1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Safety and Supporting the Troops

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Archangelwolf, Mar 10, 2007.

  1. Archangelwolf

    Archangelwolf New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Texas
    Does this administration make us safer? Let's look at their track record:

    11/14/01-Senate Democrats propose $15 billion dollars for homeland security in an economic stimulus package. The White House warns of "permanent spending on other projects that have nothing to do with stimulus and that will only expand the size of the government."

    12/04/01-The Senate Appropriations Committee votes 29-0 for a bill that includes $13.1 billion for homeland security programs. The next day, Bush threatens to veto it.

    12/06/01-Senate Republicans REDUCE homeland security funding in the Defense Appropriations bill by $4.6 billion.

    12/19/01-Under further pressure from the White House, conferees reduce funds by an additional $200 million, which includes airport security, port security, nuclear facility security, and postal security.

    06/07/02-The Senate, by a bi-partisan vote of 71-22, pass a spending bill that includes $8.3 billion for homeland security. The next day, adviser's recommend the President veto it.

    07/19/02-Under pressure from White House, homeland defense is reduced again in the areas of food safety, cyber security, efforst so that the police and fire radios can work together, nuclear security, increased lab capacity to determine whether biological or chemical weapons have been used, airport security, port security, and water security.

    08/13/02-President Bush, claiming "fiscal responsibility," decides not to spend the $2.5 billion in emergency funding for homeland security.

    01/16/03-Senate Republicans vote down amendments made by Democrats for additional funds to implement smallpox vaccines, etc.

    01/23/03-The Republican Senate cuts security programs in the Federal Emergency Agency, the FBI, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the National Nuclear Security Administration, and Transportation Security Administration and Coast Guard.

    02/03/03-President Bush, in his 2004 budget, reduces homeland security programs by 1.9%.

    02/14/03-Republicans again reject Democratic efforts to fund smallpox vaccines, police and fire dept. communications, and increased protection of public transportation.

    03/21/03-Republicans defeat four Democratic amendments aimed at increasing security.

    03/25/03-Republicans defeat three more amendments aimed at strengthening homeland security.

    04/02/03-Republicans reject an amendment to provide $1 billion for port security programs by a partisan vote of 52-47.

    04/03/03-Republicans reject five more amendments, including one that was to protect commercial aircraft from the threat of shoulder-fired missiles.

    06/03-Republicans reject an amendment to add $1 billion for homeland defense by cutting a recently enacted tax break for 2 thousand millionaires from $88 thousand to $83 thousand.


    After all this, Rep. Bill Young, a Republican in charge of the House Appropriations Committee, charged that the White House's charges of Congress being too weak on homeland security were "factually inaccurate.

    Then, this administration claims to support our troops. Besides the disgusting events surrounding the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, there is this:

    $1.5 billion in cuts to military family housing, schools, and child care centers.

    $200 million in cuts to Impact Aid, the program that funds schools near military bases.

    Doubling the prices that veterans will pay for prescription drugs.

    Cutting veterans' medical care by suspending enrollments at VA health centers.

    Cutting imminent danger pay from $225 to $150, and family separation allowance from $250 to $100.


    So, let's get this straight. We can afford trillions of dollars in tax cuts, but we can't afford $225 dollars for the families of those who are getting shot at?

    Sorry, but I think our military is getting screwed....and another thing. Don't bring Clinton into this. NOBODY could have predicted 9/11. For one thing, nobody gave any of the terrorists enough credit to pull something like that off. Hell, I didn't!

    Bush's response to 9/11 should have been to request the "fiscal responsibility" of all Americans to fund a war effort, either through volunteer efforts such as the peace corps and American Red Cross, or with their pocketbooks with taxes. Our national security costs money, but it saves lives. Every American, EVERY American, would have answered that call or they would not have been truely American to begin with. Bush failed; and his party line is more in favor of saving money for the rich, than saving American lives, foreign and domestic.

    Just like the war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, if we want to defeat terrorism, and protect our nation, we are going to have to pay for it. I believe it is worth it to pay a little more taxes to secure our borders, protect our troops, and preserve our freedoms.

    Arch.
     
Loading...

Share This Page