Saturday, October 20, 2007

Democrats support the Troops? What a load of crap!




Democrats support the Troops? What a load of crap!
By Frank Antenori

This past week many of us followed the theatrics of Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) and the Media Matters idiots as they tried to spin a comment Rush Limbaugh made about a poser named Jesse Macbeth. Macbeth became the poster boy for the anti-war left group called Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) when he claimed to be an Army Ranger that saw U.S. atrocities first hand in Iraq.

The problem was that Macbeth was a liar; he never served in Iraq, wasn’t an elite Ranger and was kicked out of the Army after only 42 days in basic training because the wimp couldn’t cut the training. The FBI investigated Macbeth under the Stolen Valor Act and a court found him guilty of fraud, sentencing him to five months in Federal Prison. Rush was simply responding to a caller that pointed out many of these so called anti-war vets were actually phonies like Macbeth, many never served in combat and some hadn’t even served in the military. Rush rightly called them “Phonies.”

While Harry Ried and the Democrats were busy putting on their usual "We Support the Troops" facade, once again using soldiers as political pawns to score political points, real issues involving support for our troops went ingnored.

One of the most pressing military issues that illustrate the breathtaking mismatch between the Democrat rhetoric and their actions involves taking care of troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. The legislation is known as the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act of 2007 (H.R.1538, S.1283).

The bill currently languishes in conference committee. For months the House and Senate have been sitting on their respective versions of “wounded warrior” legislation designed to overhaul the confusing and contradictory military and VA health care systems. This noble legislation is overwhelmingly supported by both parties and passed in the House back in March by a vote of 426-0.

Some of the things the legislation does includes expanding treatment and rehab alternatives for injured troops; ease their transition between the incompatible military and VA systems; and revamp today’s muddled and unfair disability ratings system.

Usually, such defense related legislation would be lumped into the broader defense authorization bill. However, recognizing that the defense bill would likely become bogged down in disputes over Iraq policy, the House and Senate leaders of both parties decided months ago to strip the wounded warrior legislation out and make it a separate, standalone bill. The bill was supposed to put it on a fast track to President Bush’s desk in order to be signed by Memorial Day.

But the wounded warrior bill is inexplicably stuck in the muck in the House and Senate for no reason other than that Congress just hasn’t gotten around to dealing with it.

A few weeks ago, I attended a veteran’s town hall hosted by Congresswoman Giffords. Gabby handed out a fact sheet of all the “wonderful things” she’s doing for veterans. For those of you that don’t know, Ms. Giffords sits on the House Armed Services Committee, the very committee which has oversight on this bill.

Well Miss Giffords, why is this legislation stalled? Are you too busy counting your MoveOn.org money? Too busy helping Harry and Nancy chase after Rush? Too busy planning for your upcoming wedding?

Well while you and your fellow Democrats jerk around playing politics and hire caterers, five to seven troops are wounded or injured in Iraq and Afghanistan every day. In typical fashion, Democrats continue to speak loudly but do little as usual.

There is simply no excuse for this delay. If Democrats truly “support the troops,” as they so often proclaim, they should rethink their priorities and finish the wounded warrior bill.

Right now.

Frank Antenori is a retired U.S. Army Special Forces veteran that fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, published author and candidate for the Arizona State Legislature in District 30.

40 comments:

roger said...

What is hilarious about Rush Limbaugh and folks like Frank Antenori is that they claim a monopoly on support for the troops. The just can't stand the fact that this war is simply bad for the army. Anyone who disagrees within the army is criticism and an attack machine goes after them. That includes ex-generals. I think you might be shocked at how many of our men and women in uniform feel used, taken for granted, and taken advantage of. I suspect that you overestimate how all the tough talk from Republicans hits them when they get home and they are nickled and dimed on their benefits. I suspect they are also pretty angry when they get home wounded and find the healthcare for Veterans, under this adminitration, to be a salvage operation. I suspect that they feel taken advantage of and unappreciated when the army sends these men and women to Iraq for tour after tour after tour...away from their families. The families end up on charity because the pay and government programs afforded to them drawf that of the contractors that are paid to do this work too.

