The Senate has unanimously passed their version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a $631 billion military spending bill, with 98 votes in favor. The unanimity of the vote, according to analysts, was because of a “lack of controversial issues.”
The things that weren’t controversial enough to muster even a single no vote included a new round of sanctions against Iran, a permanent ban on ever transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay, and continued funding for the occupation of Afghanistan.
Oh, and lest we forget, the Senate version also included the Feinstein Amendment, which nominally was supposed to ban open-ended military detention of American citizens captured on American soil, but was so awkwardly worded and filled with loopholes that proponents of the detention voted for it because they believe it will make it even easier for the military to capture Americans under the new law.
The bill is slightly different from a House version already passed, which is $634 billion. Officials say the two are close enough that it will be easy to solve in committee, however.
See how many traitors in the us mis-government?
And this is the country that wants to control the whole world! God help us all if they ever do.
It is also the country that gave the world the Three Stooges. There seems to be a connection there somewhere.
So, are we replacing steak night at the officer's club with lobster and champagne?
And building yet another new golf course too I'm sure.
Another failure by Rand Paul.
Son of Dr No is not.
About $5,000 for every household in the US. It amounts to 600B going down the rat hole.
In 1945 at the end of WW11 my 9th grade civics treacher sat us down and explained to us what the monetary cost of the war (not counting the over 450,000 US lives) had been. That money could have put every household in a 6 room house mortgage free, a new car (one car per family was the norm in those days) plus numerous other social benefits. In todays dollars it was like 5 trillion dollars.That lecture has remained with me ever since.
People just do not understand what a waist military spending is.
A staggering amount of money for a country that has no real major enemies in the world except perhaps for some cave dwellers in Afghanistan and East Pakistan!
It's also worth mentioning that "the country" doesn't even exist. Looking at individuals, I don't have *any* enemies, nor do any of my friends or family to my knowledge. Why should we all be forced to pay this massive sum for alleged protection services that we don't even need? It's definitely unjust.
Millions live in grinding poverty in Latin America, and mayors are gunned down in Mexican towns. Why don't we help them instead of bankrolling creepy Syrian rebels.
What’s not to like (if you’re in Congress or the Administration) about a business that
(a) Mandates the use of other people’s money to procure stuff and services that are grossly overpriced, a lot of which is either blown up or parked around the world on land and sea until it grows obsolete only to be replaced at even more inflated cost.
(b) Provides the means to take other countries’ resources with impunity and
(c) Generates enormous mounds of cash for the people who make sure you or at least your party never has to worry about reelection or go without a well paying sinecure of a job.
In the midst of a budget crunch, the fact that they just wasted $600 billion apparently isn't controversial either. The USA spends more on 'defense', despite having no enemies threatening to invade', than the rest of the world combined. You know your 'news' is just 'propaganda' when that's not controversial.
I still don't feel safe enough. It shoulda been more.
Thehill, in their article says, "the unanimous vote highlighted the lack of controversial issues". Mass murder is uncontroversial in the US Congress.