Why does the Bush Administration CONTINUE to leave the military in a fiscal lurch?

[CSM]

Let me get this straight .... the Bush administration is guilty of not doing things YOUR way? Who f-ing cares?

And I LOVE your backwards-assed argument, but you know as well as I that the Republicans for some unexplained reason have YET to flex their muscle and shove something down the Dem's throats. A fact which disgusts me beyond belief because y'all loonies from the left didn't hesitate to try when the shoe was on the other foot.

So, you can take that little argument and stuff it. Pure BS.

Try again, and use your brain this time.

I see by the quote in this post that jasendorf went EXACTLY where I thought he would..."the Dems are powerless because of the Republican controlled Congress." Bullshit.

Also, if anyone actually takes the time to go read the damn budget (I did), operating costs, training costs, etc are all in there. Granted, they are not specifically labelled "$200 for bullets to shoot terrorists in Fallujah" or "$3.00 to conduct 'Core Values Training' at Outpost #42" so I guess he is technically correct.

Also, the recent cuts are mainly focused towards big defense programs, research and development etc, not training and spare parts.

 

[jasendorf]

You'd think someone who had made such a big deal out of ignoring me would actually ignore me.

The additional budget needed for the wars themselves are not in the budget... the money appropriated for IET, standard operating costs, etc. ARE... as I've already stated time and again.

If the wars are in the budget, why is there a need for and ADDITIONAL $36 BILLION for the Army in an emergency spending bill? Are you saying that after 3 years at war the Army is incapable of asking for a closer guess as to what it will need to fight?

Don't take my word for it... get out there and Google it for yourselves people.

 

[Gunny]

This has nothing to do with my personal view. It has to do with the military NOT BEING ABLE TO BUY SPARE PARTS because the Bush Administration wants to play games with the budget to cover their failed fiscal policies.

That's all there is to it.

Either you're for those serving and for them getting the parts and training they need... or you're not. It's fairly simple.

Afraid not. What's fairly simple is you are quite ignorant on the topic, but willing to take up the lefty rant anyway.

We couldn't buy spare parts when Clinton was President, and When Jimmybob Carter was Prez we had to buy our own damned rifle-cleaning gear ... forget spare parts.

There's ALWAYS a shortage of spare parts. Called wear-n-tear. Shit breaks. There's never enough money. War exacerbates that fact. Last deployment I was on, the wing could get 4 of 12 AV8-Bs aloft at any one time.

Never seemed to bother you lefties before you could twist a way into blaming Bush for it.

 

[jasendorf]

Never seemed to bother you lefties before you could twist a way into blaming Bush for it.

Equally interesting that it doesn't bother you any longer now that President Bush is to blame.

 

[Gunny]

Equally interesting that it doesn't bother you any longer now that President Bush is to blame.

You appear to be quite the assumtive fellow in most of your posts. Quick to jump to conclusions with no evidence to support them.

I don't recall addressing my feelings on the issue in which you put words in my mouth. I stated a fact we had to live with, like it or not.

Now, do you sit around whining your ass off or do you make what you DO have work?

Equally interesting that it didn't bother you before the President was a Republican.

 

[jasendorf]

Now, do you sit around whining your ass off or do you make what you DO have work?

Make do. As long as you feel that's how the military should be treated, that's fine by me. I'd like to think we deserve a little better... but hey, who cares, right?

Equally interesting that it didn't bother you before the President was a Republican.

You appear to be quite the assumtive fellow in most of your posts. Quick to jump to conclusions with no evidence to support them.

:blah2:

 

[T-Bor]

Yeap your right Gunny, everything thats wrong with the world and military is the fault of Liberals. Republicans are flawless and have never done anything wrong. :blah2:

Probably because every time Bush asks for a dime liberals start whining about the deficit.

Y'all need to shit or get off the pot.

 

[T-Bor]

Pure BS ? Its a fact what he said. But lets read below your retort to his statement.

but you know as well as I that the Republicans for some unexplained reason have YET to flex their muscle and shove something down the Dem's throats. A fact which disgusts me beyond belief because y'all loonies from the left didn't hesitate to try when the shoe was on the other foot.
.

Wow you really explained yourself well there, yeap that totally defeats his point. Give it up Gunny, your losing big time.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yeap your right Gunny, everything thats wrong with the world and military is the fault of Liberals. Republicans are flawless and have never done anything wrong. :blah2:

Who said Republicans are flawless? You are assuming that all Republicans arent liberals. Unfortunately there are liberal Republicans.

