• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Cut Defense/Military Before Social Programs

A

Anonymous

Guest
The Hill Poll: Voters: Pentagon should bear the brunt of deficit cuts

By Lara Seligman - 02/25/13 05:00 AM ET



A majority of voters believe cutting America’s debt is more important than maintaining domestic and military programs at their current levels, according to a new poll for The Hill.

But the public also feel strongly that the budget should be balanced on the back of reductions to defense spending rather than through cuts to programs such as Social Security and Medicare.



As the clock ticks down on any possibility of averting the sequester’s across-the-board spending cuts, a solid 58 percent of respondents in The Hill Poll prioritized cutting America’s debt over maintaining current spending levels on domestic and military programs. This figure is almost double the share of voters, 28 percent, who believed the opposite.

In order to reduce America’s debts and deficits, more than twice as many voters said they would support defense cuts as said they would support cuts to social programs.

Forty-nine percent of respondents said they would support cutting military spending, while just 23 percent said they would support slashing Social Security and Medicare. An overwhelming majority, 69 percent, said they would oppose cuts to social programs.

The findings are particularly striking as Washington prepares for the looming sequester. Cuts amounting to $85 billion are scheduled to go into effect on March 1 if Congress cannot come to an agreement over deficit reduction.

Both parties agree that sequestration would have a damaging effect on the economy, but so far neither side has shown much willingness to compromise. President Obama has proposed the outline of a deal that would contain equal amounts of new revenues and spending cuts, but Republicans have refused to countenance new taxes and have complained that Obama’s plan is overly vague.

Some voters appeared to cross party lines in their views on how to reduce the debt.

High numbers of both Republicans and Democrats said they would oppose cuts to social programs: 62 percent of Republicans and 82 percent of Democrats opposed cutting Medicare and Social Security, while just 29 percent of Republicans and 12 percent of Democrats supported potential cuts in those areas.

Notably, a higher percentage of Republicans opposed cuts to social programs (62 percent) than professed opposition to defense cuts (56 percent).

Further underlining the general preference for reductions in defense spending over cuts to social programs, 37 percent of respondents said America spends too much on the military, while just 18 percent said America spends too little.

Party affiliation is a factor underlying voters’ choice between cutting the debt and maintaining spending levels, the survey found. Sixty-seven percent of Republicans say cutting America’s debt is the more pressing need, in contrast to just 43 percent of Democrats. Conversely, 23 percent of Republicans said maintaining domestic and military programs at their current levels should be the priority. However, just 36 percent of Democrats prioritized maintaining current spending levels.

Notably, respondents who identified themselves with neither party appeared to align themselves with Republicans on the general issue of debt versus spending: 66 percent said cutting America’s debt was more important, while just 22 percent chose maintaining current spending levels.

When asked whether America spends too much, too little or about the right amount on the military, voters also tended to break along party lines. But those respondents who identified as “Other” tended to align themselves with Democrats on that question: 49 percent of Democrats and 42 percent of those who identified as “Other” said America spends too much on the military, while just 13 and 12 percent, respectively, said America spends too little. Similarly, voters who viewed themselves as “centrist” tended to express similar views to those who identified themselves as “liberal.”

Washington gridlock aside, some economists have pointed in recent months to positive economic news, like a recovery in the housing market and the rise of consumer spending. But in the face of the squabbling over the sequester, just 15 percent of likely voters say their personal financial position has improved over the past 12 months, while 37 percent of voters say it has gotten worse and 47 percent say it has stayed about the same. Democrats tended to be more optimistic: 20 percent of Democratic respondents said their situation had improved, while just 7 percent of Republicans agreed. A full 50 percent of Republicans said their situation had gotten worse, while just 24 percent of Democrats took such a negative view.

The findings came from a nationwide survey of 1,000 likely voters conducted on Feb. 21 by Pulse Opinion Research.