The GOP is breaking the spirit of our military...and how dare they slam anyone who criticizes the war. It is why the military has to send people into battle over and over again.

My brother has been there once. He is likely to go back. I say for what? His life is not at all worth this. Nor are the lives of the 10-20 men and women killed each week there.

roger said...

Giffords is in the house Frank, I'm sure you know that. She is on the Committee that brought the legislation to the floor and got it passed unanimously.

If the GOP is so much the savior of our soldiers, then why did they not even pass such a bill or even propose such bills when they controlled both the Presidency and both houses? That was less that two years ago Frank.

Do you know why the GOP doesn't help Veterans? It is because so many of you are fine with giving our tax dollars to fight wars, but you care little about what happens to them afterward. Your party and YOU. Why YOU? Because you would rather rail on and blame then Democrats then to look at your own side of the house.

The reason your party has nickled and dimed our soldiers on their benefits...the reason you all didn't do squat for Veterans when you had the chance...is because it is a government program. It is welfare...and you all HATE welfare...even if those benefits in a case of soldiers is so rightly deserved.

I wish I was in your district so I could vote against you.

Liza said...

Someone explain to me why this opportunistic, money-grabbing gasbag named Rush Limgaugh is so influential within the GOP?

Think about it, folks. This fat waste of DNA is a TALK RADIO host who spends his days having word hemorrhages.

The Real Sporer said...

Great Post!!!!!

Democrats support the troops like the batterer loves his wife.

Come on over to the Real Sporer tonight and live blog your thoughts on the GOP debate. The fur might fly now that the candidates know they have less than 75 days until the Iowa Caucuses.

Frank Antenori said...

Roger,
I usually don't respond to comments to my post but I can't let this one slide.

I obviously hit a nerve since your responding with such vehement distortions to protect your gal Gabby.

Spending for the VA under Clinton was $45 Billion/year. Under Bush it has gone up to $80.6 Billion (2007 Budget). That’s an increase of almost 38%; the biggest percentage increase since WWII. So that would eclipse the Carter, Kennedy and Johnson Presidencies as well.

This year, the President wants to increase even more in the 2008 budget by adding an additional $7 Billion, putting the total over $87 Billion, almost double since he took office. The remarkable thing is that $45 Billion of that goes directly to disability payments and benefits (By the way that’s more than double the Clinton VA benefits budget of 2000). The rest goes to healthcare and construction to build a dozen new VA Health Centers. But in pure Washington doublespeak alla the bait and switch, the Dems, who want to see a $10 Billion increase, are calling the increase of $7 Billion a “cut.”

I happen to agree that the amount should be more and that the VA should be fully funded based on the formula of the number of qualifying vets in the VA system to annual cost of actual care. The President said he would entertain considerations to increase the VA budget if the Dems would consider cuts elsewhere in the budget; but they won’t.

Meanwhile you guys are content to give free healthcare to people making $82K/year while raising taxes to do it, can’t seem to find a few billion dollars to cover your proposed increase for vets. That’s the dirty little secret. You guys want to give an entitlement of free healthcare to people that didn’t even earn it, then you turn around and use wounded soldiers as political pawns.

As far as Giffords goes, I’m well aware she’s in the House. If you read the post, you’ll see that there are two separate versions of the bill, a Senate and House version. Both passed in their respective chambers unanimously back in March. My beef is that they’ve been sitting in conference committee since then.

While you guys waste time playing your political stunts instead of reconciling the bills, wounded vets are waiting. Ms. Giffords could very well demand action by writing a simple letter to Nancy (but she doesn’t have the guts to do so).

I also find it funny that you would accuse me directly of doing nothing for vets. Ha! When you rack up the hours I have caring for wounded, sick and injured veterans, and the years I’ve spent in combat putting them back together, then you can try that baseless attack again.

Feel free to move into LD 30 anytime you want, the house next to mine is for sale I’d be happy to give you the agent’s number.

Regards,
Frank

Sirocco said...

