- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 16,881
- Reaction score
- 2,980
- Location
- virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
ssWhy? To pay for the war?
I don't believe it has anything to do with hypocrisy.
He should be cutting all health care. So I agree this is despicable only because it's hypocritical...
[h=1]Obama to cut medical benefits for active, retired military, not union workers[/h]
Obama to cut medical benefits for active, retired military, not union workers - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com
"In an effort to cut defense spending, the Obama Administration plans to cut health benefits for active duty and retired military personnel and their families while not touching the benefits enjoyed by unionized civilian defense workers."
Despicable.
And Romney (Ryan plan mainly) will cut benefits for veterans.
Weee.
Choose between who should suffer. People who are serving the country or those who served their country!
What benefits will it cut? For which veterans?
And Romney (Ryan plan mainly) will cut benefits for veterans.
Weee.
Choose between who should suffer. People who are serving the country or those who served their country!
Obama already cut defense 500 billion and wants to cut it another 500 billion..........Even his own SECDEF is against that.
Sounds like someone should check their facts.. Obama just expanded services for wounded warriors.
Which unionized civil defense workers?
Obama already cut defense 500 billion and wants to cut it another 500 billion..........Even his own SECDEF is against that.
Really? Obama cut defense spending by $500 billion? Care to prove it?
It would be more accurate to say, "Obama's failed budget called for nearly 500 billion cut". But, we all know he hasn't had an actual budget in the last three years.
Obama already cut defense 500 billion and wants to cut it another 500 billion..........Even his own SECDEF is against that.
There should not be a charity for wounded warriors....The Government should pay everything for these wounded heroes.
NO! It was not the President's "failed budget" that called for the cuts - it was the result of a Republican-dominated House refusing to pass any revenue-increasing bills and demanding that only cuts be considered. The 'financial wonk' voted for the grand bargain known as "sequestration", so Republicans should quit trying to pass this off onto the President - they were willing participants in this deal and now they lie and try to pin everything on the President and the Dems.
The President can only present a budget 'proposal' - it is the duty of Congress to legislate the national budget and for some odd reason, the most obstructive Congress in history has managed to do nothing.
I thought you were against socialism.
You think a government paying for what it caused is socialism?
Yes I do, but most socialism is good for the public interest/majority.
The President can only present a budget 'proposal' - it is the duty of Congress to legislate the national budget and for some odd reason, the most obstructive Congress in history has managed to do nothing.
You got that part right. The last time the Senate passed a budget, no one had even heard of an iPad. Harry Reid is the worst excuse for a Senate leader that we have ever had and, since the Dems elected him, the way forward is to get a Republican majority in the Senate.
Reparations are not socialism. Paying what is owed is not socialism. The government taking care of it's wounded veterans is not socialism. It is just the right thing to do.
edit: oh, and most socialism is a sure fire way to destroy innovation and ambition. It does nothing for the public interest except redirect the opium of the religions it suppresses to enable itself.
That's a forum! That isn't a source, lol. What are you thinking? It's a forum. That's like me creating a thread here that said Romney eats babies, and then using that thread I created as a source for my claim that Romney eats babies. It makes no sense. It's a forum. Like this one. I really can't stress that enough. You are sourcing an opinion that was on a forum that provided no facts. A forum. An opinion, on a forum, like this one. With no facts. Forum.
That's the problem. There are always way too many things under the category of, "just the right thing to do". I thought cons were aainst gov spending. .Or, is that just for the poor?
Really? Obama cut defense spending by $500 billion? Care to prove it?
It would be more accurate to say, "Obama's failed budget called for nearly 500 billion cut". But, we all know he hasn't had an actual budget in the last three years.
NO! It was not the President's "failed budget" that called for the cuts - it was the result of a Republican-dominated House refusing to pass any revenue-increasing bills and demanding that only cuts be considered. The 'financial wonk' voted for the grand bargain known as "sequestration", so Republicans should quit trying to pass this off onto the President - they were willing participants in this deal and now they lie and try to pin everything on the President and the Dems.
The President can only present a budget 'proposal' - it is the duty of Congress to legislate the national budget and for some odd reason, the most obstructive Congress in history has managed to do nothing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?