Thursday, February 26, 2009

Obama and the Democrats RAISE Pentagon Spending by $22 Billion

Obama to seek $537 billion defense budget: Murtha by Reuters

OK, in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, when the government is having to spend TRILLIONS of dollars to try to prop of failing financial institutions and keep the economy from crashing, when the government is having to BORROW that money because its already running a deficit, when the government is having trouble borrowing the money and when the entire worldwide financial system is on the verge of switching to the EURO as its 'reserve currency' .............................. one would think this is the time to CUT BACK on military spending and try to invest any dollar we can into the American economy, right?

Not if you're Obama and the Democrats. They just announced that they plan on INCREASING the Defense Dept budget by $22,000,000,000.00 (that's $22 Billion if you don't want to count all those zeroes).

Representative John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who oversees defense spending in the House, told Reuters that "$537 billion will be the base budget" for the Pentagon.

...
The Pentagon's base budget -- not counting most war funding -- totaled $515 billion for the current year.


Further more, just like Bush and the Republicans, Obama and the Democrats are keeping the wars 'off-budget'. They won't announce the details until Thursday, but this article says they are going to ask for ANOTHER $140,000,000,000.00 (that's $140 Billion for those who don't want to count all those zeroes) to continue fighting the wars in Afghtanistan and Iraq.

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said the White House Office of Management and Budget will announce a supplemental war request -- on top of the regular military budget -- on Thursday when it unveils the Obama spending plan for fiscal year 2010.

"There will be a war supplemental for FY'10," he told reporters at a briefing, without disclosing budget numbers.


Oh yeah, there's other stories out there that Obama now wants to keep the troops in Iraq both longer than the SOFA agreement allows and also longer than what his 'plan' was during the campaign.

REMEMBER
70% of the American people oppose these wars. We've tried voting Democrat to end what's been misleadingly labeled the 'Bush wars'. But that obviously hasn't worked. If that wasn't obvious from the actions of the last Congress before the last election, surely its becoming obvious now.

REMEMBER
Any news network that has to go out of their way to tell you how they are 'fair and balanced' likely is not fair and balanced. Likewise, any political candidate that has to go out of their way to tell you that they represent 'Change' probably doesn't.

WHAT TO DO?
Its time for the American people to stop these wars. We've been misled into believing that voting Democrat would do just that. But clearly that wasn't the solution. Join the MARCH 21, 2009 antiwar protests!

And next time, stop voting Democrat!

Update: When the announcement was made, the Obama Administration actually asked for over $200 billion more of our money to continue these wars. The number above that leaked early was only for the year 2010. There's another huge chunk of money requested to also continue the wars in 2009.

2 comments:

FrederickJohnson said...

I'm out to campaign for a 3rd party Independent to oust my long term incumbent in 2010. Everyone should do the same in their districts regardless of who's the incumbent.

Samson said...

Damn fine idea. I'm going to a Green Party meeting out here next week to see what their plans are for my district.

Two notes: We should unify our campaigns whereever possible. We make ourselves weaker whenever we run multiple anti-war candidates in the same race. And take careful note that parties like the Libertarian party on the right also oppose these wars. We need to run ONE unified anti-war candidate in each race.

Second, the closer the district was last time, the better. We'll have our most power in places where the two war parties are nearly even in strength. In that sort of race, any 3rd candidate in the race has the power to swing the race to one side or the other. We could run a Green Party race from the left against a war-loving Democrat that one by a small margin, or a Libertarian Party race from the right against a war-loving Republican that won by a narrow version.

The 'safe-states' strategy of the Democrat lovers in the Green Party was exactly the wrong thing to do. Maybe a 'dangerous states' strategy is what to call this. Go right to where the races are close, and start fighting.