Frank,

Too many things to address quickly, I may try to come back later if I still have interested ... however, I'll point out one _big_ reason the current budget allocates far more funding for the VA is because, well, the current administration has create d a set of circumstances where VA benefits are needed by far more people.

roger said...

Frank,

Yes, I am pissed off at your comment. It is typical BS. How do you know Giffords has done nothing to get the bill going in the Senate? Write Pelosi? Again, she presides over the House which introduced it and passed it unanimously! You should be thanking them, but instead you crap all over them when THEY did the right thing...and before Republicans did in the 6 years + that they had total power. More spending on Veterans? I have to question your numbers to some extent here and I have to question the treatment of our troops and their families under this Presidency. An increase of 38% over a period of 6 years is about 6% a year... and that is in a time of war when the need is actually greater because more troops are getting hurt and killed. That is paltry. In addition, I would love to know if that was the VA funding under Clinton at the time of the end of his Presidency or the beginning. Finally, funding $7 Billion is indeed a cut if it does not may the previous years funding and it is a real cut if it doesn't beat inflation.

What you should be angry about is that the our troops are paid crap, the spending on their benefits is crap, and the spending on defense contractors for missles and arms that insufficient is probably triple or more that which goes to the troops.

If there is any double speak in what has been said here, it is you. Trying to hang support of the troops on a party that gives a rats ass about them after they leave the field of battle...again, because then it something they typically like to call welfare.

You should applaud Giffords, her committee members, Pelosi and everyone all the Republican co-sponsors of the bill.

I would also bet that the reason it has stalled in the Senate is that Republicans think it is because the house version is too expensive. That is the typical reason.

Maybe John McCain and Jon Kyl should be getting off their asses and fighting for the bill. Sounds like Giffords and the House have already done their part.

roger said...

I found a Congressional Research Service Report that backs up the kind of increases in the VA that Frank talks about. What he doesn't talk about is how, during 1999-2004, while VA spending went up 52% about 8% a year, the number of Veterans enrolled reach 72% over the same time period and the number of Veterans receiving medical care went up 50%. The increases were in response to what the report called a pretty big crisis.

I bet defense spending went up by way more than that.

Duke the Dog said...

Roger,
You must have taken the short bus to school. Frank told you that the bill passed both the House and the Senate back in March. He also told you that the bill was now back in the House to be reconciled. So Giffords does have oversight. You obviously aren’t very attune to resolving differences in legislation between the House and Senate because anyone with half a brain would have figured that out in the initial post.

Last I checked, the Dems were in charge of the congressional schedule, which means it’s up to them to pull the reconciled bill out of the conference committee and get it back in front of the full House and Senate for a final vote.

I don’t see how Kyl or McCain can do this since Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi control what gets to the floor and the committee chairs control the bills coming out of committee.

Frank was incorrect about Gabby writing to Nancy, that would be a waste of time, she instead should be writing to the House conference committee chairman, which by the way is a member of her own party. I’d be willing to bet she has not checked on the status of the bill, let alone be pro-active in sending a nice reminder to the committee.

You party has pissed all over vets. Spitting on them, calling them baby killers, murderers, rapists, falsely accusing them of war crimes, undermining their every move, destroying their morale and even holding their funding hostage for six weeks this past summer that was needed to buy the new Armored MRAP vehicles.

You’ve got a lot of guts saying we should be thanking Democrats. I served in Vietnam and clearly remember what your party did to us back then and I’ll be hell bent on letting you do it to Frank’s generation of vets.

The jig is up. Trying to make it look like you’re supporting the vets with your petty BS number gimmicks and Daily Kos propaganda of trying to paint the President and Republicans as a cutting Defense spending when it is your party that wants to cut defense and cut off resources to our troops is well known by the majority of Americans.

Also you’re math sucks. Clinton actually cut VA healthcare, not once but twice, and pushed vets into the Medicare system to offset what he saw as short term budget gain. Again, a numbers gimmick. I know because I was one of those vets.

As far as Republicans not giving a rats ass about our troops, I’d love to see how much money Harry, Nancy and even Gabby have donated to veterans groups and charities? I bet you almost zero. They’d rather spend MY MONEY and give it to illegal aliens so they can go to college and get the healthcare they took from me in ’94.