Read more: http://thehill.com/polls/284579-the-hill-poll-voters-pentagon-should-bear-the-brunt-of-deficit-cuts#ixzz2LvrKUED5
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
I haven't given any attention to the exact numbers being discussed, but I'd agree that there is probably enough waste in the defense department alone to make a significant dent in the cuts being discussed.

And let's be honest, there's waste everywhere in government.

Whether or not making the defense department bear the brunt of the spending cuts is the right decision to make, we'll probably know when the next military crisis comes.

Regardless, I'm sure Bush will get the blame.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
Bottom line is that a huge majority are in favor of cutting the American debt.

Well then, why can't you get on board with OT's idea? Give Obama those tax hikes he wants so he can quickly pay down the deficit.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
TexasBred said:
Bottom line is that a huge majority are in favor of cutting the American debt.

Well then, why can't you get on board with OT's idea? Give Obama those tax hikes he wants so he can quickly pay down the deficit.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh absolutely. History shows us exactly what he does with "new money".
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I think the last I saw-- the US defense budget ( which didn't include a major cost of Iran and Afghanistan which GW put on the extra special credit card) was 9 times more than the next nation- China...

4A8078449E794DFB8CC33ADD00A6F1AF_zpsa0aede73.gif
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
I think the last I saw-- the US defense budget ( which didn't include a major cost of Iran and Afghanistan which GW put on the extra special credit card) was 9 times more than the next nation- China...

4A8078449E794DFB8CC33ADD00A6F1AF_zpsa0aede73.gif

So? Freedom isn't free.

Bullets are a far better investment than spending it to kill babies at abortion clinics......

But we know you don't care if your grand daughters are forced to wear the burka & speak Farsi....or now Mandarin..... :roll:
 

gmacbeef

Well-known member
I bet Oblamea is making Old Timer proud,running aroud LYING HIS ASS OFF about everything these "cuts" ( which amounts to a piddley 2.4 % of the budget , hell We all just lost 2 % out of our paychecks !!!!), are going to affect. All the teachers, firemen, policemen, military personnel will be fired. Children will starve, senior citizens out in the street , Dogs & cats having sex, MASS PANDEMONIUM !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oblamea just keeps making himself look like a bigger,Sorrier,WORTHLESS, S>O>B, everyday.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
2008 spending

mandatory $1.788 trillion
discretionary $1.114 trillion

total $2.902


2012 spending

mandatory $2.252 trillion
discretionary $1.338 trillion

total $3.59 trillion


for a difference of $688 billion


Cut the $80 Billion and obama is still spending $608 billion more than Bush did in 2008.

I don't think anybody will suffer too much..over 2008. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Governors: Spending Cuts Will Push US Back into Recession
Sunday, 24 Feb 2013 01:40 PM

Federal budget cuts will probably damage U.S. states’ economies recovering from the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression and push the U.S. back into recession, governors of both parties say.

President Barack Obama and Congress need to find a way to prevent $85 billion in across-the-board spending cuts from taking effect starting on March 1, said Republican and Democratic governors who are in Washington this weekend for a meeting of the National Governors Association.

The cuts, known as sequestration, will lead to dismissal of teachers and firefighters, and reduce projected spending by $1.2 trillion over the next nine years, with half in defense spending and half from domestic spending. Governors said the threat of cuts has already damaged their economies, which they said will worsen if the president and lawmakers can’t agree.

“I don’t think there is any doubt about it” that the required reductions “could put us right back where we were,” Jack Markell, the Democratic governor of Delaware and the chairman of the National Governors Association, said on “Fox News Sunday.” The cuts would have “a real big impact on the economy and jobs,” he said.

Federal Spending

Federal spending reductions could lower the gross domestic product by 0.6 percent and cost 750,000 jobs by the end of 2013, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The U.S. economy unexpectedly shrank in the fourth quarter, logging the worst performance since the second quarter of 2009, last time the world’s largest economy was still in the recession, Commerce Department figures said on Jan. 30.

