Posted on 04/05/2009 1:52:31 PM PDT by Schnucki
Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, will on Monday offer proposals to slash spending on major military projects in what aides called a "fundamental shift in direction".
Mr Gates, who spent the weekend finalising his budget plans for 2010, is expected to take aim at several major weapons conventional warfare programmes, in favour of spending on technologies more useful to the "asymmetrical" wars that US forces are embroiled in.
After eight years in which the defence budget doubled, and with the economy in deep recession, Mr Gates is targeting systems that have gone way over both budget and schedule.
The proposals are however subject to approval by Congress and will face opposition from Republican senators arguing that cutting military hardware development will hit American workers hardest.
Projects likely to be scaled back or scrapped include the army's $150 billion Future Combat Systems, which would combine manned and unmanned ground vehicles and aerial drones acting in sync. Field tests began last year but the system's hi-tech communications have been beset by difficulties.
Mr Gates has signalled that the air force's demands for more F-22 stealth fighter jets are unlikely to be granted, pointing out that highly regarded plane "has not performed a single mission in either theatre" of Afghanistan or Iraq.
He is also considering cutting one of the navy's 11 aircraft carriers and a new $20 billion satellite programme that would fill any gaps in current coverage of the globe's surface. With almost every major project under review, President Barack Obama has even suggested that the upgrading of his Marine One helicopter fleet could be delayed.
"These are not changes to the margins. This is a fundamental shift in direction," said the Pentagon press secretary, Geoff Morrell.
Mr Gates's plans would still increase the Pentagon's regular budget by four per
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Gates is a RINO big-time. And he is a weak SECDEF. Remember, he was very much opposed to the surge in Iraq and a big proponent of “engagement” with the Ayatollahs.
Yeah, there’s probably a 10-pt plan .. that 4 items, plus the pro-abort, ACORN funding, union-monopoly-creating, socializing healthcare, illegal-immigrant-pandering, and CO2 cap-and-trade plundering aspects ...
some freeper compared the CPUSA platform and Obama’s plans and they line up almost perfectly.
Yes. We need clear rational minds defeating the left. ;-)
The government at Washington has no such power, as it has not been granted by the People.
An attempt to exercise such a power will not lead to a surrender of our sovereignty, but to the destruction of any combination of forces which dares to attempt it.
And passed with the votes of a whole slew of Pubbies.
(“Pubbies can’t criticize Obamanation’s wasteful spending “)YES, WE CAN!
Forgive my parlance. By "Pubbies", I'm not referring to you, I, or anyone else out here in fly-over country. To me, a "Pubbie" is a lilly-livered, liberal Republican elected official, such as the ones who voted to pass Bush's bailout and now fidget nervously whenever the time comes to criticize Obamanation's (non) stimulus bill, because they know their hands are dirty.
I don't know...are you a lilly-livered, liberal Republican elected official? I don't think so, but they and their staffers have been known to haunt this forum.
"ZERO GOP votes for Obama’s faux massive spending ‘stimulus’ and ZERO GOP votes for the massive $3.5 billion."
Well, better late than never, I guess. But I would've loved to have seen their principled stand against runaway spending five years ago, when Bush was spending like a drunk Cav Scout on a 3-day pass. Or last October, when the foundation was being laid for the house of sand our economy's become.
"The october vote did not have a clause that said they were wedded to any and all bailouts going forward."
As if that ever stopped any 'Rat looking for an excuse to spend, spend, spend! It's called a precedent, and last October, the bailout bill set the precedent for the continuing bailouts and (non) stimulus plans, as well as the nation-killing budget that just passed. Where was the principled stand by the GOP in October? The Pubbies in Congress didn't dare vote against the Pubbie-in-Chief, but now that it's a 'Rat in the White House, boy, they're just tripping all over themselves to find a microphone, so they can talk about how they voted against Obamanation's continuation of the crap Bush got the ball rolling on!
We expect the 'Rats to pull this crap...they're the enemy, and they're fighting us using tactics that have been very effective for them in the past. But when our own people stab us in the back, it's far worse...it's treason.
Flippin' cowards...every damn scumbag Pubbie who voted for the bailout last October deserves to be tarred and feathered. Too bad it's not legal.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Obama isn’t tough enough for that. He’s going to replace it with SOFT language
Neither party has been a friend to the Naval force. These numbers pretty well speak for themself. Under W we reached an all time 19th century low of 279 ships. http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm
“To me, a “Pubbie” is a lilly-livered, liberal Republican elected official”
Which in my book is a distinct minority of elected Republicans.
