Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
White House Opposed Pay Raises For Troops/Widows Benefits
porgie
Member Posts: 1,516
Now, why would Bush opposed a larger pay raise for the troops and widows but at the same time want to lower accountability on contractors??? 
White House Opposed Pay Raises For Troops/Widows’ Benefits
White House Opposed Pay Raises For Troops/Widows’ Benefits
-----------------------
</OBAMA>
Comments
You've got to be kidding me...your boys in blue are cutting funding for troops who are actually IN Iraq, and you come up with this? Try again.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
"Bush budget officials said the administration "strongly opposes" the 3.5 percent raise for 2008"
-----------------------
</OBAMA>
But I have to tell you that it doesn't add anything to your credibility. You can make just as potent an argument and maybe win the other person over at the same time if you use a little less venom in your presentation. It's hard to persuade someone when you initially cause them to put up a block. Just a little something I learned in my speech communications class I was forced to take in college. It seems to work, so I use it a lot.
-----------------------
</OBAMA>
"Bush budget officials said the administration "strongly opposes" the 3.5 percent raise for 2008"
And you missed the part that says said bill raises veterans drug prices to unaffordable costs. The DoD and the VA opposed this bill. Why would I want a $20 raise and crappy VA benefits? I want my service connected injuries taken care of for the rest of my life. And everyone else in the military and veteran believes the same thing.
That raise is only 1% more than the usual annual raise. At a cost of millions of veterans medical benefits.
Let me put this in civilian terms. I'm going to give you a 2 cent raise per hour at your Wal-mart job. But I'm going to raise your insurance premium $70 (considering that you are full time and rate benefits).
You and your buddies at Wal-mart say, "screw that". So it doesn't happen.
People in the military, that have no clue about what it's like to work at Wal-mart says "OMG, those poor Wal-mart employees didn't get thier raise, it's Chinas' fault".
Doesn't matter what is tacked on to the bill. You're missing the whole point. The quote I put up for you is completely relevant only to the proposed raise. It gives his opinion on that only.And as far as the Wal-Mart example goes, I ain't buying that. Because you've got a President who is the largest spending president in history. I know that his spending could be cut somewhere else so that the raise can be afforded. It's just a matter of taking it away from one place and putting it somewhere where it belongs. Not on some entitlement program. Our troops don't make much as it is. You take away a little welfare program here and there and we can put that money towards people that deserve it.
-----------------------
</OBAMA>
But I have to tell you that it doesn't add anything to your credibility. You can make just as potent an argument and maybe win the other person over at the same time if you use a little less venom in your presentation. It's hard to persuade someone when you initially cause them to put up a block. Just a little something I learned in my speech communications class I was forced to take in college. It seems to work, so I use it a lot.
Highlight the personal attack...there was no personal attack there. Saying that bringing something petty up when there are much bigger problems afoot is stupid, is NOT a personal attack. And if you're that offended, report me, I won't be banned for anything I've posted in this thread.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
"Bush budget officials said the administration "strongly opposes" the 3.5 percent raise for 2008"
And you missed the part that says said bill raises veterans drug prices to unaffordable costs. The DoD and the VA opposed this bill. Why would I want a $20 raise and crappy VA benefits? I want my service connected injuries taken care of for the rest of my life. And everyone else in the military and veteran believes the same thing.
That raise is only 1% more than the usual annual raise. At a cost of millions of veterans medical benefits.
Let me put this in civilian terms. I'm going to give you a 2 cent raise per hour at your Wal-mart job. But I'm going to raise your insurance premium $70 (considering that you are full time and rate benefits).
You and your buddies at Wal-mart say, "screw that". So it doesn't happen.
People in the military, that have no clue about what it's like to work at Wal-mart says "OMG, those poor Wal-mart employees didn't get thier raise, it's Chinas' fault".
Doesn't matter what is tacked on to the bill. You're missing the whole point. The quote I put up for you is completely relevant only to the proposed raise. It gives his opinion on that only.And as far as the Wal-Mart example goes, I ain't buying that. Because you've got a President who is the largest spending president in history. I know that his spending could be cut somewhere else so that the raise can be afforded. It's just a matter of taking it away from one place and putting it somewhere where it belongs. Not on some entitlement program. Our troops don't make much as it is. You take away a little welfare program here and there and we can put that money towards people that deserve it.
Look man. I don't know how to explain how porkbarrels work in a short explaination. Bush is not the one raising drug costs to suppliment the raise for the military. Congress is. IT'S IN THE BILL THAT IS WHY HE VETOED IT. BUSH DOES NOT WANT TO RAISE THE COST OF DRUGS FOR VETERANS. BUSH WILL PASS THE BILL IF CONGRESS WILL MAKE A STAND ALONE BILL TO GIVE THE MIITARY A RAISE.
You're only raeding what you want to read.
If Congress passes a bill that just gives a raise, Bush will sign it.
IF Congress keeps adding unwanted crap into the bill like RAISING DRUG PRICES (which they keep doing), Bush won't sign it (which he keeps doing).
If the Demicraps will pass a bill with JUST a raise, then it will be signed.
Demicrats can't get nothing done.
They pass...... try to pass these scam bills, Bush won't sign, then all the liberals are like "Bush won't sign our crap bill".
No, he said the raise was too much. He wanted 3% instead of the 3.5%. Go back and read it again.In other words, if just the 3.5% bill were sent to his desk, he still would not have signed it. Because he wanted the 3%.
