Welcome To aBlackWeb

The Official World Politics Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
You can’t make someone stop working based on age alone, that’s been federally outlawed since 67, and repealing that would involve widespread repercussions for every workplace. Easier to attack the term limits angle..
Actually in SC, judges are required to retire at 72. That’s one of his points. If you’re too old to interpret laws you should be too old to legislate laws.

So it’s different for politicians and should be.
 
Actually in SC, judges are required to retire at 72. That’s one of his points. If you’re too old to interpret laws you should be too old to legislate laws.

So it’s different for politicians and should be.

What loophole was used to get that passed?
 
'Unconscionable': House Committee Adds $37 Billion to Biden's $813 Billion Military Budget | The proposed increase costs 10 times more than preserving the free school lunch program that Congress is allowing to expire "because it's 'too expensive,'" Public Citizen noted.


"Today members of the House Armed Services Committee put the demands of the military-industrial complex over the needs of the American people yet again," Public Citizen president Robert Weissman said in a statement.

"Granting $37 billion to a war machine that can't even pass an audit while saying that we 'can't afford' what American families and communities need is quintessential hypocrisy," said Weissman. "Congress can still correct this misstep—rerouting that funding into investments like economic stability, climate justice, and affordable healthcare for all Americans instead."

The House panel's increase comes less than a week after the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to add $45 billion to Biden's $813 billion request, pushing the upper chamber's total proposed budget for national military spending in the coming fiscal year to a whopping $857.6 billion—including $817 billion for the Pentagon, $30 billion for the Department of Energy, and an additional $10.6 billion that falls outside NDAA jurisdiction.



During a speech Wednesday in which she explained why she voted against Golden's "unconscionable" amendment, Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Cailf.) stressed that "there are simply not military solutions to every problem."

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) also voted against Golden's amendment and explained his opposition in remarks delivered from the House floor.

"If you're supporting this amendment, you're basically paving the way to a trillion-dollar defense [bill]," said Khanna. "Is that what we want in this country?"

"I just want to be clear," he added. "There is no country in the world that is putting over half its discretionary budget into defense and I would rather for us to be the preeminent economy of the 21st century by investing in the health of our people, in the education of our people, in the industries of the future."


Although a majority of U.S. voters are opposed to military spending in excess of $800 billion, earlier efforts to slash the Pentagon's budget have failed to gain enough support to pass the House or Senate thanks in part to lawmakers who receive significant amounts of campaign cash from the weapons industry, which benefits from constantly ballooning expenditures.

Roughly 55% of all Pentagon spending went to private sector military contractors from FY 2002 to FY 2021, according to Stephen Semler of the Security Policy Reform Institute. "If this privatization of funds rate over the last 20 years holds," Semler wrote in December, arms dealers will gobble up an estimated $407 billion in public money in FY 2022.
 
I don’t know much about these in general but why did they only go after one brand? Aren’t all the other brands still legal?

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top