Only hours before the federal government began its partial shutdown at midnight on Tuesday, Congress passed a law assuring that military personnel will get checks promptly when their next payday rolls around on October 15 — even if there are still no appropriations for the new fiscal year. But that doesn’t mean military families will be untouched by the shutdown. The stateside commissaries where they buy food are closed. Most government-funded travel has been suspended. Services provided by civilian federal workers will be disrupted. Even death benefits for warfighters killed in action might be delayed.
[.......]
The vast warfighting machine that the nation spent trillions of dollars building up after 9-11 is rapidly running down, a victim of partisan bickering in which the once staunchly pro-defense Republican Party has become the biggest threat to U.S. military preparedness. That’s a title that GOP partisans gleefully attached to the Democrats after Vietnam, but most Republicans in the House now seem to have higher priorities than keeping the joint force trained and equipped.
[........]
So when Republican proponents of the Tea Party agenda in the House speak in glowing terms about disrupting federal funding mechanisms — “We’re very excited,” says Michelle Bachmann (R-MN), “It’s wonderful” says John Culberson (R-TX) — we ought to see their enthusiasm for what it is. It is ideological fervor fed at the expense of America’s warfighters.
Those warfighters are more likely to die in future conflicts because funding for training and technology was cut, and their families are more likely to suffer in the near term for lack of support. The good news is that once legislators in both parties realize that is what’s happening, the Tea Party movement is likely to lose its momentum.
Oh well, if FORBES says it all conservatives must agree. :mrgreen:
Perhaps conservatives aren't the follow along puppies liberals are and are willing instead to think for themselves. And btw, if our military forces are "rapidly running down" what the hell has the president and the democratic senate been doing the last six years?
Oh well, if FORBES says it all conservatives must agree. :mrgreen:
Perhaps conservatives aren't the follow along puppies liberals are and are willing instead to think for themselves. And btw, if our military forces are "rapidly running down" what the hell has the president and the democratic senate been doing the last six years?
More like lemmings. Not one Republican in the House had the courage to break with the Tea Party's scorch earth policy.
And you're actually arguing that conservatives "think for themselves". BWHHAHAHHAHAHH!
Well HOJ, when it comes to doing what's right you know that the GOP is going to be patriotic and support ourMore like lemmings. Not one Republican in the House had the courage to break with the Tea Party's scorch earth policy.
And you're actually arguing that conservatives "think for themselves". BWHHAHAHHAHAHH!
Well HOJ, when it comes to doing what's right you know that the GOP is going to be patriotic and support ourwarfighters... mean insurance companies. :roll:
Wrong party there - Obama met with the insurance companies early on and gave them whatever they wanted from the deal. Did it closed door too, that's why for a while there Pelosi thought a single payer option was on the table and had to quickly backtrack.
That's because conservatives were unwilling to engage with the process and help challenge the corporate establishment in Washington.
It is sort of like the Mass Effect 3 endings:
You can (1) destroy the Establishment but America dies, (2) merge with the Establishment, or (3) overpower and control the Establishment.
(3) was a locked option, (1) was not really an option at all, so we went with (2).
I'm not too sure about that. It took some real arm twisting to get those companies to sit down with Obama and talk. These companies can't be too wild about the "they can't turn you down" thing.Wrong party there - Obama met with the insurance companies early on and gave them whatever they wanted from the deal. Did it closed door too, that's why for a while there Pelosi thought a single payer option was on the table and had to quickly backtrack.
Yes Right Wingers who want to deny who is responsible for the shut down.. this is Conservative Forbes.
Tea Party Budget Tactics Are Hitting The Military Hard - Forbes
10/01/2013 @ 10:52AM
Yes Right Wingers who want to deny who is responsible for the shut down.. this is Conservative Forbes.
Tea Party Budget Tactics Are Hitting The Military Hard - Forbes
10/01/2013 @ 10:52AM
The House is at this very minute writing up individual bills to fund the military, DHS and so on... I am sure the Democrats will be quick to pass those in the senate and Obama will sign them into law... because they REALLY care about the military. Right?