And I understand pork barrel politics. But both parties in Washington use it equally. Neither one can point their finger at the other on that one.
-----------------------
</OBAMA>
But I have to tell you that it doesn't add anything to your credibility. You can make just as potent an argument and maybe win the other person over at the same time if you use a little less venom in your presentation. It's hard to persuade someone when you initially cause them to put up a block. Just a little something I learned in my speech communications class I was forced to take in college. It seems to work, so I use it a lot.
Highlight the personal attack...there was no personal attack there. Saying that bringing something petty up when there are much bigger problems afoot is stupid, is NOT a personal attack. And if you're that offended, report me, I won't be banned for anything I've posted in this thread.
If you say I said something stupid then it's akin to calling someone stupid. Stupid is a pretty loaded word coming from anyone. I'm sure you can admit that. Choosing your language helps a conversation remain civil and above board. And if it doesn't remain that way, at least you can say you took the high road. I understand that nobility has lost it's merit these days, but I think somewhere deep down inside we all know we wish it would regain some of its lost footing.Look, I'm not trying to argue with you about it. You know that what you said was inflammatory. And I wasn't trying to pick a fight with you. I was giving you honest sincere advice. The way you said it was in a way that punches buttons. It's not persuasive to put someone on the defensive that way. If you're going to present something in that manner then it seems weird to me to present it at all. I thought that motivation behind discussions usually centers on convincing the other person that your idea is correct. Or even to exchange ideas and come up with something together. If you instead go on the offensive right off the bat then how is anything constructive going to come out of the whole thing?
And I wouldn't report anyone for being like that anyhow. I'm the type who looks at someone who makes comments like that and figures they've had something in their day or in their life who made them feel that was the way to act. I sort of pity them. Not to say that you are pitiful, just that I hope someday you figure out where that kind of action comes from. I'm not here to get you in trouble. I just wanted to point something out to you that you may not have noticed.
-----------------------
</OBAMA>
"Bush budget officials said the administration "strongly opposes" the 3.5 percent raise for 2008"
And you missed the part that says said bill raises veterans drug prices to unaffordable costs. The DoD and the VA opposed this bill. Why would I want a $20 raise and crappy VA benefits? I want my service connected injuries taken care of for the rest of my life. And everyone else in the military and veteran believes the same thing.
That raise is only 1% more than the usual annual raise. At a cost of millions of veterans medical benefits.
Let me put this in civilian terms. I'm going to give you a 2 cent raise per hour at your Wal-mart job. But I'm going to raise your insurance premium $70 (considering that you are full time and rate benefits).
You and your buddies at Wal-mart say, "screw that". So it doesn't happen.
People in the military, that have no clue about what it's like to work at Wal-mart says "OMG, those poor Wal-mart employees didn't get thier raise, it's Chinas' fault".
Doesn't matter what is tacked on to the bill. You're missing the whole point. The quote I put up for you is completely relevant only to the proposed raise. It gives his opinion on that only.And as far as the Wal-Mart example goes, I ain't buying that. Because you've got a President who is the largest spending president in history. I know that his spending could be cut somewhere else so that the raise can be afforded. It's just a matter of taking it away from one place and putting it somewhere where it belongs. Not on some entitlement program. Our troops don't make much as it is. You take away a little welfare program here and there and we can put that money towards people that deserve it.
Look man. I don't know how to explain how porkbarrels work in a short explaination. Bush is not the one raising drug costs to suppliment the raise for the military. Congress is. IT'S IN THE BILL THAT IS WHY HE VETOED IT. BUSH DOES NOT WANT TO RAISE THE COST OF DRUGS FOR VETERANS. BUSH WILL PASS THE BILL IF CONGRESS WILL MAKE A STAND ALONE BILL TO GIVE THE MIITARY A RAISE.
You're only raeding what you want to read.
If Congress passes a bill that just gives a raise, Bush will sign it.
IF Congress keeps adding unwanted crap into the bill like RAISING DRUG PRICES (which they keep doing), Bush won't sign it (which he keeps doing).
If the Demicraps will pass a bill with JUST a raise, then it will be signed.
Demicrats can't get nothing done.
They pass...... try to pass these scam bills, Bush won't sign, then all the liberals are like "Bush won't sign our crap bill".
No, he said the raise was too much. He wanted 3% instead of the 3.5%. Go back and read it again.In other words, if just the 3.5% bill were sent to his desk, he still would not have signed it. Because he wanted the 3%.
And I understand pork barrel politics. But both parties in Washington use it equally. Neither one can point their finger at the other on that one.
Nobody in the military cares about the raise, they get a 2.5% raise every year. 1% or .5% means dick. What we DO care about is the part of the bill that raises cost of OUR benefits. Don't worry bro, we can take care of ourselves. I, for one, would have liked that raise when I was in. I know I was having trouble even with VHA paying my bills. I had a two bedroom apartment with anywhere from 3 to 5 people living in it at one time and still had to work things out. The military does not draw folks in because of it's pay package. I think that is one of the reasons so many people leave.
If the military did offer a pretty good pay package they might keep a lot of the people in that quit and could recoup some of those costs in not having to retrain over and over again. I don't know that for a fact, but it seems like fair speculation. The pay was a very common complaint that I heard a lot when I was active duty.
I didn't join for the pay and knew what I was getting into when I joined but the appreciation still would have been nice.