices does seem like sabotage.
 
nonameo said:
I am sure there are plenty of republicans that want to cut defense spending, but it will look bad to their constituency. However, this way he can both look good to his voters and get the defense cuts.

edit: if the committee doesn't work, it also cuts things democrats don't want cut.
Click to expand...

Yeah it does cut things dems don't want cut, but 50% of the cuts come from defense and the entitlements are not going to be touched. If these automatic cuts go through and the dems just block any attempt to renew the Bush tax cuts then the end result of deficit reduction would seem to favor the dems.
 
There is no defense for Kyl. I actually would like to see him walk and see what the Dems can do with a majority over those pesky "obstructionists".
 
I disagree with Kyl on his stance on the matter. The committee is bound to fail of course, but at least participate and listen to all options before bailing.
 
I am becoming convinced that the GOP's main priorities are not for what is best for the US but more have to do with seeing Mr Obama fail.
 
Siddhartha said:
I am becoming convinced that the GOP's main priorities are not for what is best for the US but more have to do with seeing Mr Obama fail.
Click to expand...

You are crazy if you think the democrats have anything other than "re-election" as their priority. That's simply how politics works now.
 
Regarding defense cuts, I'm somewhat split on the issue. I believe troops from Iraq and Afghanistan should cone home now. I would imagine that would save the U.S. a pretty penny in itself. However, with a very belligerent Red China arming itself to the teeth for eventual future war with the U.S. and to bully its Asian neighbors, I dont want to see to many cuts.
 
woolfe9999 said:
General summary:

Senator John Kyl (R), Arizona, a member of the deficit reduction Super Committe, threatened to walk from the committee if there is talk of any defense cuts whatsoever:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904103404576558993243510256.html

Several salient points:

1. Is it constructive for anyone on that committee to threaten to walk based on a single issue litmus test?

2. Given that 50% of the $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts that will occur if the committee fails to arrive at consensus will come from the DoD, isn't Kyl's stance rather self-defeating and frankly idiotic? If he opposes defense cuts shouldn't he stay on the committe and try to negotiate a smaller defense cut?

3. Why should defense be off the table as deficit reduction?

I'm particularly curious if anyone here would actually defend the Senator's stance on this, and if so on what ground.

- wolf
Click to expand...

1. Not constructive
2. Yup, self defeating and stupid. I will walk if you cut defense. But if I walk and nothing gets passed defense gets cut
3. It shouldnt.
 
Let him walk and automatic cuts kick in. I am sick of the GoP refusing to touch defense spending. We could easily cut it by 40% over a 10 year period. Best way to save money would be to get the troops home from Iraq and Afganistan. Close 60% of the bases over seas. Then if south korea and Japan want us there to protect them they write a check to cover the expenses.
 
We have over 52,000 troops in Germany, 35,000 in Japan, 28,000 in Korea. We can bring many of them home, close the bases, and stop paying contractors huge sums to provide support services.

I don't know the magic % for cuts, but we can certainly cut the billions spent keeping people on the ground around the world defending other countries, without needing to cut spending on new jets and other tech.
 
PokerGuy said:
I disagree with Kyl on his stance on the matter. The committee is bound to fail of course, but at least participate and listen to all options before bailing.
Click to expand...
Agreed, this is simply posturing. I don't think defense should be cut while we're at war, but there are lots of things in DoD that could be cut without affecting the war effort at all. Better to protect the things we really need for the wars even if it means slowing acquisitions and <gasp> cutting spending not directly in support of the fighting and the soldiers than to be a prat and threaten to hold your breath until you get your way.
 
DaveSimmons said:
We have over 52,000 troops in Germany, 35,000 in Japan, 28,000 in Korea. We can bring many of them home, close the bases, and stop paying contractors huge sums to provide support services.

I don't know the magic % for cuts, but we can certainly cut the billions spent keeping people on the ground around the world defending other countries, without needing to cut spending on new jets and other tech.
Click to expand...
Except for Korea, none of those troops are really defending anyone. North Korea does not have the capacity to mount an invasion of Japan, and Russia is not threatening to invade any NATO country. Those nations' bases long ago switched from defending their freedom to cash cows.

And in general, we need to work on developing a fast heavy lift capability (which can be used anywhere for any reason) rather than paying to keep troops in other nations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top