They do jobs that others won't do

From the HAYS DAILY NEWS by R. W. Yeager Norton, Ks.


We need to show more sympathy for these people. They travel miles
in the heat, they risk their lives crossing a border, they don't get
paid enough wages, they do jobs that others won't do or are afraid to
do, they live in crowded conditions among a people who speak a
different language, they rarely see their families, and they face
adversity all day every day.


I'm not talking about illegal Mexicans, I'm talking about our troops.
Doesn't it seem strange that the Democrats are willing to lavish
all kinds of social benefits on illegals, but don't support our
troops and are now threatening to defund them?

 

I think Mr. Norton might want to subscribe to a newspaper. From the complaints I am hearing the Democrat's are supporting the troops more than the Bush administration wants.

 

I don't know how old that is... some one sent it to me today. I looked on the site but couldn't find it. :neutral:

 

It seems to have made the rounds of the right leaning blogs. The first paragraph is certainly true about the troops, but it's not the Democrats who sent them over there without the proper equipment, who continue to extend tours of duty (do you have any idea how demoralizing that is?), or who vetoed a bill that provided full funding for the troops.

 

what else was included or attached to this bill?

 

Which was more important than the troop's funding ....

 

"US President George W Bush vetoed a Congressional bill that would have linked war funding to a timetable for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq."

our military leaders need to decide when to exit Iraq. not Nancy Pelosi and her cohorts.

 

Actually, no. The military leaders do not decide on policy but only follow that policy. Congress is the final decision maker in that aspect ... at least according to the Constitution.

 

Has anyone in here looked at the bill that Bush did not veto???? It's ironic that a hogzilla was shot last week because that bill he did accept had so much pork attached to it for the political buddy network that we shouldn't give it a bill number. We should give it a name, The Hogzilla Bill.

quote from myway.com:
The bill establishes a series of goals for the Iraqi government to meet as it strives to build a democratic country able to defend its own borders. Continued U.S. reconstruction aid would be conditioned on progress toward the so-called benchmarks, although Bush retains the authority to order that the funds be spent regardless of how the Baghdad government performs.

In exchange for providing the war money on Bush's terms, the congress and senate won White House approval for about $17 billion in spending above what the administration originally sought. Roughly $8 billion of that was for domestic programs from hurricane relief to farm aid to low-income children's health coverage.

Democrats also won a top priority - the first minimum wage increase in more than a decade. The current federal wage floor of $5.15 an hour will go to $7.25 in three separate installments of 70 cents.

So all they (repulicans & democrats) did was exchange favors on spending more money than we have. The president still has the power to keep going in Iraq. How come Bush didn't mention that in his speach on this great bill? That's just plain stupid folks. Meanwhile back at the farm all the stupid Americans think something is being done about the war and spending. Duhhhhhhhhh .... wake up idiots. The only good thing in the bill was a hike in minimum wage.

PS: Note in paragraph 2 of the quote that $9 billion of spending is left up in the air. Can anyone guess who's pocket that's going to go into?

 

Well, heaven forbid we should waste money on stuff like that!

 

When was the last budget passed that was not packed with pork?

 

Ok, I can see how my post would suggest that opinion. But I don't have a problem with the hurricane relief or farm aid or low-income children's health coverage. I know you are a very knowledgeable woman, and you know how our government handles money. Less than half of that money will see its way to its objective. My main point is Bush War Tactics were not stopped by this bill. But his little war speach to the public gave everyone the idea that it had. My second point was the $9 billion in frivolous and open ended items.

Not like this one. They just gave pork a whole new meaning. Part of the money is an open bank vault for whatever they want. And with this type of complacency, “When was the last budget passed that was not packed with pork?” how will we ever stop it? We can do something about it. The question is, when will we become a collective voice and act on it?

 

So, it doesn't matter what else the bill does? If there was a bill to fund the troops and, oh yeah, reinstate slavery. You would condemn any who voted against it, right?

 

No, I would not. As I did not condemn anyone with the post, it would seem to be unrelated to the context of making a clarification on the additions and the priority with regard to troop funding. Unless you are saying the bill was going to reinstate slavery?

(The context was a bit more important than expressed here so I added it to the quotes.)

 

My comment was directed at your comment that appeared to me to be a suggestion that we are willing to accept whatever else was in the bill, just so long as the troops get funded.

Is that, or is that not, what you were saying?

 

I was saying that whatever else was in the bill had to be more important to veto than to approve the funding of the troops or the bill would have been signed. This would exclude any minor issues from being presented as the cause of the veto, unless there was a very large number of them.

 

There was one huge issue with the bill that overrode the funding. That being the time line for surrender.

Mr. Bush was very clear that any bill that came with a time line attached would be vetoed. The democrats in congress pushed one through anyway. If you ask me, they were simply wasting time, plain and simple.

 

That would be your opinion, but I think it caused the President to specify the funding for the troops was less important than not having a time line for their withdrawl. That is what this means is it not?

 

What do you think the reason was that the founding fathers specified that the President is the Comander-In-Chief? Do you think they did that because Washington was already a general? Or do you think the founding fathers felt that waging war by committee was a bad idea?

The Constitution gives Congress the charge to start and stop wars. However, the processing of the war is left solely to the President.

If Congress wants to stop the war, let them do it. But to tell the President how to wage the war is not their job. But Congress won't stop the war because, deep down, they believe in it. All this filgercarb is nothing more than an effort to bash Mr. Bush yet again.

 

Is that not what they were doing? How is setting a schedule for the stoppage of peace keeping duties telling anyone how to "process" a war?

What direction on how to wage the war, which is supposedly over, was included in the bill? There was the commitment to set a timeline to end the "peace

That would seem to be wishful thinking on your part.