posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 07:03 AM
I ran across these two articles on MSN today.
1.) Senate Votes Against More Heating Aid For The Poor
2.) Senate OK's $50 billion more for wars
(They ok'd this earlier this month)
How can they say no against more money for aid, when this years heating costs are predicted to go up an estimated 32-48%?
(Gas and Heating Price To Soar This Winter
Heating Bills and Oil Expected To Rise
The senators who voted no did so because:
Senators who opposed the $3.1 billion in emergency money for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program said the aid would be dealt with as part of
a larger emergency spending bill that Congress probably will consider soon.
They havent even considered the spending bill yet! And it isnt even a definite that they will. Now I am a realistic person, and I know that with all
of the natural disaters that we have endured this year we are going to be spending billions in aid. However, how can they see fit to approve, earlier
this month, $50 billion dollars for wars AFTER Katrina, Rita, and the flooding in the New England states? Here is a brief quote from the "$50
billion Approved" article:
The Senate voted Friday to give President Bush $50 billion more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and U.S. military efforts against terrorism,
money that would push total spending for the operations beyond $350 billion.
In a 97-0 vote, the GOP-controlled Senate signed off on the money as part of a $445 billion military spending bill for the budget year that began Oct.
This was a unanimous vote to "help fight the war on terror" in Iraq and Afghanistan, which in turn is supposed to help keep us American citizens
"safe". Yet the majority of those same senators voted against ensuring that people will not have to choose between eating or starving to death this
winter. (If they even have that choice.) In my opinion, this is ugly beyond mere words. I would say that I cant understand how they could note no
on something as important as this, but the unfortunate truth is I can