Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

surfdog

(624 posts)

2. I disagree.

Reply to msanthrope (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 12:40 PM

Jan 2012

with a budget over 600 billion a year ... there is enough money to defend the nation.

on edit: Implying "Obama's military cuts" would get through congress is a bit of a leap.... these cuts already passed , we shouldn't give em back.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

13 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Panetta on TV , lying his ass off.. [View all] surfdog Jan 2012 OP

He's right--the sequestering of 2013 is indiscriminate cutting across the board msanthrope Jan 2012 #1

I disagree. surfdog Jan 2012 #2

I think you are missing the point--you can do indiscriminate cutting of sequestering msanthrope Jan 2012 #5

It's not one or the other.. surfdog Jan 2012 #8

Mandatory cuts that screw our veterans should not happen. Precise cuts that target earmarks msanthrope Jan 2012 #11

I had not thought of it that way. Strategic cuts are always better than across the board. jwirr Jan 2012 #6

Look at it like this... surfdog Jan 2012 #10

Not quite. The 2013 cuts only go in if no budget happens. Why conceed that to the Pukes? msanthrope Jan 2012 #12

Damn lying ass Republicans.. Fumesucker Jan 2012 #3

This message was self-deleted by its author HereSince1628 Jan 2012 #4

If it walks like a duck.. denbot Jan 2012 #7

I didn't hear him say that Motown_Johnny Jan 2012 #9

That's not what he said at all. grantcart Jan 2012 #13