The Obama Administration warns against more defense cuts...they want cuts to come from entitlements

[Cali_Democrat]

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warns against more cuts in Pentagon budget
By Greg Jaffe and Jason Ukman, Published: August 4

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned Thursday of dire consequences if the Pentagon is forced to make cuts to its budget beyond the $400 billion in savings planned for the next decade.

“We’re already taking our share of the discretionary cuts as part of this debt-ceiling agreement, and those are going to be tough enough,” Panetta told reporters in his first news conference as defense secretary. “I think anything beyond that would damage our national defense.”

....

Senior Pentagon officials have launched an offensive over the past two days to convince lawmakers that further reductions in Pentagon spending would imperil the country’s security. Instead of slashing defense, Panetta said, the bipartisan panel should rely on tax increases and cuts to nondiscretionary spending, such as Medicare and Social Security, to provide the necessary savings.

“You cannot deal with the size deficits that this country is confronting by simply cutting the discretionary side of the budget,” Panetta said.

Read more....http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/defense-secretary-leon-panetta-warns-against-more-cuts-in-pentagon-budget/2011/08/04/gIQAWM8AvI_story.html

Fuck Panetta.

[Booster]

1. Just stop the damn wars & bring the troops home. Stupid.

[golfguru]

46. +1,000,000,000,000

That's a Trillion....the ubiquitous number you hear from Washington these days.

[Fire1]

2. Wow. It's starting already. This is great. A show down

between sacred cows.:smoke:

[paulk]

53. Medicare and Social Security are sacred cows?

:eyes:

[JustAnotherGen]

3. Awww Jesus h Christ!

Bring the troops him, increase taxes on the affluent, rich, wealthy, and uber wealthy - and cut nothing from the social safety net.

[Fire1]

16. Two out of three ain't bad. n/t

[MichiganVote]

4. I'm not buying it. And I'm not voting to cut my own throat or that of any other senior citizen

[Fire1]

18. Concern noted. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

5. Unrec for misleading title. Panetta's opinion is his own. WTF do you expect him to say in public?

Of course he's going to say that as head of the fucking Pentagon. Do you really think he means it, given he's an old Democratic Party stalwart and a loyal Obama lieutenant?

WTF do you think President Obama installed Panetta at this juncture and got rid of Gates? Hmm? Any guesses?

[Fire1]

8. But Panetta also knows (and the President, too) that the

publicans will NEVER go for cuts to the military. They also know the dems ain't giving up the big 3. This is interesting.

[ClarkUSA]

11. That's why the Democrats on the so-called supercommittee have no incentive to make deals.

The triggers favor our side (mostly defense cuts, some cuts to Medicare providers ONLY) thanks to President Obama. He's such a clever genius, isn't he?

I'm imagining the look on Teabagger House members' faces when they realize they've been had by their own Speaker. Bwahahaha!

[Fire1]

14. It was 'planned' that way. He's an evil genius. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

15. Yes, I agree.

:evilgrin:

There are no flies on you. They're covering the OP, though. LOL

[rug]

51. I understand you correctly, you're saying he's a liar.

An admirable quality in a Cabinet member.

Not to mention in a CIA Director.

[OHdem10]

6. All these Democrats who want to balance the budget on the backs

of Middle Class. Panetta is a Democrat. Did he even
mention asking his rich friends to help out???

[Fire1]

12. Ain't gonna happen. But he's got to sound like that in his

position.

[ClarkUSA]

7. SoS Hillary sided w/Gen. McChrystal in wanting 80,000 more troops for 10+ years in Afghanistan.

That was her opinion, not the Obama administration's. Get a clue.

SoS Hillary also sided with Bob Gates in wanting far fewer troops drawn down from Aghanistan at a much slower pace than what President Obama eventually decided on.

That was her and Gates' opinions, not the Obama administration's. Get a clue.

Thankfully, they'll both be gone soon.

Why are you misleading people with your false OP title?

[AtomicKitten]

9. +

:hi:

[ClarkUSA]

19. Hi, AK!

Always good to see you around.

:hi:

[Enrique]

17. Hillary is much more hawkish than Obama

not much doubt about that imo.

[former9thward]

23. It is hysterical you think Cabinet Secretaries go around giving their personal opinions.

Their comments are the positions of the administration. They are big boys and girls, they know how it works.

[ClarkUSA]

30. The Defense Secretary does not speak for the WH or President. He speaks for the DoD.

The Secretary of Defense is supposed to fight publicly for defense appropriations. That's how all bureaucracies work.

[former9thward]

37. Senior administration officials do not go off the reservation.

Sorry, that is not how it works.

[ClarkUSA]

40. Bullshit. Gates did it all the time when stating what he wanted vs. what the CIC decided in the end.

Recent example: Gates publicly stated he wanted a very small troop drawdown at a slower rate than what President Obama eventually decided on.

