Sickening.

There really are no cuts. The story must be told. The 1/2 trillion 'cut' is a slow down in spending increases.
In 10 years, the defense budget will be larger in actual AND inflation-adjusted dollars, than it is right now.
The defense contractors Panetta is whining for don't want you to know that. Look it up, it's everywhere.
The trouble is, to them, the budget will 'only' be 10-20% more, not the 40-50% they want. Such a pity.
The 'cuts' were totally needed. In fact, we should cut more, or hold it to zero spending growth instead.
Obama, if he really means it, could come out swinging with this reality, that there will be no true cuts!

oddly though except when Pres Obama includes the not spending billions a month in Iraq as a "cut". then republicans called bullshit on it.

Spending money on equipment and the needs of troops is what it takes to maintain our robust military. The bloated "development" contracts that linger for years is a huge part of the military spending problem. I'll always appreciate SecDef Gates killing a bunch of those programs.

He just spent the money elsewhere in the Pentagon budget. Overall defense spending increased during every year of his tenure except one. By the time he was through, our annual Pentagon budget was $100 billion higher.

MIC, and most federal budget considerations.
It is our budgetary logic and it has helped create many monsters, especially, IMO, in our "defense" spending. Unfortunately, it is true. If your department has a budget, especially a federal budget, and all of that money is not spent within an alloted time, the bdget for next year will be reduced. Instead of rewarding government entities for saving money, they are punished. It is another idiocy guaranteed to rape the 99% who can least afford it.

I know this from experience.

Obama and most Congressional Democrats are pretending they want to cut back on MIC funding. They don't. Watch what they do, not what they say. Pentagon funding will continue apace while domestic programs suffer.

As for team Obama and the democratic congress-people, at least they usually say they want to help the 99% but yes actions speak louder than words. Again, at least they are saying the words. We know through actions and words that the gop are only concerned with the 1%. So, here I go AGAIN, holding my nose, voting democratic and hoping that we can get back on the path of the New Deal.
I know, as do many, that unless we get back on that path, our country is doomed and the suffering will be intolerable for the 99%.
Capitalism, while designed as an (unfair) economic system, has become our form of governance also.
The term "Democratic Socialism" has been perverted by most of the countries that have claimed that moniker. If we actually stuck to the real definition of the term and based our country accordingly, we would have a fair political and economic system. If we would even re-install the tenants of the New Deal (that saved our economy and created our middle class) and follow up by adopting FDR's "2nd Bill of Rights," America could regain much of it's former glory and we would have a reason to be proud.
Following the path that we currently are on, guarantees the end of America, sooner rather than later.

[center][/center]

rather than slowing the increase in MIC spending: this way America will stay strong. Hint: a emoticon might be fitting.

I don't see any guarantee or reassurance that the USS Saint Ronnie or the USS Poppy Bush are going to protect us. Ike was right.

Panetta is doing his job.

This is nothing but cover for the administration. Decry any cuts in public, do as told in private.

how is this cover?

Panetta and President Obama, as leaders of our military, cant be seen as promoting cuts that might reduce our defense capabilities. That would turn the Generals and others in the military against them. It would also be bad politics in an election year as the Rethugs would jump all over any comments supporting these cuts. However, behind the scenes, the Administration wants these cuts as they know it wont reduce our capabilities and it will help with our deficit.

Don't you think the Generals would know this is a "cover" and so by your reasoning turn against him anyway? A bill to restore the 'cuts' will come before Congress before the election so they will have to take a stand anyway.

I think the Administration's stand is tell Congress to find a better way to get around the cuts... if possible. If not then there is nothing they can do. Its the law.

You said Panetta and Obama can't be seen as promoting defense cuts because the Generals would turn against them. Now it doesn't appear to matter what they think, according to you.

I don't think I understand what you're trying to say.

often one cant say exactly how one feels.. especially in a situation like this.

You seem to have the skills.

Just giving an opinion and trying to explain to you. I am done with this thread.

what they personally believe when asked regardless of the positions of their chains of command. It's the price extracted by the Senate in exchange for confirmation. It also gives makes it perfectly logical to explain that his/her personal position is "ABC", but of course he/she supports the chain of command's "XYZ" policy. Agreement with a policy or position is not a prerequisite for supporting it.

The Democratic Party establishment will always pack cabinet positions with DLC. The DLC (or whatever name they currently use) legitimizes and defends bogus conservative memes and delegitimizes the truth, especially when it comes to matters of "defense". They legitimized and supported the invasion of Iraq. That they have paid no political price, are still considered the foreign policy experts and are firmly in control of the Democratic Party has to speak volumes to any who dare to listen.

'"What they essentially did was to put a gun to their heads and to the heads of the country," he said.' - This is as fucked up a quote by a Dem as anything I've heard Lieberman say. Panetta and the people who put guys like him in power are major assholes.

Or is the reporter doing that?

Does he have no problems with the cuts to other segments of the population, only those long-term military contracts that have been signed?

