President Barack Obama in his State of the Union address Tuesday night will announce that 34,000 U.S. troops will return from Afghanistan by this time next year, according to a senior administration official. That will reduce troop levels in that country by half. Further reductions will occur next year. The consensus will probably agree this is a good thing.
what's a bit ironic to me is that the DoD was one of the few places I can find in the budget where they cut 10% since 2011. And that budget was underfunded in the Continuing Resolution. And yet, if sequestration hit, the entire 9% cut department-wide will be enforce on the annual budget, but only taken out after March (the DoD operates on FY terms, so they have ~6 months to implements the entire cut). Here's what CNO sent out to Navy commanders recently to answer sailors' questions about the CR/Sequestration http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=71938
Neocons are complaining alot, but the sequestration is pretty weak. How entitled are american government employees? You don't deserve to get paid off of other people's income, and the military will continue to increase its spending after sequestration as well. The state is not capable of doing anything efficiently, it only grows in size and there is no price mechanism to alert them of their incompetence. The solution is less central planning, not more.
"Military will continue to increase its spending after sequestration as well." Military's dropped spending by 70B from 2011. Over 10%. And the CR doesn't fund the levels that budget planned for. And the sequestration $ are going to be taken from the underfunded CR, not a ballooned budget input. Your entitlement rant is directed at the wrong people...when the Medicare/Caid overruns have gone from 600B to ~800B in 2 years, chopping 80B from a 980B outlay doesn't seem to meet the intent of the sequestration. If anything, history has proven that the military is the one entity that should have more central planning, yet it seems to be the only thing you like to rail against.
Dude you just got caught lying again, drop it. Military spending will increase by 16% over the next decade, instead of by 23%. Keep up the bad work. http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/18/dems-and-reps-agree-lets-spend-tons-more History has shown that the military is the one area where the central planners have the most difficulty creating alliances, since FDR thought Stalin was a decent guy. Oh and your peers agree with me more often than not. I want to know why Obama is incompetent in the most basic of government tasks, but becomes an efficient leader spending-wise, when it comes to the most complex missions in Afghanistan. Face it you're arguing Goobly-goop, it doesn't stand up to simple logic.
Man you sure do panic a lot over nothing, as you can see from this chart. Yes you are a spender, and you lied. Read a little more about debt, when i say debt I am referring to long-run costs bruh.