SoS Hillary has also said things the WH has had to correct or contradict. Of course, in her case, it was as more diplomatic gaffe than bureaucratic opinion.

[golfguru]

47. Was'nt Gates a holdover from Bush?

[former9thward]

49. With regards to what Gates said about Afghanistan.

We will see what the actual drawdown is rather than what anyone says it might be. I remember hearing the President saying combat operations in Iraq were over yet American troops are still dying in combat operations until this day.

[Chan790]

58. Actually, Clark nailed it;

It's Panetta's job to advocate for the needs of his department, not carry water for the President. There are plenty of other people whose job is to carry public-opinion water for the WH.

Things work best when people know and follow their role.

[Enrique]

10. Panetta only runs one department in the Administration

im sure well hear another cabinet secretary come out and defend entitlements and demand that we cut defense instead. Right? Right?

[CakeGrrl]

13. Interesting. He also mentioned TAX INCREASES, but the OP assumes

the Administration is focusing a laser beam on Medicare/SS.

Surprise.

[Cali_Democrat]

20. The OP mentions tax increases in the excerpt. n/t

[woo me with science]

21. They will not make significant defense cuts. You can bank on it.

Third Way Democrats, including this President, have been trying until now to maintain the illusion that they will end the wars, but it is flat-out misrepresentation. They will not end the wars, because the wars are extremely profitable for the banks who finance the borrowed money, and for the corporations who provide arms and technologies. And these banks and corporations are firmly entrenched in both parties.

Panetta's honesty may actually be a signal of an important shift - or at least the beginning of a "good cop/bad cop" routine. At this point, enough Americans still trust in a Democratic Party anti-war stance that the administration has mostly been trying simply to maintain that illusion through carefully chosen words. At a certain point, as their actions become increasingly undeniable, they will have to shift to a full defense of increasing the military, just as they have shifted from denying that Social Security and Medicare cuts will happen to defending those cuts as necessary to our economy.

Until now, they have largely been playing games. They talk about "troop drawdowns," but that is an illusion and a sham, because troops are increasingly being replaced by paid private mercenaries who earn two to ten times as much, and by drones.

The Pentagon budget is increasing, not decreasing, despite all claims to the contrary. All promised cuts to defense are conveniently to happen sometime in the future and are not reflected in President Obama's own budget for next year.

And remember this post: What are being described as planned deep cuts to the Pentagon budget actually reflect an increase in planned levels of financing. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=1639452

We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now in several more countries, as well. The budgets continue sky high. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=1402614

Remember: The Third Way differs from the Republican party mainly on some minor social issues. They have the same corporate backing, and the same economic goals and policies, as the Republicans. They will not significantly cut defense. www.thirdway.org

Follow the actions and the money.


.

[bbgrunt]

55. well done. it's the old good cop/bad cop for now.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. Wow...what a dishonest post

The Secretary of Defense is supposed to fight publicly for defense appropriations. That's how all bureaucracies work. Saying that this is an administration initiative is a ridiculous and dishonest misrepresentation of gthe situation. Put plainly, a lie. You told a lie.

You should not tell lies.

Moreover, it's equally plausible that Panetta is setting up the conflict that the GOP will have to deal with: raise revenues or cut defense. Indeed, the only person who said anything about entitlements was the REPORTER, not Panetta. You would know this if you were a good reader of political articles, and were not hell-bent to beat up on Obama in the dishonest and shameful way you're doing it.

In fact, I DARE YOU top find any place in that article where somebody goes on record stating that entitlements should be cut rather than defense. Go find it, please. You can't, because no such thing was said. The trick here is to force the GOP into revenue increases. It's just sad that you despise the PERSON of Obama so much that you can't see that.

[Cali_Democrat]

25. Panetta is Obama's brand spanking new Defense Secretary

He is part of the Obama Administration.

Deal with it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

26. I'm surprised at you

I've always respected your posts in the past.

In this case, however, you're either just straight out lying or so blinded by an atrocious bias that you can't even see how ridiculous your claim is.

I once again restate my dare, in any case. I don't think you can take it...without looking foolish.

I'm sad that your ordinarily strong posts have come to this kind of nonsense.

[Cali_Democrat]

31. I haven't changed

Obama is the one who changed. I hardly even recognize him anymore.

[Mimosa]

62. Cali-Democrat, they'll shoot the messenger every time.

I'd be ashamed to support people who want to dismantle the social safety net.

The un-reccers should be ashamed to call themselves Democrats. :(

[Vattel]

39. No one specifically mentioned entitlements, but

according to the article, Panetta said that the bipartisan panel should rely on tax increases and cuts to nondiscretionary spending, such as Medicare and Social Security, to provide the necessary savings. And then the reporter quotes Panetta as saying, “You cannot deal with the size deficits that this country is confronting by simply cutting the discretionary side of the budget.” Maybe the rpeorter is full of shit, but I suspect that Panetta did recommend a combination of cuts to non-discretionary spending and tax increases. And that what non-discretionary spending might he have had in mind other than entitlements?