Only about 60 GOP Reps in the House voted for the original bailout, most of them getting arms twisted by Bush admin. Do yo not forget that the first House vote FAILED BECAUSE THE GOP REPS REVOLTED AND DIDNT GO ALONG???
“I don’t know...are you a lilly-livered, liberal Republican elected official? I don’t think so, but they and their staffers have been known to haunt this forum.”
I am a conservative who thinks we waste our time self-flaggelating the GOP when we are now in an era where the DEMOCRATS WILL PASS ON A STRICT PARTY-LINE VOTE THE LARGEST BUDGET INCREASE IN AMERICAN HISTORY and do much other things that are evil, nefarious, and anti-prosperity. The GOP leaders are doing the best they can in a bad situation and it’s not helpful to feed into the liberal/Obama-supportive narrative of how bad bad bad the GOP is or was.
“I would’ve loved to have seen their principled stand against runaway spending five years ago”
I would have love to have NOT seen the creeping socialization of medicine happen - but it is: The S-CHIP expansion that Pelosi Congress demagogued for years, then passed and got vetoed by Bush, then passed again in January and get signed by Obama ... has now become law. ANother $60 BILLION / year in welfare-state expansion and a “downpayment on nationalized healthcare” as Waxman put it.
Every step of the way was paved by Democrats.
“The Pubbies in Congress didn’t dare vote against the Pubbie-in-Chief” WRONG! In the House, the majority of Republicans voted AGAINST the bailout.
“Obamanation’s continuation of the crap Bush “ WRONG! Obama isn’t merely continuing Bush policies - he is expanding, adding and moving far far far beyond the orbit of what Bush did. Nationalizing firms. a $1 TRILLION bailout on top of $700 b. Billions more and control of auto firms, which Bush did not want. $1 TRILLION in stimulus which is a huge waste. To call Obama a ‘continuation’ is simply wrong.
“We expect the ‘Rats to pull this crap...they’re the enemy, and they’re fighting us using tactics that have been very effective for them in the past. But when our own people stab us in the back, it’s far worse...it’s treason.”
- I dont cotton to double-standards that say its worse for a Republican to make a vote than a Democrat to make that same vote, just becaue Democrats are open about anti-prosperity policies doesnt make it any better, nor do I think it is helpful to dwell on past mistakes or use it to give the Democrats an out over the current jobs-destroying economic policies of Obama-Reid-Pelosi.
Here you are saying that pro-bailout Republicans deserve to be tarred and feathered ... . um ... The Democrats were in the majority last October - THEY made the bailout happen, and pro-bailout Obama was right there supporting it. The bailout is not the worst of the bills anyway - the future socialization of auto industry, financial sector, power sector (cap-and-trade), massive tax hikes, and bankruptcy of the Federal treasury are ... the bailout is a drop in the ocean of $16 TRILLION in spending in Obama’s first term!!!
So if you are going to tar and feather, be an equal-opportunity rabble-rouser and get the tax-and-spend-and-borrow-and-regulate-and-welfarize Democrats, right up to Pelosi and Obama, lined up to. Because they were and are FAR MORE INSTRUMENTAL in making the bailouts without end happen than any GOP House member.
“You forgot surrender our sovereignty to the UN and the EU.”
“The government at Washington has no such power, as it has not been granted by the People.”
Obama’s administration will arrogate such power, whether they have the right to do so or not. And will find judges to declare such arrogation legal, should you assert the contrary point in a court.
By the time Obama’s done, our military officers could be hauled up to the International Criminal Court and our power companies could be subject to UN sanctions.
“An attempt to exercise such a power will not lead to a surrender of our sovereignty,” Why not? The nation that voted for Obama is a nation of wimps that will submit to various forms of tyranny.
” but to the destruction of any combination of forces which dares to attempt it.”
- I’d love to see it happen.
The bad news ... History is speeding up. Your timeframe may be off.
bttt
Are you saying because the bailout would've passed without Pubbie support, that excuses those who voted for it the second go-around? That's like saying, "If rape is inevitable, lay back and enjoy it." There's no excuse for Pubbies to vote against the will of their constituents, and with the enemy. Those Pubbies deserve to be tarred and feathered, and if there were any justice in this nation, it would be legal to do so. Anyone who votes with the enemy is the enemy, regardless of the letter following their name.
Obviously I'm not going to sway you off your opinion, so I'm not going to spend any more time on it. We're 80% in agreement anyway, just I believe that any Pubbie who votes with the 'Rats is as culpable as the 'Rats themselves, and should be held accountable for their votes. I'm not a Republican, I'm a conservative independent. I guess things look differently when not seen through a party prism.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
"“Obamanation’s continuation of the crap Bush “ WRONG! Obama isn’t merely continuing Bush policies - he is expanding, adding and moving far far far beyond the orbit of what Bush did. Nationalizing firms. a $1 TRILLION bailout on top of $700 b. Billions more and control of auto firms, which Bush did not want. $1 TRILLION in stimulus which is a huge waste. To call Obama a ‘continuation’ is simply wrong."