Cuts would be especially visible in states where federal spending is higher, including Maryland, Virginia and Hawaii. In a Feb. 18 letter to Obama, Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell, a Republican, said the reductions could force his state into a recession.

Maryland may lose 12,000 jobs because of a drop in federal employment, contract spending and medical research grants, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, a Democrat, said.

Federal money for state-administered programs will be reduced by $5.8 billion this year, according to estimates by Federal Funds Information for States, a Washington-based group created by the governors association and National Conference of State Legislatures. Medicaid, the state-federal health care program for the poor, and state road funding won’t be affected because they are specifically exempt.

Hardships Predicted

Federal officials last week warned that the budget cuts would cause hardships for federal workers, consumers and some recipients of government aid.

The Pentagon would furlough as many as 800,000 civilian employees, requiring them to take unpaid time off. Puerto Rico Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla, a member of the Popular Democratic Party, said that teachers and firefighters may be dismissed.

State leaders fired workers and pared spending to eliminate budget shortfalls that emerged after the 18-month recession that ended in June 2009. That created a drag on the economy that didn’t lift until the third quarter of last year.

Harming States

“The uncertainty of sequestration is really harming our states and our national economy,” Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin, a Republican, said at a news conference kicking off the meeting in Washington. “We’re talking about real lives. We’re talking about families. We’re talking about their pocketbooks.”

The spending reductions may lead to a loss of 20,000 jobs in Oklahoma, where businesses are already hesitant to invest because of questions about the federal budget, Fallin said.

Even with the threat of sequestration, yields in the $3.7 trillion municipal-bond market have remained close to the lowest levels since the mid-1960s. While data compiled by Bloomberg show that muni interest rates have risen during March in 14 of the last 20 years, that trend may be offset in 2013 by anticipation that the spending reductions will slow the U.S. economy, said Michael Pietronico, who manages $875 million of munis as chief executive officer of Miller Tabak Asset Management in New York.

Spending Reductions

The spending reductions are part of an agreement in mid- 2011 that allowed Congress to pass a debt-ceiling increase. They were designed to be so unpalatable and arbitrary that lawmakers would find a way to replace them. Congressional Republicans and Democrat Obama have so far been unable to reach a compromise.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, a Republican, speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday, urged Obama to present an alternative to sequestration that would delay programs that haven’t yet been implemented, such as Medicaid expansion or health-care exchanges.

Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie, a Democrat, said defense spending cuts would idle 19,000 civilians who work for the U.S. Pacific Command, based in Pearl Harbor. Congress may delay the cuts once the public understands the plan’s impact, he said.

“There will be a reaction in the country that will cause, at a minimum, an immediate relief from the sequester,” he told reporters.



Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.moneynews.com/Economy/Governors-spending-Cuts-Recession/2013/02/24/id/491725?s=al&promo_code=12902-1#ixzz2Lxz8zWIq


There will be a reaction in the country that will cause, at a minimum, an immediate relief from the sequester,” he told reporters.

Yep-- once the sequester goes into effect-- and real folks start screaming down the throats of this dysfunctional Congress-- their dysfunction will end up costing us big time as both cults fall all over each other trying to look like the party that cares and will do something....

Like Rehberg said-- wait til some of the biggest bellyachers can't get their subsidy check or file their BLM grazing lease..... :wink: :p :lol:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Buckwheat is getting what he wanted. A Crisis. His motto is to never let one go to waste.

He made his bed, now let him lie in it.......................

He's laughing cause his paycheck is exempt.

When the full measure of the consequences of Obamacare & his offering of the sequester is known, lights out. The party's over.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Buckwheat is getting what he wanted. A Crisis. His motto is to never let one go to waste.

He made his bed, now let him lie in it.......................

He's laughing cause his paycheck is exempt.

