Do Democrats not want these people (who according to them had few other options in life) getting extra cash - which is tax free- for risking everything. Cut the funding and the Democrats make a political mistake in winning over the military.
An intelligent political move by the Democrats would be to give Bush what he wants, and keep this HIS war, by doing so they can continue to blame him and win the WH Senate and House of Reps.
2007-06-01 05:07:16 · 8 answers · asked by Tom Sh*t 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:5:./temp/~c110EBTlLW:e8839:
Ok, first of all personal insults make me an enemy. Judging from the answers, liberals - next time I hear how compassionate you are excuse me for laughing, and voting against you. Sh*theads I am looking to vote for your guys - you attitude does not help. I am a f'kin independant now, who will support victory but not the moron in the WH.
Now for those that wanted proof, well, I admit to being wrong. You hit me in an area I usually demand and had to look it up. In that bill equipment for us, Iraqi forces, maintence, Afghan forces, and varies other things surpass the appoximate $7 bi for combat pay.
2007-06-01 05:34:25 · update #1
Yes, big deal. I can also tell you that this "we support the troops but not the war" crap is just that, crap. In denying funding, they hurt the soldiers, messed up deployment schedules, and actually caused rotations of troops back home to be temporarily halted. So much for support the troops.
2007-06-01 05:15:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
As pointed out above, out of the war budget only a small amount goes for combat pay. Also, if you would get your news channel to something other than Fox news you would know that the forces that be in the military are trying to avoid any extra pay for personnel, to the point where they are claiming that some people who would normally qualify for duty and combat pay, and tuition signing bonuses, don't because they weren't actually in a combat area or situation which garner such pay, yes this is partially due to budgeting restrictions, but its also due to the fact that the US military can't afford to pay all the solders we have over there in the first place, not to mention the bonuses that they should be given. Also, by giving the president, or more to the point his advisors, what they want the Democrats are just going to get in trouble in the next elections, in case your conservative brain forgets, the Republicans were quick to point out with every Democrat that they could in the last election that their opponent supported the war, by voting favorably for the budget they will just leave themselves open for the next election.
2007-06-01 12:23:44 · answer #2 · answered by Mark G 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You are either extremely naive or badly informed. have you priced any of the military equipment?
Pay is NOT where the funding is going. An intelligent political move by the Democrats would be to bring our troops home now.
For Bush so loved the troops the Bush administration cut of more than SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS from the Veterans' Administration annual budget?
Can we feel the love?
2007-06-01 12:15:38 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Don't listen to the socialist liberals they hate our military and our country, and yes the Military deserve combat pay, even to defend a liberal hater.
2007-06-01 18:54:58 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Define a good portion. I guarantee you that most of that money is used to pay for equipment not to pay the soldiers.
2007-06-01 12:17:33 · answer #5 · answered by go avs! 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
In most instances pay is a small percentage of funding.
2007-06-01 12:10:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
BS. And NO ONE would let these men and women go without pay.
2007-06-01 12:15:12 · answer #7 · answered by gone 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Do you have a budget break down?
2007-06-01 12:12:25 · answer #8 · answered by matt S 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