Yes Right Wingers who want to deny who is responsible for the shut down.. this is Conservative Forbes.
Only hours before the federal government began its partial shutdown at midnight on Tuesday, Congress passed a law assuring that military personnel will get checks promptly when their next payday rolls around on October 15 — even if there are still no appropriations for the new fiscal year. But that doesn’t mean military families will be untouched by the shutdown. The stateside commissaries where they buy food are closed. Most government-funded travel has been suspended. Services provided by civilian federal workers will be disrupted. Even death benefits for warfighters killed in action might be delayed.
[.......]
The vast warfighting machine that the nation spent trillions of dollars building up after 9-11 is rapidly running down, a victim of partisan bickering in which the once staunchly pro-defense Republican Party has become the biggest threat to U.S. military preparedness.
That’s a title that GOP partisans gleefully attached to the Democrats after Vietnam, but most Republicans in the House now seem to have higher priorities than keeping the joint force trained and equipped.
[........]
So when Republican proponents of the Tea Party agenda in the House speak in glowing terms about disrupting federal funding mechanisms — “We’re very excited,” says Michelle Bachmann (R-MN), “It’s wonderful” says John Culberson (R-TX) — we ought to see their enthusiasm for what it is. It is ideological fervor fed at the expense of America’s warfighters.
Those warfighters are more likely to die in future conflicts because funding for training and technology was cut, and their families are more likely to suffer in the near term for lack of support. The good news is that once legislators in both parties realize that is what’s happening, the Tea Party movement is likely to lose its momentum.
You "stopped reading" early on, obviously.I stopped reading after you falsely claimed Forbes is a conservative he is a libertarian
"Libertarian" is never mentioned.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Forbes said:[......]
Forbes entered the Republican primaries for President of the United States in 1996 and 2000, primarily running on a campaign to establish a flat income tax. He also supported the ideas of re-introducing 4 1/2% mortgages and term limits in 1996, but dropped both in 2000 (as they were minor planks in his overall platform).
[......]
Major issues Forbes has supported include free trade, health savings accounts, and allowing people to opt out 75% of Social Security payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts (PRAs). He supports traditional Republican Party policies such as downsizing government agencies to balance the budget, tough crime laws and support for the death penalty, and school vouchers. He opposes gun control and most government regulation of the environment, as well as drug legalization and same-sex marriage.[13] This last was despite his father's increasingly flamboyant gay lifestyle before his death.[14]
[......]
In his 2000 campaign, Forbes professed his support for Social Conservatism along with his supply-side economics. Despite holding opposite positions in 1996, for the 2000 campaign, Forbes announced he was adamantly opposed to abortion and supported prayer in public schools. The previous year Forbes had issued a statement saying he would no longer donate money to Princeton University due to its hiring of philosopher Peter Singer, who views personhood as being limited to 'sentient' beings and therefore considers some disabled people and all infants to lack this status. Steve Forbes was one of the signers of the Statement of Principles of Project for the New American Century (PNAC) on June 3, 1997.
Ouch!http://www.Conservativebookstore.com/magrack/forbes-magazine.htm said:Forbes Magazine has been keeping the nation's great entrepreneurs informed and solvent since before the Great Depression. Right on the money for over 80 years. Get Forbes Magazine!
The most Conservative business journal published today is Forbes Magazine. Unabashedly practical and pro-capital Forbes Magazine brings you feature articles on up and coming companies, old and new money, CEOs, entrepreneurs, trends, industries, politics and more.
why pick and choose what parts of the government to keep open? why not fund all of the government.
I'm not too sure about that. It took some real arm twisting to get those companies to sit down with Obama and talk. These companies can't be too wild about the "they can't turn you down" thing.
Well they spent $102.4 million dollars in the last 15 months to stop their happiness. That doesn't make sense to me. :shrug:Hence the mandate and the billions of dollars in subsidies that will be funneling into their pockets.
Hence the mandate and the billions of dollars in subsidies that will be funneling into their pockets.
Nope, the closed door meetings between Obama and insurance company execs happenned very early on in the process while the bill was still being authored. He promised them no single payer.
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?