[craigmatic]

27. Panetta is the defense secretary and a democrat who just got the job. It's in his interest to say

that. He wants to look strong and protect his department.

[GOPBasher]

28. "Obama administration"????? This is Panetta himself speaking his own opinion. n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

29. If Obama doesn't want him to speak for the Administration in a press conference

Perhaps he shouldn't have appointed him to the position of Secretary of Defense.

[ClarkUSA]

38. The Defense Secretary does not speak for the WH or President. He speaks for the DoD.

Why don't you respond to this? It is directed at your false and misleading OP:

"The Secretary of Defense is supposed to fight publicly for defense appropriations. That's how all bureaucracies work. Saying that this is an administration initiative is a ridiculous and dishonest misrepresentation of the situation. ... the only person who said anything about entitlements was the REPORTER, not Panetta. You would know this if you were a good reader of political articles, and were not hell-bent to beat up on Obama in the dishonest and shameful way you're doing it.

In fact, I DARE YOU top find any place in that article where somebody goes on record stating that entitlements should be cut rather than defense. Go find it, please. You can't, because no such thing was said. The trick here is to force the GOP into revenue increases. It's just sad that you despise the PERSON of Obama so much that you can't see that."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=736883&mesg_id=736995

[ClarkUSA]

32. 100% false OP title. FACT: "Obama: Cut Defense Spending As Opposed To Food Stamps" (Video)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x604228

To reiterate what another poster has said on this thread:

"The Secretary of Defense is supposed to fight publicly for defense appropriations. That's how all bureaucracies work. Saying that this is an administration initiative is a ridiculous and dishonest misrepresentation of gthe situation. ... the only person who said anything about entitlements was the REPORTER, not Panetta. You would know this if you were a good reader of political articles, and were not hell-bent to beat up on Obama in the dishonest and shameful way you're doing it.

In fact, I DARE YOU top find any place in that article where somebody goes on record stating that entitlements should be cut rather than defense. Go find it, please. You can't, because no such thing was said. The trick here is to force the GOP into revenue increases. It's just sad that you despise the PERSON of Obama so much that you can't see that."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=736883&mesg_id=736995

[primavera]

56. Right, and administrations never break promises

So what he says is surely as good as a fact.

[Vattel]

33. Prediction: the military will win this fight. They always win.

Defense will not take any serious cuts because neither the Republican Party, which represents the interests of corporations and the MIC, nor the Democratic Party, which also repsresents the interests ofthe corporations and the MIC, wants serious cuts in defense spending. And most Americans love the military and will believe the bullshit about how we can't possibly defend ourselves if serious cuts are made.

The defense part of the trigger scares Democrats and Republicans. They will go after non-defense spending.

[ClarkUSA]

35. This is not a military dictatorship. Civilians are in control. Panetta is not a junta leader.

:rofl:

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

36. Do you really want to? That's quite an undertaking, so to speak.

[Vattel]

42. No I want you to. You're much more suited for that sort of thing.

And please, make it hurt.

[ClarkUSA]

44. Sorry, I'm not interested unlike you obviously are. Otherwise, you wouldn't have said it, right?

I happen to think the OP title is purposefully disingenuous, given that the actual article says nothing of the sort and the one person who brought up entitlements was the REPORTER not Panetta, so I'm not OUTRAGED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JimDandy]

41. Even the Washington Post has more journalist ethics than you do

and that's saying a LOT!!

"Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warns against more cuts in Pentagon budget"

Edit your OP already - Let the repubs get all the attention for mis-representing... EVERY F****** THING.

[marlakay]

43. That is OUR money we paid into that for our

pension...what right do they have to steal it for illegal wars?????

[Politicalboi]

45. What about the

2.3 Trillion still missing somewhere in the bowels of the Pentagon? Fuck them and their wars. And their fake 9/11 bullshit. Drain the Pentagon dry for all I care.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

48. I am sorry to inform you that your trust rating has been downgraded from Trusted to Check & Verify.

n/t

[JoePhilly]

50. +1

[boppers]

54. LOL

Well played.

[uponit7771]

60. +1

[bvar22]

52. $40 Billion/year cut in "Defense" is less than a crumb.

Is this what the "Centrists" are going to use as the big Marketing Scam to sell cuts in Entitlements?

I can hear it now.
"This is a "Historic" step in the right direction!"
"How can you be opposed to cuts in Defense Spending."

[Proud Liberal Dem]

57. Panetta is saying this

and I really do think that he's saying this on his own accord and that this is NOT the official Administration position, at least based on the current available information. :shrug:

[Fearless]

59. Send in the Obama clones.

[uponit7771]

61. most people dont like to be mislead