The GOP did away with concurrent receipt, which Clinton refused to do every year he was in office. That was the biggest pay raise I got since my VA benefits were no longer deducted from my military retirement pay. I have President Bush to thank for that, not your leftist gasbags.

You sir a tool for the anti-military punks of the democrat party that only care about the troops when it’s politically beneficial to them. You are the experts of exploit. You are pathetic.

Go paint yourself pink and protest a recruiting station, that’s all you’re good for.

Anonymous said...

This argument about 'supporting the troops' is as specious as the coming 'who lost Iraq?' argument.

If we had single payer health care, even veterans would have access to decent coverage.

x4mr said...

Rush Limbaugh is a businessman who has figured out a way to make money pumping a bunch of idiots. He's very good at what he does. I was floored that the Senate spent a second responding to the guy.

Limbaugh is distilled swine. Wrestle with a pig and you just get dirty while the pig has fun. Recent events illustrate this with brutal clarity.

GOP attacks having anything to do with Iraq evaporate before they reach their target. The country wants out. The Democrats want us out. We are not out because the White House wants us in and enough Republicans vote to keep us in.

If the CD 8 election occurs in the context of Iraq, Bee's not just toast but scorched and smokin'.

How many CD 8 families have lost loved ones over there so Dick's friends can get rich? How many CD 8 families have people over there who WANT THEM BACK?!

Armysgt said...

"poser named Jesse Macbeth. Macbeth became the poster boy for the anti-war left group called Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW)"

Can you prove this?

Liza said...

armysgt,

From Wikipedia:

"Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) is an advocacy group comprised of active duty military and Iraq War veterans who are opposed to the U.S. occupation of Iraq. The organization advocates immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces in Iraq, reparations for the destruction and corporate pillaging of Iraq so that ordinary Iraqi people can control their own lives and future, and full benefits, adequate healthcare (including mental health), and other support for returning servicemen and women.

The group was founded in July 2004 at a the annual Veterans for Peace convention in Boston by Iraq war veterans. The founders are Kelly Dougherty (current Executive Director) US Army, Tim Goodrich US Air Force , Mike Hoffman USMC, Alex Ryabov USMC, Jimmy Massey USMC, Isaiah Pallos USMC, and Diana Morrison US Army. [1] In August 2007 the group named Camilo Mejia as the chair of its board of directors.[2]"

And also from Wikepedia on the Macbeth controversy:

"Jesse Macbeth was a well-publicized IVAW member who routinely went on record claiming that he had committed numerous attrocities in Iraq. This garnered him much attention on anti-war blogs and anti-war videos. It was later learned that he did not serve in Iraq. His service time was limited to that of partial completion of basic training.

IVAW disavowed Jesse Macbeth when they learned he was a fraud and using the IVAW name for non-IVAW sanctioned video recordings.[3] All members of IVAW have since been required to submit documentation of military service."

roger said...

How can this election not occur in the context of Iraq, X4mer?

Duke,

I blew the conference committee situation, I'll admit it. I was wrong, but not about what else I have said. I am far from believing that it is anything but the GOP blocking its passsage. Probably too expensive for them...or maybe embarassed at their failure to pass such a bill when they had total power.

Laying the delay on Giffords and assumming a lack of support of soldiers by the dems is henious.

I have never been to moveon.com's website. My 'petty' numbers are from a CRS report...issued under a GOP Congress.

Havent you all read the reports that the admin. has instructed the VA to give the least amount of benefits to wounded vets as possible? They are instructed to nickle and dime them because they never expected so many casualties or survivors. They didnt plan or pass the money to pay for it.

I doubt you will disagree with me about this fact. How patriotic of our admin....and to the last Congress that did squat when they had unified GOP control.

The admin. sent them to war, a quagmire, for strategic concerns and oil...not to defend America. They keep our soldiers in past their enlistment contracts, they send them into harms way over and over again...away from their families. AND...this willl really hurt you and Frank...

