president veto

Obama Takes the Military Hostage

He’ll veto a bipartisan defense bill to coerce more domestic spending.

Oct. 19, 2015 7:24 p.m. ET


President Obama is determined to end his second term in another blaze of spending glory, and toward that end he’s taking the U.S. military hostage. That’s the way to understand his threat to veto the National Defense Authorization Act.

The House and Senate recently passed this annual bill with significant bipartisan majorities and they’ll send it to Mr. Obama as early as Tuesday. The NDAA is a policy bill that contains major military reforms and authorizes $612 billion in national defense spending, though that money would have to be appropriated separately.

The bill matches Mr. Obama’s budget request for an increase of $38 billion above federal budget caps for military spending. The NDAA does this by allocating the money through an Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund, which isn’t subject to the budget caps. The President calls this a budget gimmick, which it is, but that hasn’t stopped Mr. Obama fromn requesting his own OCO funds when it suits. The point is that this is $38 billion Mr. Obama requested, and that the military needs.

The President’s real goal is to force Republicans to break the caps on non-military domestic spending. His veto threat explains he will not “fix defense without fixing non-defense spending.” So he admits that he’s willing to squeeze a military that is fighting the likes of Islamic State unless he gets more for Head Start, “job training and employment services” and welfare programs.

This intransigence risks derailing vital Pentagon reforms. The NDAA includes Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain’s sweeping overhaul of Defense’s bloated and sluggish acquisition process. The reforms would give the four heads of the armed services more control over their weapons programs—an idea pushed by former Army Chief of Staff*Ray Odierno.*It would give the Pentagon new tools to speed weapons from development to the battlefield, and allow specific units, such as Cyber Command, to roll out technology with fewer bureaucratic roadblocks.

It would also allow Defense to purchase commercial items (say, laptops) from nondefense contractors like Apple, and encourage Silicon Valley to do more to meet U.S. defense needs. The goal is to promote more competition in defense contracting.

The NDAA also contains a historic revamp of military retirement. The Pentagon currently has an all-or-nothing program in which troops qualify for retirement benefits only after 20 years of service. Some 83% of those who serve receive nothing for retirement. The NDAA creates a new 401(k)-style plan that would provide even troops who serve as little as two years with some retirement savings. The program would provide an automatic payout of 1% of base pay, and matching federal funds up to 5% for individual contributions.

The bill contains other important provisions, including funds to provide military aide to Ukraine in its defense against Russian separatists, new money for ballistic missile defense, and a military pay raise.

On the rare occasions—four times—that a President has vetoed a defense authorization bill, he did so over a specific policy dispute. In 1988 Ronald Reagan vetoed a bill that slashed missile-defense funding. George W. Bush vetoed the NDAA in 2007 over a provision allowing plaintiffs lawyers to freeze Iraqi assets in U.S. banks for use in lawsuits brought by the victims of Saddam Hussein. Mr. Bush argued those assets would be vital to Iraq’s ability to rebuild. Congress struck those provisions and returned the bills for signature.

The NDAA has passed for 53 years in a row, making it a rare display of bipartisanship. It passed the Senate this year with 70 votes, including 21 Democrats, and the House with 270 votes, including 37 Democrats. But under pressure from the White House, many of those Democrats may switch to sustain a veto.

It’s hard to find a worse example of Washington dysfunction than a Commander in Chief, backed by fellow Democrats, who is willing to punish the military so he can break the little fiscal discipline that Congress has.

.

The threat wouldn't exist but for Obama signing the bill.
? Originally Posted by Ducbutter

That is a very partisan way to look at it.

Another partisan way is to blame it on Congress who brought the bill to Obama.

Suprise, suprise we are finally getting down to this being a bipartisan fuck up or success, depending on your POV.

Now go blow lustyladyboy

[B]

It’s hard to find a worse example of Washington dysfunction than a Commander in Chief, backed by fellow Democrats, who is willing to punish the military so he can break the little fiscal discipline that Congress has.

. Originally Posted by lustylad

All congress has to do is give Obama wtf he wants...so to be fair , you just as easily could blame this on congress for not giving Obama a bill he could sign.

....Obama has instructed congressional leaders what they can do to fix the bill to his liking. One can make an argument that it is their fault for not sending him something he will not have to veto.

So let me run you through something called a nuanced points (sic).

....This new congress will not send a bill Obama likes....so therefore the ensuing looming sequestration can be blamed on this GOP controlled congress. Originally Posted by WTF

Wrong again, dumbass. The NDAA gives Odumbo everything he wanted for the military. He vetoed the bill to coerce Congress into lifting non-military spending caps that have nothing to do with the NDAA.... you're not too good at following "nuances", are you fagboy?
.

Did BigTex tell who he voted for when he was giving you a reach around or was is during "pillow talk" time? Originally Posted by Ducbutter

You really need to nail that down to a specific day and time.....

... for instance .....

You do understand that BigTits was not opposed to the invasion in 2003!!!!

After all Congress authorized it.

Wrong again, dumbass. The NDAA gives Odumbo everything he wanted for the military. He vetoed the bill to coerce Congress into lifting non-military spending caps that have nothing to do with the NDAA.... y?
. Originally Posted by lustylad

So if Congress gives Obama what he wants...then the military gets what they want. What is congress waiting on...why are they not giving Obama what he wants so the military can get what they want (no base closures ect)? Fucking Congress must hate the military.

