Democrats: Pay The Unemployed, Stiff The Warfighters

By haystack Posted in Iraq Funding | Liberals | Shameless Pandering Democrats — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Obey and his pals have come up with a 3-pronged approach for getting an Iraq supplemental to the floor of "the People's House" and very little of it has anything to do with winning the war, or succeeding in Iraq, or whatever our Political heroes like to call it these days. It has a great deal to do with what we can hand out to our fellow citizens while simultaneously sticking it to the men and women risking their lives for ALL of us (including Democrats)....but given the election cycle these scumbags stand in fear of, there is little surprise in this news:

Read on . . .

After a flurry of last-minute number changes, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey (D-Wis.) unveiled a three-step process Tuesday for the House consideration of an emergency $183.7 billion wartime spending bill, possibly as early as this week.

In a press conference, Obey said the House will hold three votes related to different components: the first on military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the second on conditions to be imposed on the defense funds, and the third on a set of domestic initiatives, not all of which are reflected in the chairman's price-tag.

Chief among these are an extension of unemployment insurance benefits, expected to cost between $11 billion to $12 billion over 10 years, and a landmark expansion of education benefits for veterans who have served since the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Regarding Iraq, the bill is expected to call for the administration to immediately begin a withdrawal with the goal of removing troops in Iraq from a combat role by December 31, 2009.

Democrats know full well they are about to force our warfighters to go without ANY paychecks at all as they gleefully expand unemployment benefits to folks here at home. Is it just me, or are Obey and Pelosi really telling us that Soldiers don't deserve to get paid to fight wars? What's the plan...yank their pay, bring them home, and put them on unemployment with the rest of us? From Pelosi:

"President Bush insists on war without end in Iraq, but Democrats in Congress stand with Americans who want to bring our troops home responsibly, safely and soon, and with taxpayers who believe that the Iraqi government must begin to pay its fair share for the reconstruction of their country.

With Americans confronting an economy teetering on the brink of recession and struggling to afford rising prices, we are extending unemployment benefits for those searching for work and supporting a new GI Bill to help make the veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan part of our economic recovery.

Democrats are putting rebuilding America on par with the President's priorities. We have crafted an Iraq plan the President should sign--and one that makes the economic needs of the American people a priority once again."

Here we go again with Pelosi separating herself from the rest of America that (inconveniently for her) just happens to be fighting a war. The 3-pronged approach these geniuses have come up with is just more bogus political PR, and they know it. The Senate will strip out the timelines, again, and the Democrats will be in a real pickle because this approach (with the outcome so abundantly clear) might just be enough to alienate a good chunk of their remaining "Out of Iraq" minions...

The easy solution is to just pass a clean supplemental (asked for over 440 days ago by the President) and stop trying and be too cute by half hoping to appease their kook fringes.

I don't think most Americans know this by shooflyguy68

When you hear the Dems or the MSM talk about the Iraq spending bill, you hear lots of talk about funding "operations". I think to most folks, that just means the soldiers will magically come home if there is no funding. The fact that soldiers who are in harms way will get no pay checks if Congress doesn't pass this bill is a tragedy. I have to believe that even those who are against the war (I won't count the kooks) wouldn't want our service men and women to go unpaid. Why aren't the president and other GOP leaders doing a better job of framing the issue this way?

Reply To This — User Info — #1

Dems by The Default Attorney

are consistently more generous about veterans benefits once the troops DO come home. All congress has is the "power of the purse." They can't stop the war or call the troops home.

Here is a question that I'm curious about. Really, I don't mean this in a confrontational way. Say Congress did cut off the funding. Who is not "supporting" the troops? Congress who cut off the money, or the administration who is keeping them in the field despite the fact that the money has been cut off?

Reply To This — User Info — #4

Nice try Default Attorney by haystack

as strawmen go, that was framed fairly inconspicuously.

Seriously...while deployed, you pay them and arm them and ensure they have what they need to do the jobs WE gave them to do.

UNTIL they are out, they need us to provide for their needs. Those are the Congress purse strings. If they want them out, defund now. Withdraw the Congressional approval to be there..NOW.

"Play funding" and blackmail is not supporting the troops.

Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus

Reply To This — User Info — #5

It is just you. They are by sadstate

It is just you. They are telling us that they will not pass the war funding bill that Bush wants, but will compromise with him and pass this one instead.

Reply To This — User Info — #6

they know he won't sign it...he cant, and you know he can't n/t by haystack

Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus

Reply To This — User Info — #7

Redstate