Why he criticizing the Congress to a captive audience in the field? Not that the teabaggers don't need to be dissed, but he's not doing that, as far as I can see.

Exactly what does he expect them to do?

It's worrisome he would bring this up, when they are prohibited from getting into politics, and this seems anti-Obama, somehow. He was forced to let the cuts take place because of the irresponsible actions of the GOP Congress who insist on destroying the government's ability to operate. Panetta himself has said in the past that the defunding of services has become a national security threat for that reason, unable to maintain essential services, and we see that decay now.

I don't believe in continuing the level of military actions in the world. The 'guns to the head,' yes, it's a direct quote. The rest, seems to be the reporter's ideas, but if someone else has a different take, I'd like to hear it. Especially from one of you folks who have served.

It is firmly a Democratic Party establishment/DLC tune. Let us look in the mirror.

That is not a Democratic theme. The GOP, teabagger, etc. spend all of their time defending tax cuts on the rich, refusing to negotiate with any Democrat unless those are protected.

Gingrich did a government shut down in the Clinton years because of the same battle which cost lives that didn't make the news, for those of short memories. The threat doing it again, or failing to raise the national debt, same game.

If you want to only diss the Democrats, I think you ought to look at who is really driving these cuts. No Democrat in the Congress voted for this latest Ryan budget; and they also held their votes at that last stunt they pulled as well.

The two parties are not the same. And if you want to believe that, it's your choice.

a stale excuse at the ready to back away from a scuffle with entrenched power like the MIC.

What the GOP is and who their masters are should be a given. The question is, who are the Democrats? I don't believe the two parties are the same. I've never said that. However, they would be essentially the same if not for the liberal voices that have refused to give up on true Democratic ideals or give in to the party establishment's conservative nature and instincts.

...but the foolishly apparent game the ilks like Panetta play really need to stop. I see other dems in congress do that as well. All they are catering to when they do that is a TeaBagger like intellect (now that's an oxymoron) and they will never side with anything a dem. would ever say. So, why do they bother playing that game at all, unless they are really well paid by some entity and/or are so very much secluded and out of touch about the mentality of their own constituency.

I really need to start attending more democratic or socialist gatherings than i have in the past, and tend on doing so to keep from being hypocritical when I say: KEEP THE DINO's OUT!

i do wonder about the DLC's involvement in the process of choosing delegates & allm at or before the time it hits convention stage.

the only reason it ever came into consideration was wholehartedly thanks to our decline of UNION support in this country and their much needed contributions that allowed a disreputable entity such as the DLC into play. unfortunately the only cash coffer the democratic party had left to turn to by the time B. Clinton took up the reigns.

I'm all wholehartedly with Thom H., that we need all private money to disappear from politics alltogether, so a lot of these games can finally come to an end some day.

same time we will have a true universal connector or pliers, I suppose
Long Live Vice Grips!

When those who are most progressive and liberal and doing everything to protect civil liberties, human rights, the social safety net, unions, public works, the commons and the environment and vote against all that Bush stood for, Democrats seem to be silent.

I have seen my represented confronted with in your face brown shirt tactics by corporatists and those taken by the right wing funded media machine, their lives threatened even. When they don't even have the backing of those they stand up for, after the danger they have put themselves in, how do you think they feel? I've had some tear up at these meetings, seeing that ther is someone who still believes in the vision they got into politics to defend.

We diss the big money, even though most of it comes from progressive sources to Democrats in every race, but we cannot do this alone and we need the support of these well-off old time liberals that people seem to write off as behind the times. When we say that we no longer believe in them, you have to think a second.

While not you, but just a generic 'you,' in any of what I'm saying here. But I mean, if we don't believe in what they're doing, they learn the time for the New Deal and all that we tried to bring about in past are no longer alive. So we lose and it's not their fault.

We are presented with a multitude of voices, many that purport to be on our side, that are actually funded from the right, the Koch brothers, military suppliers, etc. As well as in the continuous voices of conspiracy talk, they are funded by the Koch brothers. Yet they never give that disclosure and people think they oppose the things that we oppose. They play us more than any politician can.

Their meme is that government is the problem, the big monster under the bed or the closet coming for us. What if the monster is next door, the citizen who makes money off of industries and or of privatization that we abhor? This is the battle that our representatives are facing on the grassroots level and they end up having to compromise on some things, but not all.

The media voices constantly say there is no difference, that the policies of the left have failed. This is said to demoralize the left, which means they are not the left, but libertarians in sheep's clothing, because they will support fascism if they get theirs first.

No, the policies of the left have been co-opted and allowed to languish due to lack of political activism by the people who would most benefit. So I urge you if you are able, to go meetings and listen to what the nuts and bolts of what may seem to be so boring, what we are losing daily in our communities by thinking that ALL we have to do is vote every 4 years.

Best wishes and thanks for the thoughtful reply.

thank you for your treasured insights FreshWest

They're just hanging out now at the New Democrat Network, still promoting neoliberal fiscal values. That's what we're calling Reaganomics these days. There are important differences between the Democratic and Republican parties, but when it comes to economic ideologies, they are virtually the same.

