House approves $633 billion defense bill

[Sherman A1]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House on Thursday overwhelmingly passed a $633 billion defense bill for next year despite Pentagon complaints that it spares outdated but politically popular weapons at the expense of the military's ability to fight.

The vote was 315-107 and sent the legislation to the Senate, where leaders hoped to wrap up the measure. The White House had threatened a veto of earlier versions of the bill, and spokesman Jay Carney said Thursday that the threat still stands.

The far-reaching policy bill that covers the cost of ships, aircraft, weapons and military personnel would authorize $528 billion for the Defense Department's base budget, $17 billion for defense and nuclear programs in the Energy Department and $88.5 billion for the war in Afghanistan.

The bill is $1.7 billion more than Obama requested.

http://news.yahoo.com/house-approves-633-billion-defense-bill-235236936--politics.html

They can do this, but not get their self generated fiscal cliff budget done.

[John2]

1. This is why I disagree

with Congress and President Obama's Foreign Policies. Compare our military budget to 2000 and now. And they want to talk about Social Security and Medicare, that we pay for.

We had to rebuild Iraq and plus subsidize their Arm Forces, out of U.S. tax payer dollars for years. We are doing the same for the Karzai Government and paying their forces. We have built bases for them. We even built a Navy and Air Force for Karzai. I guess they are our auxiliaries for our Empire. I think it is ridiculous.

[amandabeech]

4. The surge will turn out to be useless, if it hasn't already.

It turns out that Petraeus was leaning on a hawkish Republican think tank for that, and our leader bought it all.

We could use that 88.5 bil. for Afghanistan and the 1.7 bil that the military doesn't know what to do with.

Obama needs to sit down and figure out which military commitments are really necessary for our safety and which aren't. He should have done this in his first term, but now is not too late.

Yesterday was appalling not just for the Puke highjinks but for the White House, too.

[Mr Peabody]

2. no compromises needed when it comes to defense spending... n/t

[DotGone]

3. I thought we were broke? nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

5. Only when it comes to American citizens. For corporate welfare queens and Wall Street

there is literally nothing they won't commit you to paying for.

[HiPointDem]

6. kr. how easy that bipartisan cooperation is when it comes to defense -- more than the president

asked for.

[progressoid]

7. Priorities.

We're not one of those priorities.

[dkf]

8. $88.5 billion for Afghanistan? Ridiculous! We so need to get out of there.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Panetta: Congress "diverted about $74 billion ... to other areas that, frankly, we don't need."

And that includes a lot of Democrats, as well as Republicans. This really is ridiculous.

[dmosh42]

10. I thought this was supposed to be part of the fical cliff negotiations? Fucking slick scumbags!

[JDPriestly]

11. House funds killing foreigners -- and takes the money from hungry, elderly, poor Americans.

There's the truth.

Republican values in plain view. How can anyone vote for that bunch.

[newspeak]

12. who's afraid of the boogie man when people go hungry, people are on the streets

people cannot afford decent health care because of shitty wages? adding extra funds to an obscene behemoth doesn't keep us any safer, just feeds corporate interests. remember reading about OBL's plan of bankrupting the US by having the military overextended. well, bankrupting the people in this country has actually given a windfall to certain global corporations, i wonder if his family also prospered.

i consider protecting the citizens of our country and strengthening our infrastructure number one priority. and by protecting, I mean decent jobs, healthcare, taking care of our children, the elderly, the sick, and superior education for the future of this country. so, is this included in their defense bill? didn't think so.

who are you protecting if your people go hungry, lose their home or the decent jobs they once had? i no longer buy into the boogie man and when they up the ante because, after all, we need it to protect you from the boogie men of the world. and as you're feeding us bullshite, there are people in this country FEARING not the boogie man, but losing their meager job, being homeless, elderly fearing they will have even less fixed income.

[Jim Warren]

13. It's what empires do

according to the dictate of the emperor and ruling elite.