IT TOOK A DEMOCRAT CONGRESS TO GET THE BILL YOU SPEAK OF TO BE INTRODUCED AND PASSSED AT ALL.

AND YOU ALL DARE CALL US UNPATRIOTIC AND IMPLY WE CARE NOTHING FOR THE SOLDIERS.

The GOP should be embarassed at what they have done to and for these soldiers...and during a time of war.

Say what you want about protesters...I am left with the opinion that the GOP cares about war far more than those who wage it.

Frankly, I would do everything possible to keep my son from serving if he was old enough..so would most parents. Not for this war...not under this leadership. I would absolutely try to talk young people out of serving if they talked to me about it. I would hope they wouldnt...for their sake, for their friends, and their families. This admin. plays fast and loose with the lives of our soldiers...and all we are left with is yellow ribbons...and a thank you for their service instead of real pay, real benefits, and something other than charities for families of our soldiers.

I am sorry that you had to go to war, Duke. Really. No one should unless it is absolutely necessary.

Michael Bryan said...

Unnecessarily taking us to war is the ultimate dishonor of the sacrifices that warfare demands of our soldiers. Their deaths and life-long disabilities given for any lesser goal than the security of our nation is a stain on the honor of everyone involved with the decision. The Iraq war, whatever the motives of those who wanted it, is not about, and never was about the security of America and Americans.

To the extent that some Democrats voted for the war in Iraq out of political expediency, the Democratic party shares that dishonor. But make no mistake: this is a war conceived and stage managed to poisonous fruition by the Republican party. No amount of deflection, distraction and pure hum-buggery by Frank or any other apologist for the GOP can bury that shame. The GOP used the lives and limbs of our sons and daughters to make a bonfire around which to hold a political rally. There can be no greater contempt for our troops than that. If you can't see that, I pity you.

Steve said...

Way to go Frank! You must have hit a nerve; every lefty for miles around is coming to defend Gabby and her fellow conspirators in the Senate that exploit are troops.

Where are all of the Rich Democrats????

The multimillionaires???

The John (Mr. Theresa Heinz) Kerry’s, The Teddy Kennedy’s, The multimillion TAX FREE land deal Harry Reid’s??? The Hillary Clinton’s???

Why don’t they put their money where their mouths are???

To busy taking money from Chinese and other communists???

They can’t help it. They tried to turn the tables on the GOP to appease the MoveOn crowd and succeeded in making true Jackasses of themselves.


“The new epitome for turning lemons into lemonade goes to talk show giant Rush Limbaugh. In the frothy wake of the perpetual acrimonious partisan spitting match between left and right, Limbaugh has eviscerated his petty mean spirited critics AND gifted a worthy charity with a financial windfall. The New Jersey-based Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, a charity that gives scholarship money to the children of service members killed in war or in public duty, will receive $4.2 million...

The record setting e-Bay sale of a two-page letter (plus two additional pages of autographs) from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to Clear Channel Communications CEO Mark Mays ripping Limbaugh, was bought by DC philanthropist Betty Brown Casey for $2.1 million and was matched in kind by Limbaugh...

Forty-one myopic partisan Democratic senators signed the letter (which they knew was a lie), demonstrating both their picayune pettiness and massive mob myopia. Rush said, ‘It got this kind of money because it represents one of the most outrageous abuses of federal power in modern American history, and that is what makes it a collector’s item. This letter that Senator Reid wrote will forever memorialize him as a demagogue.’...

Contrast Congress with Betty Brown Casey and Rush Limbaugh and the variance is significant. Rush gets an ‘Attaboy’... Dingy Harry and his mean spirited minions get a wilted raspberry. More importantly, The Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation gets $4.2-Million.” —Geoff Metcalf



“When I spoke to Mark May [sic—Mays], he and I thought this probably wouldn’t make much money—a letter, written by Democrat Senators, complaining about something...[T]he [final] bid [was] more than two million for this...

Never did we think that this letter would bring money of this nature...

I don’t know what we could do more important than helping to ensure that children of our fallen soldiers and police officers who have fallen in the line of duty have the opportunity for their children to have a good education.” —Sen. Harry Reid taking credit for raising the money

YOU LOSE HARRY!!!


