This is the crap that the Democrats threw in with the bill. They claim our President cut funding for our troops. Sorry guys but no one is dumb enough to believe that.
The minimum wage increase
The minimum wage increase in AMERICAN SAMOA!
$50 million for the "Capital power plant"
Increasing the capital gains rate for certain people
A payment to the widow of a congressman
$25 million to SPINACH GROWERS!
$80 million for public rental assistance
the list goes on but I don't have enough time to type it all. So much for your argument that our President is cutting funding for our troops.
2007-04-14 10:57:48 · 22 answers · asked by TRUE PATRIOT 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I am not up to date on all of this as I think you are, but didn't the bill also require a pullout date? What the hell is the point of funding the troops going to do if we throw in the towel. I am not pretending to be a Bush backer, however facts are facts, we invaded Iraq, we took the country, now we need to finish the job. Who determines when the job is finished? NOT THE DEMOCRATS!! That's what we have Generals for.
2007-04-14 19:29:51 · answer #1 · answered by olschoolmom 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Bush vows to veto a bill to set a deadline for troops leaving Iraq which would in turn deny funding to the same troops. Is this supposed to be a comfort to the troops? A bill ladened with pork to entice others to vote in favor of it. Is this supposed to be a comfort to the anti-war citizens? How about the citizens who detest pork? Each side seems so determine to appeal to their bases that it is getting almost comical...i mean scary. What is scarier is this is the group of individuals that the citizens of the United States of America voted to have as representatives. This is too much.
2016-05-20 00:24:03 · answer #2 · answered by catarina 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You mean the spinach growers that could go under because of the e. coli outbreak? If there was a tornado that did them in they'd get the money from your president. Or how about the public rental assistance for all those people struggling due to lost jobs because of a failing employment rate thanks to Bush!!! A minimum wage increase you say...well, now there hasn't been one of those in what...twelve years?....yes earmarks are a fact of government, but the real reason he vetoed was because of the timetable.
2007-04-14 11:03:58 · answer #3 · answered by Katie 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes, on a bill that total 130+ billion, about 5% of it was for non-military purposes, specifically to help Americans. And if you look at every other major funding bill over the past two or three decades, all of them will have these kinds of add-ons.
Bush threatened to veto the funding bill based solely on the attached timetable, long before these add-ons. And he still gets all the funding he's requesting, which is abotu 95% of the total being spend in the bill.
So, if the troops don't get funded, it's entirely on Bush for choosing to ignore Congress and reject the funding he asked for. Any claim that he's vetoing it based solely on this miniscule 5% is silly.
2007-04-14 11:08:58 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4⤊ 4⤋
This President is a far sight better than the imbecile who preceeded him. I just love it when the loopy libs point to Clinton and brag about the prosperity during that time. HELLO the Congress went republican two years into the Clinton debacle of a presidency and that's why the economy went so well. Did all the loopy libs forget about Newt's Contract With America?
2007-04-14 11:03:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Damn people to hell for wanting to make more than $5.50 an hour ! But yet you ***** about foodstamps.Bright. Damn our elderly and disabled VETS {which you probably aren't or else were drafted and still pissed off about} for wanting affordable housing.Damn our food growers for wanting to be able to re-plant after disasters.And damn them for wanting capitol gains increases on the wealthy.Not to mention that all of these things weren't brought to the table by Democrats some by oh Lord no Republicans.So who's the dumb one here?
2007-04-14 11:18:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
The reason he said he would veto the bill had nothing to do with anything but the time table. His own suggested time table. What is important to him. A few piggies or funding his war. Sometimes he will need to learn to take the bad with the good. Spoiled brats rarely see that, however.
2007-04-14 11:03:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
This does seem a little bit off... But, I've got to respect the president for who he is. He made the presidency, so, apparently, someone must want him up there. I believe he made a few bad choices, and one thing led to another.
2007-04-14 11:01:15 · answer #8 · answered by Cam 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
This is why we NEED a strong third party. The Democrats have picked up right where they left off, fleecing the American worker.
2007-04-14 11:10:59 · answer #9 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There are plenty of liberals who will believe this. Democrats are going to need their base in 2008 because the rest of the country is going to hate them
2007-04-14 11:32:28 · answer #10 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