I believe the point I was making was that Bush set the precedent with the bailout, and the 'Rats are capitalizing on it. If you want to argue semantics, go ahead. Yes, it's obvious that Obamanation's plan is far more damaging that Bush's bailout. I never said it wasn't. So you can joust with the "continuing" windmill all you want, but you can't deny my point, that Bush set the precedent.
"“The Pubbies in Congress didn’t dare vote against the Pubbie-in-Chief” WRONG! In the House, the majority of Republicans voted AGAINST the bailout."
Wow...you completely missed the point. Let's break it down:
1) I defined "Pubbie" as "a lilly-livered, liberal Republican elected official”
2) You then added in post #68:
"Which in my book is a distinct minority of elected Republicans."
3) So we've established that to you, "Pubbies" are the minority of Republicans in Congress.
4) The opposite of "minority" is "majority".
5) You said, "In the House, the majority of Republicans voted AGAINST the bailout." Therefore, the minority (your word) "Pubbies", not being the majority who voted against the bailout, voted for the bailout. IOW, they, the minority (your word) "Pubbies" (my word) didn't dare vote against the Pubbie-in-Chief, which was my point all along.
6) Thanks for agreeing with my point, even though you did it in a very strange, twisted way that has me scratching my head.
You're tripping over your own words. You're a Republican...I get it. You don't want anyone to criticize your party, even when they deserve it...I get it. I know good and damn well that Obamanation and his Socialist cohorts are bent on destroying this nation as we know and love it. But they're being helped, and have been helped in the past, by the Pubbies in Congress and the Pubbie that sat in the White House for eight years, setting precedents that the 'Rats are now capitalizing on. If your partisanship doesn't allow you to see this, well, there's nothing I can say to sway you. But it's clear enough to anyone who's not looking through that party prism I spoke of earlier.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
“I believe the point I was making was that Bush set the precedent with the bailout, and the ‘Rats are capitalizing on it. If you want to argue semantics, go ahead.”
It’s more than semantics. Democrats were demanding bailouts as early as 2007!!
“you can’t deny my point, that Bush set the precedent.”
1. Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Truman, LBJ and NIxon set the precedent.
2. the Democrats* in Congress wrote the bill. You keep putting it all on Bush. No is my point. Democrats were instigators and co-conspirators FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.
“1) I defined “Pubbie” as “a lilly-livered, liberal Republican elected official””
- Pubbie is shorthand for Republican. You slammed *ALL* Republicans with your statements. Redefining a common term is silly and has you in a semantic side-argument with me.
“You’re tripping over your own words.”
My words make sense. Your re-labeling just causes confusion.
The correct word most of us use for that contemptible subset of Republican officeholders who sell out on conservatives is RINOs.
“You don’t want anyone to criticize your party, even when they deserve it...I get it.”
WRONG AGAIN. I havent stopped your from criticizing actions or specific people, I don’t want you to FALSELY make an impression about the many Republican officeholders who have been doing the RIGHT THING THROUGHOUT.
Our nearby 2 Congressional Reps, Rep Carter and Rep McCaul, were both against the bailout, spoke out against it. They fought the good fight on offshore drilling in the summer. they fought against Obama’s massive spending plan. They are doing exactly what you and I would WANT them to do. Therefore to insult them and their hard work by throwing them all in as “pubbies” and bashing them all - throwing the baby out with the bathwater - is unfair unjust and non-factual.
And btw it’s your party too unless you want no offshore drilling, socialized medicine, gay marriage, union check card, fairness doctrine, and $2 trillion deficits - the GOP is the only hope to stopping that stuff.
“by the Pubbies in Congress and the Pubbie that sat in the White House for eight years,” - As Reagan would say - THERE YOU GO AGAIN. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi took over Congress on january 2nd, 2007! the DEMOCRATS CONTROLLED CONGRESS FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS. The Republicans had only 4 years of full control of Congress under Bush, not 8!
Again, dont be unfair and non-factual in your criticisms of Republicans. If you are talking about some subset of Republicans - dont call them ‘pubbies’ it’s a clear slam on ALL republicans, including good honest hard-working conservative Republicans, when you do that.
I think I'll continue this argument with the wall. It makes more sense and listens better. Good night.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
“Okay, I get it...Republicans good, ‘Rats bad, right?”
No. You still continue NOT to get it and are NOT listening.
Good night.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.