MSG Steve H.
USSF (RET)

P.S. SGM Jim S. says hello and says he's glad to see you're still out there pissing people off!!!

RLTW!!!

x4mr said...

Michael,

Beautiful.

Oh, Steve's an idiot.

GOP Boomer Gal said...

I would like to thank the "idiot" for his service to our country. It is because of "idiots" like him that you towering intellects are free to express your petty thoughts IN ENGLISH!!!

Steve said...

Typical commie response. I'm glad I spent 25 years defending your fisrt amendment right to sling insults. How does it feel having to rely on others to protect your pathetic existance?

If I were a betting man, I bet you and all the other surrender monkeys never spent a second in uniform defending this country.

I see how appreciative you are of the freedom I gave you, insulting vets, calling them idiots.

I bet you're a college professor that teaches communism?

Duke the Dog said...

Steve,
Don't mind them. They're the guys that sit next to you in a bar and cry about how the world sucks and say "If I were in charge, things would be different." Then when you ask them why they don't get their sorry butt off the bar stool, take charge and go do something about it, they just continue to whine that they would but their wife or mommy won't let them.

Thanks for serving.

Duke

Anonymous said...

What is more Unamerican? Denying health care to veterans, or denying health care to all citizens?

Right now we deny health care to the underclass while exploiting the good will of veterans with a divide and conquer strategy, that kills them with neglect from agent orange, depleted uranium, or other war related disease.

Blaming Gabby for exploiting soldiers is like blaming Lincoln for exploiting blacks.

Inequality is what we are arguing about, not veterans benefits.

White guys drive this policy and they could easily provide health care to everyone in this country.

But that would empower workers, veterans, the poor and even slackers.

So we will suffer and the white guys will divide and conquer those without access to health care.

If we were Christians, then we would care for the poor and suffering.

But we are Warriors and we have no mercy for minorities, veterans, or foreigners. We are Americans, not liberals, not Christians.

Anonymous said...

Well, Duke the Dog beat me to it but the prime example of the Democrat's actions not matching their "we support the troops" words was holding the supplemental funding hostage of their silly, stupid, assinine, TIMETABLE for withdrawal. MRAP vehicles are the only ones impervious to IEDs, they needed them as fast as we could send them, yet the Dems played a silly political game holding MRAP funding hostage for six weeks. That is "not caring for the troops" epitomized.

"I-man" said...

What??? Empower the workers? White guys?

Sounds like Leninist socialism.

Tell who is denied healthcare in this country???

Hmmm???? By Federal law, no hospital can deny anyone care. We do not have a healthcare problem as far as access goes. We have a healthcare insurance and affordability problem.

Do you honestly believe more government control will make it better???

If we go to a universal healthcare system, where will all of those Canadians get their healthcare???

You want to help the poor?

Do you know why the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer??

The answer is the rich keep making decisions to make them rich and the poor keep making decisions to make them poor.

We need to teach the poor how to make the right decisions; to delay instant gratification and invest; to manage their money and stay out of debt. We need to encourage entrepreneurship, not dependency on government. The U.S. is one of the few countries in the world where with hard work and exercising some sound decisions, you can go from rags to riches. Immigrants do it all the time because the come here with a work ethic yet our own citizens continue to pass on the poverty gene from one generation to the next.

The quickest way to poverty is to rob the American people of incentive and initiative.

Just look at what happened in France.

Teach to poor to make the right decisions.

You want Christian compassion??? Why not do what the bible says and teach a man to fish instead of just giving him a fish.

I'm an Independent with a capitol "I" meaning I don't need or want the government controlling any aspect of my life, including my decisions related to health care. You sound like a Dependant with a capitol “D.”

May God have mercy on your pitiful soul.

x4mr said...

Wow, Framer, you've really brought the Cheney puppets out in force. The twats think they fight for the country, freedom, and the American way. True disciples I must say.

Halliburton, ExxonMobile, Blackwater, and Lord Cheney has trained them well. They pump hundreds of billions into the right coffers, but of course, this is about defending our country.

