Jewel, it seems that when you're cornered, you show your true colors. "Bake sale?" "San Francisce?" "Don't give a hoot about the personal finances of our troops and their families?"
Or how about the intellectual basis you offer to support your opinion:
>>"No it isn't. It is all about competing interests for dollars that the military has. You want to have a bake sale and give them more, go ahead. Then you can put the money up what ever you choose. You don't have a clue about how the money of the military is managed and I doubt you are qualified to advise them on it."<<
If you break it down, it's not about how the "military" spends it's money. There is no unbreakable budget that the "military" has to live with. Congress and Bush can increase or decrease that budget at will. And don't forget, Jewel, it's not their money anyway, it's mine and yours and all the rest of us that pay our fair share of taxes.
You don't think it's appropriate to have "a public debate over how the military is managing its human resource capital..?" Who the hell do you think ought to care about how well we are taking care of our troops and their families? Do you think that all of your "sacrifice for the Iraqi people-or for America" talk means that we select a FEW of us to sacrifice and the rest of us just ride along like FAT CATS on a gravy train. If your idea of sacrificing for America is that we take our young and sacrifice their blood and their finances then I think you'll find that a majority of Americans will disagree.
The bottom line is that if we can afford to give the wealthiest among us huge tax breaks, if we can afford to give huge farm subsidies to huge farm interests, if we can afford to award billions of Iraqi "reconstruction" contracts to friends of this administration without any competitive bidding, then we can afford to give $3-400 a month to compensate the men and women in Iraq. They are the ones who are living lives of deprivation and fear in OUR SERVICE. Extra money for combat pay and to help with the loss of income and expenses they incur when they leave home and serve overseas is NOT A GIFT.
Calling criticism of this rollback "anti-Bush" and bringing up the old "San Francisco" titter are red herrings and you ought to take a long look at the logic, or lack thereof, displayed in your analysis. Whether you look at the "compassionate conservativism" you display, is another subject. (Ie, teeth knashing and real tears for the tax plight of the wealthiest among us and coldness for the plight of those who are paying, and will continue to pay, the real price for our adventure in Iraq.)
Where the rubber meets the road you're not too empathetic or too concerned about our troops, are you? |