If New Deal principles are no longer alive, we have New Democrats to thank for abandoning them.

Certainly the media has. On the ground, it's also very difficult and it's dangerous. Many people have decided to let God Sort It Out, which leaves the GOP in power.

Demographics is a factor as well, as the young people in some areas have been washed in Dittohead Rinse and Repeat since birth. But there's been a regressive sector of this country who never changed their mind, since before the Revolution. They didn't believe in most of the Constitution then and they don't know. They were overpowered and put in check by FDR.

We've got a lot of educating to do and fast. Do we even know what to say? I believe OWS does.

Making excuses for the sellout to Reaganomics doesn't get it with me. Same as you, I'm hoping OWS will help put us back on course.

WTF, 750 military bases around the world (a Pentagon estimate because they don't even know for sure). A larger military budget than China, Russia, UK, S. Korea, Japan (and more) combined; in spite of which we have not successfully prosecuted a war since WWII and that was successful only because of the allies. This forced reduction is the best thing to ever happen out of congress. It was purposely set up because many in congress know that the military budget is a ball and chain around America's neck but they are afraid to vote against the MIC directly. If the President were to pull out of Afghanistan immediately he would win reelection by a landslide with no campaigning and the Democrats would pack both houses of Congress. To hell with military "advisers", listen to the people!

No surprise there.

It's going all the way up to $106 billion dollars, which is less than the annual costs of our Afghan occupation.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/chinese-military-defends-106-billion-defence-budget/articleshow/12468308.cms

Military families on Tricare are to be soaked in Obama's new budget plan.

Both parties will protect the MIC at all costs and sacrifice the rest of us for their cronies in the one percent.

increases an average of 10% annually and there is not serious attempt to regulate finance or raise corporate taxes, the generals and CEOs will permit symbolic democracy to flourish here.

it would be irresponsible NOT to significantly reduce military spending at an accelerated pace. I realize you and Obama have to appear really tough and hawkish in an election year but frankly the time has come to shut down our overseas bases, bring all overseas troops home including those in Korea, Europe and anywhere else. We have to pressure our allies that are at much greater risk of conventional war on their homelands than we are to start defending themselves.

But this has to be done responsibly by cutting new weapons programs, mothballing aircraft, ships and other equipment and cutting the cushy relationship with the military armaments industry. It cannot be done on the backs of the brave men and women that have served our nation or their families. No cuts in veteran's benefits, no reductions in military pay and benefits.

And I suggest that Panetta take about a 40% pay cut and start paying for his own health insurance and retirement. It is time to eliminate pensions for elected and appointed officials. They can have a 401K just like everyone else and save for their own retirement. With the way things go now they walk out of government and within 6 months they are bringing in huge salaries and benefits as lobbyists.

As long as the profit motive is there and suspect, I'll assume that EVERY military action is faked for the money. And so far history has backed me up.

The health insurance companies profit from withholding care.

But the money that pours in from the agony, impoverishment, devastation, blood, and death caused by the military industrial complex is the most evil of all.

You can bitch about the cuts if you want, but the right thing to do is to stand-up and defend your programs - and then ask for the tax increase to pay for them! Until you do, STFU.

"Defense" needs cut big time.

Signed,
Former military officer.

Last edited Sat Mar 31, 2012, 03:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Now we will see the drama, the faux negotiations, the well choreographed "battles" between the heroic administration striving to restrain the military budget, and the cold, hard demands of reality. And we all know what will happen in the end.

What a tired, manipulative, revolting old script this is.

Plus we will still be spending hundreds of billions more than China and Russia are spending and yet Panetta cries poor mouth? No wonder our economy is screwed up, he and the Republicans are total freaking morons.

Nearly a trillion a year to be safe

Obama has the upper hand here, and will use the sequestered automatic defense budget cut to force the Republicans to accept tax increases on the 1%.

Neither party wants to force hundreds of thousands of workers to join the ranks of the unemployed, which will be one of the serious consequences of the automatic budget cut. But Obama will be able to tar the Republicans as willing to sacrifice the nation's defense to serve their political tax-reduction-at-all-costs agenda if no agreement is reached prior to the election.

... were afforded a budget based on accountability and performance LIKE MOST OF THE REST OF US, they'd be getting a 50% cut across the board TODAY.

They promise what they cannot achieve in Iraq and Afghanistan, and act like they are necessary when actually they are merely mercenaries for big business interests and not very good even at that.

Whine until you turn blue Panetta, your "budget" is full of waste, contractors who are way overpaid and not even needed, weapons systems that don't work - please go fuck yourself.

Maybe he just doesn't like the ones Congress is proposing?

passed by both houses and signed by the president.

What Congress is proposing now is to undo that deal, and Panetta agrees with them on that, along with the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.

instead, or at least get one or two to open more than a crack. And maybe we could pay for someone to wash the floor there once in awhile. But no, there's "no money" for such things.