Enough with the Obama blame-game

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by WTF

Which part of not making something that could be available, available don't you understand, yu simple minded fuc?

Those things could have been done, yet they weren't until the soldiers in the field made a stink.




I am not here to entertain you. I am here to keep your ilk from spreading all the lies you seem to think are true.

People like you cry for more resources on one hand and cry about the debt on the other.

Your kind is sickening. Not worth fighting for IMHO. I'd bring all the troops home before having another soldier die for people like you.

Sorry, but his son who is serving over there MIGHT DISAGREE with you on this.

[CuteOldGuy]

And unemployment is down because more people got discouraged and quit looking for work. Join the real world, will you?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Sorry, but his son who is serving over there MIGHT DISAGREE with you on this.

. I said IMHO his type is not worth another soldier dying for. I wish his and every son over there a safe return home. I would not have sent them over there has been my point. Second I would never send them over to fight for people that bitch about the deficit on one hand and bith about not having military resources on the other. I should not have to explain the absurity of those two positions. Bringing his son into this discussion is a rather low thing to do btw. IMHO again

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by datyking

No offense, don't believe everything you read. Especially, and I mean especially from the New York Times. We should always question anything you read from any source that holds a extreme bias. Which of course, is the NY Times. The public has grown wise to them and is the reason this paper is almost bankrupt.

theres reason why they're called fish wrap of record.

[budman33]

Originally Posted by robin hood

Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005

The bill, sponsored by Sen. John Warner, reported out of conference committee with $435 million in appropriations for individual body armor

It passed with 47-0 Democrats in favor and 49-0 Repubs in favor.

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004

The bill, proposed by Sen. Ted Stevens, includes $300 million in appropriations for the purchase of body armor for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan

It passed with 37-11 Democrats in favor and 50-0 Repubs in favor

Dodd Amendment to Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004

The amendment, offered by Sen. Chris Dodd, would have added $322 million to the $300 million already appropriated towards the purchase of "high-tech body armor, bullet-proof helmets, special water packs to keep soldiers hydrated, and other survival gear."

It passed with 2-37 Democrat opposed and 47-0 Repubs in favor.


Landrieu Amendment to Supplemental Appropriations Act to Support Department of Defense Operations in Iraq for Fiscal Year 2003

The amendment, proposed by Sen. Mary Landrieu, would have appropriated $1 billion to procurement for the National Guard and Reserves. The amendment was intended to fill a Guard and Reserve shortage of "helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests" and "chemical and biological protective gear". Landrieu based the $1 billion on National Guard and Reserve Unfunded Requirement lists. The amendment would offset the $1 billion appropriation with a $1 billion reduction in President Bush's tax cuts

It passed with 1-46 Democrats opposed and 51 Repubs in favor.


So who is it again blocking protection for our troops?

How much does body armor cost? even if you just consider the first two appropriations of over 700 million to outfit ALL 150,000 troops over there that's 5 grand per soldier. seriously.

Can't we get the bulk discount? How many of the 150,000 soldiers are front line enough to need it every day. Talk about corporate greed, lobbyists, and stupid politicians.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by budman33

How much does body armor cost? even if you just consider the first two appropriations of over 700 million to outfit ALL 150,000 troops over there that's 5 grand per soldier. seriously.

Can't we get the bulk discount? How many of the 150,000 soldiers are front line enough to need it every day. Talk about corporate greed, lobbyists, and stupid politicians.

Four years ago it cost $17,500. The basic ballistic vest (w/o ceramic plates) is nearly $500; a complete Interceptor system costs $1,585 (2004 price).

http://www.seattlepi.com/national/ar...ng-1251404.php

http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/oct...-17500-please/


EDIT TO ADD: The basic M998 HMMWV (Humvee) original issue cost was $65,000. The armored upgrades, like the M1114, now cost in the neighborhood of $150,000.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by budman33

How much does body armor cost? even if you just consider the first two appropriations of over 700 million to outfit ALL 150,000 troops over there that's 5 grand per soldier. seriously.

Can't we get the bulk discount? How many of the 150,000 soldiers are front line enough to need it every day. Talk about corporate greed, lobbyists, and stupid politicians.

When robin hood posted his misleading 'facts' , he failed to mention that the process is fuc'd up. Yes many people 'appear' to vote aganist something that looks like a no brainer when all you do is look at a snap shot of the vote. If you step back and look at it in more detail you will see that they were not voting aganist things for our soldiers overseas but aganist the pork barrel items in the bill.

But hey some say our founding fathers set up a great system. The proof is in the pudding.

Without understanding how the system works, you have people twisting votes and playing politics with peoples lives. It is sickening to me.

Originally Posted by WTF

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/31/60minutes/main652491.shtml


Wheeler says $2.8 billion that was earmarked for operations and maintenance to support U.S. troops has been used to "pay the pork bill."

Wheeler, who has written a book called "The Wastrels of Defense," says congressmen routinely hide billions of dollars in pet projects in the defense bill.

And buried in the back of this one, Wheeler found a biathlon jogging track in Alaska, a brown tree snake eradication program in Hawaii, a parade ground maintenance contract for a military base that closed years ago, and money for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial celebration.

By law, these projects can't be cut, so Pentagon bookkeepers will have to dip into operations and maintenance accounts to pay for them.

"They do all kinds of things that adds up to: 'We're basically eating our own young to support the war,'" he says.

According to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a member of the Armed Services Committee who speaks out against pork-barrel spending, there is a total of $8.9 billion of pork in this year's defense bill, which would go a long way toward upgrading all the equipment used by the National Guard.

"I don't think that this war has truly come home to the Congress of the United States," McCain says. "This is the first time in history that we've cut taxes during a war. So I think that a lot of members of Congress feel that this is just sort of a business-as-usual situation."

"The least sexy items are the mundane - food, repair items, maintenance – there's no big contract there," says McCain. "And so there's a tendency that those mundane but vital aspects of war fighting are cut and routinely underfunded."

.