 

[Gunny]

Originally Posted by GunnyL
Now, do you sit around whining your ass off or do you make what you DO have work?

Make do. As long as you feel that's how the military should be treated, that's fine by me. I'd like to think we deserve a little better... but hey, who cares, right?

Equally interesting that it didn't bother you before the President was a Republican.

You appear to be quite the assumtive fellow in most of your posts. Quick to jump to conclusions with no evidence to support them.

:blah2:

Again, I did not address what I thought was right or wrong concerning how I think the military should be dealt with. I addressed the reality of "what is."

The issue you have laid on the table is valid, IMO. That you wish to cast blame at Bush's feet when it is obviously an institutional problem within our government that crosses party lines, is invalid, IMO.

 

[jasendorf]

When will there be a big enough Republican majority that you will ask them to start taking some responsibility? I mean, back in the '80's the cons cried that President Reagan couldn't do anything because the Republicans didn't have control of Congress too... "not our fault!!! (But, we'll be happy to take all the credit for the implosion of the Soviet Union... dems had nothing to do with that!)"

Then along came '94... now you had control of the House, but not the Presidency or the Senate... "we can't do ANYTHING!" Nevermind that supposedly the Democratic house just a few years before was preventing President Reagan from doing anything... now the House was supposedly helpless to fight that Big Meanie President Clinton.

So... on and on... 2000 the Presidency... 2002 the Senate... Alito and Roberts...

And you're STILL blaming those mean ole Democrats.

When will you FINALLY have enough of a majority that you'll expect them to take some responsibility? Ever? Or, do the Republican failures always lie somewhere else?

 

[Gunny]

When will there be a big enough Republican majority that you will ask them to start taking some responsibility? I mean, back in the '80's the cons cried that President Reagan couldn't do anything because the Republicans didn't have control of Congress too... "not our fault!!! (But, we'll be happy to take all the credit for the implosion of the Soviet Union... dems had nothing to do with that!)"

Then along came '94... now you had control of the House, but not the Presidency or the Senate... "we can't do ANYTHING!" Nevermind that supposedly the Democratic house just a few years before was preventing President Reagan from doing anything... now the House was supposedly helpless to fight that Big Meanie President Clinton.

So... on and on... 2000 the Presidency... 2002 the Senate... Alito and Roberts...

And you're STILL blaming those mean ole Democrats.

When will you FINALLY have enough of a majority that you'll expect them to take some responsibility? Ever? Or, do the Republican failures always lie somewhere else?

You misunderstand, either by accident or design. I do NOT blame the Democrats because the Republicans, handed the majority by the people who wanted a change, refuse to use their advantage. I hold the Republicans 100% responsible for their lack of balls.

That does not however, dismiss the fact that the Democrats are as equally responsible with institutional failings as Republicans. And as far as the military goes, we fared FAR better under Reagan and Bush I than we did Carter or Clinton. And that is speaking only of the Presidents I served under.

When are YOU going to quit posting all this one-sided crap and get a little objectivity?

Again, IMO, the issue is valid. You're never going to go anywhere with it by making one-sided, politically-biased arguments that do nothing to address the REAL problem.

So, do you want to fix the problem? Or just try and blame it on Bush? From what I've seen of you so far, the latter appears to be more important to you than the former.

 

[jasendorf]

You misunderstand, either by accident or design. I do NOT blame the Democrats because the Republicans, handed the majority by the people who wanted a change, refuse to use their advantage. I hold the Republicans 100% responsible for their lack of balls.

That does not however, dismiss the fact that the Democrats are as equally responsible with institutional failings as Republicans. And as far as the military goes, we fared FAR better under Reagan and Bush I than we did Carter or Clinton. And that is speaking only of the Presidents I served under.

Then I'll speak from similar, anecdotal evidence. In 1996, my unit FINALLY moved from an asbestos and lead-paint ridden WWI building to a brand new building. Poof. The entire military fared better under Clinton than any oher President ever!

When are YOU going to quit posting all this one-sided crap and get a little objectivity?

As soon as you do.

Again, IMO, the issue is valid. You're never going to go anywhere with it by making one-sided, politically-biased arguments that do nothing to address the REAL problem.

So, do you want to fix the problem? Or just try and blame it on Bush? From what I've seen of you so far, the latter appears to be more important to you than the former.

I'm placing the blame WHERE IT BELONGS. You just don't like that it belongs there so you attempt to distract with CARTER??? CLINTON??? Gunny, a word of advice I got from some Republicans... MOVE ON.