Yeah, Steve. I'm a commie, and you're a whore wrapped around around Lord Dick. You serve him well. The executives of Exxon and Blackwater and Halliburton thank you for your patriotism.

Anonymous said...

i-man is a Corporate Christian. He has no compassion for those less fortunate than him. He is mighty white. He has no mercy on those different than him. Canadians and French believe in caring for all of their citizens when they are sick. They have true Christian values, rather than profit oriented HMO stock price care.

In America, our compassion begins in the emergency room or with recruiters cruising for volunteers for the wahrmacht. Pity the veterans who believe in serving all Americans, not just those in power.

Anonymous said...

I-man is stupid. The fish teaching metaphor is from Confucius. It is not in the Bible. He has not absorbed the lessons of the Bible, but he sure knows his how to keep the government out of his head.

And compassion, common sense, and being a good neighbor to those in need.... He is a warrior for American values. He is for lethal health care.

Anonymous said...

Lau Tzu says:

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

i-man is quoting Asians rather than Christians. How can we trust him to not be a pro-WalMart Communist? He seems to know a lot about Leninist thinking.

It is probable that the i-man is a white guy Republican who believes he is exclusive and superior to those he disagrees with.

Veterans need better advocates than fellers like the i-man. They could use some universal health care for themselves and their families, neighbors and citizens. That would help to repay them for their service.

Sirocco said...

On the subject of MRAPs, lets not overlook the small matter that a Republican-controlled Congress couldn't manage to get them to Iraq despite having had years to do so ... how is that showing "support for the troops" again?

Lets also not overlook the fact the same Republican-controlled Congress for years delayed supplemental war spending bills, without any of the angst now seen spewing from conservatives.

That proposal to tie the spending bill to a timetable was (and still is) supported by a crushing majority of citizens.

Duke the Dog said...

Free healthcare for the poor? They don't need free healthcare. Bus boys, dishwashers and waitresses in Chinatown, whose average income is about $21,000 year, seem to have plenty of disposable income.

It seems that more than 150 of them donated $2,300 to Hillary Clinton. Add that to the mailman and unemployed housewife out in California that can afford to donate thousands of dollars to Hillary in the past five years when their income is only $40,000/yr, and that tells me the poor have plenty of money.

Either that or Hillary is involved in money laundering and illegal campaign fundraising and we all know Hillary would never be involved in anything illegal.

Sirocco said...

A good investment on their part if they can get insurance out of it.

exdeadhead said...

Funding healthcare for war veterans is a no brainer. These folks have sacrificed for the benefit of all taxpayers such that their benefits should be considered as earned.

Funding healthcare for all, well that is economic foolishness. The entitlement programs already ensconced cannot be sustained.

Question for liberals: Considering the federal budget as a percentage of GDP, what percentage is too big? There seems no limit to your concept of big government.

roger said...

ExDeadhead,

Wow,there are some of you GOP left that would be worried about big government? Your party doesn't seem too concerned with that stuff anymore now that they are spending countless billions of my tax dollars on the war in Iraq and border policy

AND at the same time not paying for it!!!!

That isn't just stealing my tax dollars and its not just big government...its worse...its fraud.

So let me ask you, what percentage of our budget is too big for the military, defense contractors, and so on?

If taking our tax dollars and giving them to corporate contractors (on no bid contracts) is NOT socialism, then what the hell is?

There is no way in HELL that the GOP can ever again say that they are for fiscal discipline and lower taxes/less spending. If they did believe that they would cut the two biggest items in the budget...the military by far...and then social security.

This party not only LOVES government spending, but they do it a hell of a lot better than democrats....and on fewer people.

Have a lovely socialist day GOPers!

ArmySGT said...

Can you prove that Macbeth became the poster boy for the anti-war left group called Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW)?
You simply gave Wiki Text above and did not prove that IVAW propped MacBeth up or that he was an IVAW posterboy. What sense would it make for IVAW to prop a known liar up? It just doesn't smell right.

Duke the Dog said...

armysgt,
Macbeth dupes IVAW. They didn't know until the U.S. Army Ranger Association outed him as a phoney.