See how easy that is to turn that around

You really need to nail that down to a specific day and time.....

... for instance .....

it. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Nobody has to narrow down when you will give a man a reach around...you'll do it anytime!

So if Congress gives Obama what he wants...then the military gets what they want. What is congress waiting on...why are they not giving Obama what he wants.... Originally Posted by WTF

Because you dumbfuck, it's called budgeting 101. Setting priorities. Living within your means. Making choices. Understanding we don't have unlimited resources. Econ 101. Guns versus butter. More of one means less of the other. Odumbo now wants to go back to pretending we can have more of everything. Party like there's no tomorrow. He has no fucking discipline. That's why the spending caps were imposed in the first place. If the federal budget is $3.9 trillion and Odumbo wants $612 billion for defense (which is what he requested and what the NDAA allows), then he has to live with $3,288 billion for everything else. What's so hard about that, you economically illiterate sperm slurper?

The first priority of government is national defense. It is unconscionable to hold it hostage in order to blow up everything the Budget Control Act was meant to achieve.

It's really a pain to have to school you in the basics all the time. Do you ever retain any of this stuff, fagboy? I'm assuming you comprehend it to begin with. Am I wrong to assume that? Just trying to figure out where your problem lies.
.

Wrong again, dumbass. The NDAA gives Odumbo everything he wanted for the military. He vetoed the bill to coerce Congress into lifting non-military spending caps that have nothing to do with the NDAA.... you're not too good at following "nuances", are you fagboy?
. Originally Posted by lustylad

woomby can help him with "nuance " recognition down at the 'holes ! See if WTF knows what to do once woomby blows air kisses and winks at him with woomby wearing his rainbow thong and blue eye shadow !

Because you dumbfuck, it's called budgeting 101. Setting priorities. Living within your means. Making choices. Understanding we don't have unlimited resources. Econ 101. Guns versus butter. More of one means less of the other. Odumbo now wants to go back to pretending we can have more of everything. Party like there's no tomorrow. He has no fucking discipline. That's why the spending caps were imposed in the first place. If the federal budget is $3.9 trillion and Odumbo wants $612 billion for defense (which is what he requested and what the NDAA allows), then he has to live with $3,288 billion for everything else. What's so hard about that, you economically illiterate sperm slurper?

The first priority of government is national defense. It is unconscionable to hold it hostage in order to blow up everything the Budget Control Act was meant to achieve.

.
. Originally Posted by lustylad

Read this and try and learn something...the defense budget is actually not within the guidelines. They put the increase in in an exemption created for war related spending busting the sequester cap. So fuck off until you learn to do some research. Until you do , you are just going to parrot lies from right wing web sites.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/opini...veto/74658272/

I agree with everything this guy ^ says including the last sentence.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...b69_story.html

The president wants spending limits raised for both non-defense and defense discretionary spending, but most Republicans want to lift limits on defense spending but not on non-defense spending. Obama would raise each category about $38 billion.
“The President has been very clear about the core principle that he will not support a budget that locks in sequestration, and he will not fix defense without fixing non-defense spending,” the Office of Management and Budget said when the bill was first proposed.

So basically lustylad's lying ass is trying to say that Obama is vetoing the Defense funding Bill because though it is within budget Obama wants more money for domestic spending. Which is a lie.

In reality , Defense is not within the sequestration guidelines and Obama wants more money for both Defense spending and Domestic spending. He wants a more transparent process so as not to fool dumbasses like lustylad and Ducbutter into lying about what is really happening.



.

Read this and try and learn something...the defense budget is actually not within the guidelines. They put the increase in in an exemption created for war related spending busting the sequester cap. So fuck off until you learn to do some research... Originally Posted by WTF

You're the moron who needs to learn how to fucking read. I already mentioned all of that in my post #106 above. The third paragraph of the WSJ analysis stated:

"The bill matches Mr. Obama’s budget request for an increase of $38 billion above federal budget caps for military spending. The NDAA does this by allocating the money through an Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund, which isn’t subject to the budget caps."

Since the OCO is off-budget, it doesn't technically "bust the sequester caps". It was set up for the purpose of funding overseas contingencies - such as the ones Odumbo is creating in spades with his feckless, incompetent foreign policy. Even Odumbo wants to dip into the OCO fund now because he needs to spend enough to try and keep places like the Middle East from spiralling totally out of control on his watch, before he can hand over all of his disasters-in-the-making to his successor.

If you want to count the OCO money against the sequester, go right ahead. I won't quibble with you. But if you do, you need to tell me where you want to cut non-defense spending by $38 billion to ensure that overall federal spending stays within the sequester limits. Odumbo has it upside down. He thinks if I ask you to spend more on x, then it automatically means I get to spend more on y. That's exactly the opposite of how it works in the real world. But then, that's what happens when you let a community organizer fuck around with the federal budget!
.

odummer must be wanting to make some more "shovel ready jobs " and some more Solyndras ! Those worked SOOOO well before !

WTFagboy is a Houston home builder who thinks like Odumbo. If you hired him to build a new home for $2 million, and then agreed to his request to spend an extra $50,000 for a swimming pool, he would say "Ok - and that means I also get to blow an extra $200,000 of your money on the rest of the house! Otherwise I'm walking off the job!"

Nobody has to narrow down when you will give a man a reach around...you'll do it anytime! Originally Posted by WTF

... you sound more and more like Hellarious. Pat yourself on the back.