If you'd simply address the actual topic instead of JIMMY CARTER (Who, btw, hasn't been President for THIRTY FRIGGIN' YEARS)... we could work on the actual topic.

 

[Gunny]

I'm placing the blame WHERE IT BELONGS. You just don't like that it belongs there so you attempt to distract with CARTER??? CLINTON??? Gunny, a word of advice I got from some Republicans... MOVE ON.

If you'd simply address the actual topic instead of JIMMY CARTER (Who, btw, hasn't been President for THIRTY FRIGGIN' YEARS)... we could work on the actual topic.

Moving on, and making a comparison are two different things. The only way to compare a Republican President to a Dem one is to cite the last, and only two Dem President's since 1968.

I AM placing the blame where it belongs -- on Washington bureaucracy. YOU on the other hand, are attempting to place something endemic within that bureaucracy on a relative newcomer in the big scheme of things simply to suit your political agenda.

No sale.

 

[jasendorf]

Moving on, and making a comparison are two different things. The only way to compare a Republican President to a Dem one is to cite the last, and only two Dem President's since 1968.

I AM placing the blame where it belongs -- on Washington bureaucracy. YOU on the other hand, are attempting to place something endemic within that bureaucracy on a relative newcomer in the big scheme of things simply to suit your political agenda.

No sale.

1) Why are you comparing anything? Are you inable to look at the current actions of the current Administration and say, "that isn't right"? Why the desperate need to say, "Well, it's better than Carter's!" Which, when you think about it, is perhaps a left-handed compliment.

So, "bureaucracy" is keeping the President from putting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in his budgets??? Maybe you can tell me how this nefarious "Washington bureaucracy" is doing that exactly... are they holding guns to his head saying, "no, Mr. President, you will not ask for any money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan." Maybe it's even more shadowy than that... maybe President Bush is the Democratic Manchurian Candidate???

Tell me how the "Washington bureaucracy" is keeping President Bush from asking for money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in his proposed budgets... TWO YEARS IN A ROW!

 

[Gunny]

1) Why are you comparing anything? Are you inable to look at the current actions of the current Administration and say, "that isn't right"? Why the desperate need to say, "Well, it's better than Carter's!" Which, when you think about it, is perhaps a left-handed compliment.

So, "bureaucracy" is keeping the President from putting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in his budgets??? Maybe you can tell me how this nefarious "Washington bureaucracy" is doing that exactly... are they holding guns to his head saying, "no, Mr. President, you will not ask for any money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan." Maybe it's even more shadowy than that... maybe President Bush is the Democratic Manchurian Candidate???

Tell me how the "Washington bureaucracy" is keeping President Bush from asking for money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in his proposed budgets... TWO YEARS IN A ROW!

I am determined to stop YOU from dishonestly trying to attach blame to Bush for something he did not cause, and has been ignored by most of his predecessors.

You are proving yourself to be a rather narrow-minded, biggoted, left-wing hack. How do you propose to fix a problem when you can't even find the REAL reason for the problem?

As I already said, you just want to blame it on Bush.

 

[jasendorf]

I am determined to stop YOU from dishonestly trying to attach blame to Bush for something he did not cause, and has been ignored by most of his predecessors.

You are proving yourself to be a rather narrow-minded, biggoted, left-wing hack. How do you propose to fix a problem when you can't even find the REAL reason for the problem?

As I already said, you just want to blame it on Bush.

OK, once again... tell me how the "Washington bureauracracy" is keeping President Bush from proposing spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in his proposed budget. Still waiting...

Maybe you can blame Truman or Johnson this time?

 

[Gunny]

OK, once again... tell me how the "Washington bureauracracy" is keeping President Bush from proposing spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in his proposed budget. Still waiting...

Maybe you can blame Truman or Johnson this time?

What's to keep Congress from proposing it in THEIRS? Plenty of Dems looking out for YOUR welfare in there.

Nothing is keeping him from proposing it in his budget. Obviously you don't have a clue how the organization you work for is funded. The war is going to be paid for. Simple as that. The military will be funded. Simple as that. If they don't pass a budget by the end of the fiscal year, YOU (and I ) will STILL get paid.

And again, for the billionth time, I'm not going to hold Bush responsible for an issue that has existed for at least decades as if it just appeared when he was sworn in. That's bullshit. You know it as well as I, so get off your high horse and blame him for something that is actually his fault and I might agree with you.

 

[jasendorf]

The Bush Administration is attempting to evade the BEA by shifting the spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan into emergency spending bills. End of story. Why he's doing it, you be the judge. AL I know is that it is leaving the military in a crunch.