I think he's laughing because he sees he will get his way-- plus more than he wanted... If all the country starts jumping down the Congressmen (and the party of NO) like Rehberg said would happen- and they see their votes slipping ( which we have seen counts over principle with them on issues like immigration ) I think you may see Obama getting what he wanted - PLUS extra.... :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Poll: Majority say cuts will have major effect on economy, military

By Meghashyam Mali - 02/26/13 07:32 AM ET





A new poll finds the public worrying that impending sequester cuts could weaken the nation’s economic recovery and the Pentagon.

Sixty-two percent of respondents said the effect on the economy of the $85 billion in automatic cuts slated to take effect on Friday will be negative, according to a new Washington Post/Pew Research poll released on Tuesday. Eighteen percent said they expected the cuts to have a positive effect on the economy. Five percent said the cuts would have no effect, with the rest unsure.

Overall, 60 percent predicted the sequester would have a “major effect” on the economy, with 25 percent expecting a “minor effect.”

Fifty-five percent said the cuts would have a major effect on the military, with 25 percent saying sequester would have a minor effect on the Pentagon.
----------------------------------
The poll’s finding, though, suggest that Obama’s hits on the GOP could cost the party leverage. Forty-five percent say Republicans in Congress will be to blame if a deal is not reached, with 32 percent blaming the president. Thirteen percent say they would blame both sides equally.


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/284849-poll-majority-fear-sequesters-effect-on-economic-recovery#ixzz2M1Inh2B7
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Buckwheat is getting what he wanted. A Crisis. His motto is to never let one go to waste.

He made his bed, now let him lie in it.......................

He's laughing cause his paycheck is exempt.

I think he's laughing because he sees he will get his way-- plus more than he wanted... If all the country starts jumping down the Congressmen (and the party of NO) like Rehberg said would happen- and they see their votes slipping ( which we have seen counts over principle with them on issues like immigration ) I think you may see Obama getting what he wanted - PLUS extra.... :wink:

Do you ever get tired of repeating the same silly shyte over and over again....the party of NO.......?

And you preaching to others about principles is like Rev Wright preaching to his flock about the virtues of America.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
jodywy said:

On the Hill, House Speaker John Boehner did his best to distance himself from the budget cuts, calling the pending cuts ”president’s sequester.” Boehner said “I think it’s taking a meat axe to our government, a meat axe to many programs, and it will weaken our national defense. Now, that’s why I fought to not have the sequester in the first place.” Boehner put the ball in Democrats’ court, saying the cuts will go into effect unless Democrats agree to equivalent spending cuts, without tax increases.

But the GOP message that the White House is responsible for any damage done by the sequester was complicated by a group of defense hawks: Republican Senators John McCain, Jim Inhofe, Kelly Ayotte and Lindsey Graham all railed against defense cuts. Graham admitted Republicans “have our fingerprints as Republicans on this proposal, on this sequestration idea. It was the president’s idea…but we as the Republican Party agreed to it.” Graham also warned that “our enemies would love this to happen. I’m sure Iran is very supportive of sequestration.”


Well it looks like it is not only Obama screaming about defense cuts -- as plenty of Repubs are too- while Boehner again sticks his head in the sand and hopes it would go away and the easter bunny would bring him a big jug of wine... :roll: :wink: :lol:

Personally I have no problems with cutting the defense budget- as I thought it was horrendously high in comparison to all other countries-- but I do question if the method of allowing the President en masse job cuts/defense projects without more decision making into projects is the right way to do it when the country is beginning to recover...

But in a dysfunctional Congress that does not want to do its job- that's what you get- more Presidential power...
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
But in a dysfunctional Congress that does not want to do its job- that's what you get- more Presidential power...

It helps to have a president that will stay in town long enough to meet and negotiate with the congress. It's a known fact this prez. does not want to negotiate. All he wants to do is fly around the country telling everyone the sky is falling and then do everything he can do to make sure it does fall. I would think dysfunctional describes the executive branch of this administration much more than it does congress.
 
Top