Prior ti the outing Macbeth mad a bunch of anti-war propaganda movies claiming a lot of wild stories of atrocities.

Just Google his name yourself all the crazy things that come up on him.

exdeadhead said...

Rog: May I take your response as evidence that there is no limit to your concept of big government?

Tax and spend, borrow and spend, doesn't matter, the problem is the SPENDING, politicians unable/unwilling to compete for resources in the present simply appropriate them by taking away from either this generation or the next or the next.

My point, it’s unsustainable, whereas you want to argue priorities, and seemingly that your priorities are worth a continuation of the silliness, but that we should tax and spend rather than borrow and spend.

A zero tax rate yields zero revenue, trivial. A 100% tax rate (government operating at 100% of GDP) similarly yields little revenue, because people have no incentive to produce and much incentive to hide what they do produce. So it is an economic truth that there exists an intermediate tax rate that maximizes government revenue (not that I think this should be a national goal). Tax cuts (Kennedy, Reagan, Bush II) have resulted in increased revenue to the government, indicating that tax rates already exceed the revenue maximization rate. Therefore, increasing taxes can be expected to result in reduced GDP growth or even economic recession, reduced government revenue, and, unless something is done about SPENDING, more borrowing.

So, it’s the SPENDING stupid! (Not meant as an insult, just something that should be heard in more campaign war-rooms.)

Duke the Dog said...

There's a saying: "Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience."

exdeadhead,
What you say makes sense. Which means it has no purpose in a political discussion; therefore don't expect a reasonable response that makes any kind of sense.

roger said...

Uh yeah, Deadhead. But you can't argue that more spending on one thing is horrible but all the massive spending your party had done is OKEY FINE...if that is indeed your position.

What I am arguing is that your party spends massive massive massive amounts of money on defense and war...but then tries to argue that we should have small government and no taxes...even though you have created the largest governent in history by creating a military industrical establishment that spends most of our money...AND most of that money appears to be spent OUTSIDE of our country. So much for America first...so much for all this crap about illegals taking our tax dollars. The MILITARY and SOCIAL SECURITY takes the lions share of our tax dollars.

So...what I am getting at is that in reality...the GOP DOES favor tax and spending in a big big big way. So do democrats. There is no difference whatsoever. In the end, we should be talking about how to spend the public trust that you all favor as much as well do. In the end, I am betting most would favor education, healthcare, environment, etc as priorities if they had to choose spending priorities.

Oh...and guess who you are borrowing from and with whose taxdollars...with interest.

You are borrowing from China...RED CHINA...with our tax dollars.

You cannot make a small govt. argument ever again until you give up the wars, the defense, and the border teet....that private industry sucks our taxdollars off of.

Duke the Dog said...

roger,
What you'll soon be finding out is that the GOP leadership (with the exception of Bush) has figured out they stepped on their collective (eneter male body past).

They let the power go to their heads and abandoned not only their principles, but their duty to their constituents.

Many have seen the error of their ways and are in the process of a major course correction.

Not to mention there are a lot of up and coming young republicans that will soon be replacing the GOP's old guard. They too have seen what happens when you stray off the reservation.

You make valid points about GOP spending. Many of us aren't very happy with the way George Bush has balooned the entitlements and non-Constitutionally mandated spending.

The Dems enjoyed the benefit of a lot of pissed of Republicans staying home last year or those that jumped ship to vote the bums out.

A few weeks before the election, many of the talk shows had Republicans calling in saying they wanted the GOP to lose in '06 so they would learn a lesson.

Well, many of them did, and hopefully they won't make the same mistake twice.

It's a long time to Nov '08, an eternity on politics, anything can still happen.

roger said...

Good post Duke. Sorry I get so mean and angry...(smile).

I think you are right that a lot of Republicans feel the way you do. The big question is can you reform now after all this is in the context of the times? How long will it take to do this? I am not sure that people will forget so easily given the time we are in now...at least not for awhile.

However, your last statement is right.. 08 is an eternity in politics.

exdeadhead said...

Roger: Your argument in favor of a balanced budget amendment is persuasive.