It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

On the next war spending bill, Democrats need to add everything and the kitchen sink

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I mean it. Add ALL THE LEGISLATION YOU CAN. Really hammer this baby home...because we all know Republicans won't filibuster....they won't put the war at risk.

They should just come up with voting for new war spending bills EACH MONTH and make the entire war dependent on it.

Since it's ok for us to not pay for the war, I'm sure we can tack things on to it and just call it a WAR BILL.

Hell, maybe people can actually get unemployment benefits!!

Shocking...I know...that we help the people of this country and not the banks or large transnational corporations!!

[edit on 1-7-2010 by David9176]




posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Yes thats right!! 100%

Republicans will not even flinch one bit on SPENDING ASTRONOMICAL AMOUNTS on WAR, but when its time to help the AMERICAN WORKER at FRACTIONS the cost, the answer is NO WE CANT SPEND THE MONEY!!!

Republicans are rotten pathetic scum void of a human soul.

They profit on war.

They do not care about the American worker. NOT ONE BIT!!!



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ExRepublican
 


Neither do the democrats.

second line



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
While in theory that is a good idea and is a tricky and sophisticated political move, it would also backfire on the more liberal democrats. The true Democrats who oppose the war will have to make the choice, will they continue to fund the war and be known as warmongers or will they veto the bill and be attacked by their liberal constituents who support things such as government spending and unemployment extensions.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


war bills already include the kitchen sink. at least, the money to pay for the kitchen sink.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
The Federal Government representatives may be doing the best they can under the circumstances.

1) Spending dollars while they are still worth something and

2) Managing affairs as if there were no tomorrow.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Here is a couple of lists of military spending per country. A little outdated, but I think they show a good comparison of what the US spends. They should definitely be spending more on their own people, even if just to hold the country together. Jobs, infrastructure. Obama is definitely not an economist :shk:

Since Obama has been in office, well, he doesn't exactly deserve the Peace Prize. When the US falls apart, it is going to have ramifications around the world.

One might make the argument that it is a very populated country, or the world's police, but given the economy lately.....

The population of China on January 1st 2009 is approximately 1,351,055,464. About 4 times the population of the US.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Wow. That list...just wow. $663,255,000,000 spent on "defense". I put that in quotes because we're not really defending much these days as far as I can tell.

Consider this. If they were to take $10 Billion, and split it into portions of $30,000, they could help out 333,333 households. I know some folks might not view $30,000 as a lot of cash, but there are plenty of hard working honest people without jobs that would gladly accept that sort of assistance. And I have no doubt that the US military could survive just fine without $10 Billion. It's essentially pocket change for them.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
I wonder if the money they "lost" over in the middle east was included. I don't remember the amounts, but I remember a couple/few years back they "lost" a lot of money in Iraq, and recently the news was just talking again about a bunch of money missing off the books in Afghanistan. It was either in the millions or billions. Can't remember.

It's too bad the original stimulus didn't stimulate much job growth. It could have been put to work building up infrastructure that is getting old, which might have in turn created some small businesses, instead of hiring 400,000 census worker, and other stupid stuff.

Canada does a census every 5 years, and I don't remember ever seeing anything other than a survey thingy in the mail. No people get hired for door to door invasions of privacy


It used to be, if broke, start a war. I think this time the war bill is starting to cost them more money than it's worth.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
No worries, just print some more dollars for the great war and leave taxpayers to pick up the bill, as usual.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Q_Llama
 



Why not do this very thing when Obama was pissing away money on the bailouts???



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
They should just come up with voting for new war spending bills EACH MONTH and make the entire war dependent on it.


Yeah, because we all know how fast Congress works to get things approved.


Imagine being in a fire fight and not having enough ammo. "Sorry, guys, Congress didn't approve our monthly war bill, and it's now the end of the month. Better stretch those rounds, or start throwing rocks."



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join