DC Democrats: “We Don’t Need to Pay Our Soldiers But We Do Need to Spend Money on…”

Posted by on April 7, 2011 2:48 pm
Categories: Recommended

While DC Democrats and Resident Obama hold our Troops’ pay over our heads and promise to veto the latest GOP one-week continuing resolution, they are deeply concerned about funding for a few other things… (emphasis mine throughout)

Planned Parenthood

Democrats and Planned Parenthood say the funds are essential to providing cancer screenings, sexually transmitted disease testing and general health services to an estimated 5 million low-income women who visit one of the 4,500 health centers around the country every year.

Cancer screenings? Planned Parenthood doesn’t do that.

The Environmental Protection Agency

The Senate rejected a measure on Wednesday to kill the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, handing President Barack Obama a victory in his effort to quicken the move to clean energy.

The amendment would have blocked the agency’s move to implement the economy and job killing “Crap and Tax” without the need for congressional approval.

The Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio

“Did this bill age for 72 hours?” Weiner asked, waving a large blue posterboard bearing House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) statement, “I will not bring a bill to the floor that has not been posted online for 72 hours.”

Now where have I heard that before? Whiner didn’t care how long things had been posted online just a few short months ago.

If I have this right DC Democrats are saying they will gladly separate our Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen from their families for years at a time, put them in harm’s way in ever increasing frequency and locations, then… Not pay them so the Dems can continue to piss our tax dollars down our backs, reassuring us the entire time that it’s only rain. Yep, I think I’ve got it right.

9 responses to DC Democrats: “We Don’t Need to Pay Our Soldiers But We Do Need to Spend Money on…”

  1. bobmontgomery April 7th, 2011 at 3:26 pm

    Right on, Nessa. And there is another constituency they are deeply, deeply concerned about. I do not watch MSNBC, I swear I don’t, but a while ago Andrea Mitchell was interviewing Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California, former Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Andrea very carefully, softly and accurately tossed this one to Ms. Lee, (Paraphrasing) “Ms. Lee, if there were to be a shutdown, who would be hurt most?” Barbara didn’t miss a beat, didn’t pause, didn’t take a breath. She swung for the fence, nailed it and hit it out of the park and into the next county: “Many, many African-Americans work for the Federal Government……………………………………….”.

    • SEC April 7th, 2011 at 4:00 pm

      So then Bob, does that mean this white person can bring an Affirmative Action lawsuit against the Federal Government for discrimination against the minority whites?

      • bobmontgomery April 7th, 2011 at 4:51 pm

        Well, I sincerely doubt that. Note that, forgetting the troops or anyone else for the moment, she could have said just plain federal government workers would be hurt the worst, but she chose to say African-American federal government workers. Why would African -American federal government workers be hurt worse than Polish-American federal government workers? That’s just stupid. And tired. We are sooo waaiting for the day when African-Americans will get tied of it, and all the rest of the liberal Democrat Progressive rhetoric that is so tired, stupid, pandering and condescending. It insults and degrades so many people.

    • nessa April 7th, 2011 at 7:01 pm

      Thanks Bob! I’ll find that link and update when I’m finished with this client!

  2. SEC April 7th, 2011 at 4:13 pm

    I don’t know if it’s true, but I read that the WH gets to pick and choose what is considered essential personnel, that would still be paid in a shut down. Excuse me for a second- OUR MILITARY ARE MORE ESSENTIAL THAN ANY GOVERNMENT WORKER!

    They are asked to risk their very lives to protect this country and all of her citizens. They are given guns with beanbag bullets, or maybe waterpistols, and can only fire those if the enemy has shot them first. They have to be sensitive to those who would rather shout Allah Akbar, all the while backing up, and being sensitive to those military members who would rather wear a tutu than a uniform. It seems that the military is now facing more danger from the government than from the enemy.

    • LadyImpactOhio April 7th, 2011 at 7:03 pm

      Yes, I heard that as well. Obama gets to CHOOSE who or what is *most necessary.*

      And I’m not taking any bets on who gets the short shaft.

  3. Ron Robinson April 7th, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    Bravo Nessa. Right on. Our military endure enough hardships without their commander-in-chief willfully deciding not to pay them.

  4. bobmontgomery April 7th, 2011 at 9:18 pm

    I don’t have personal knowledge of what PP does or does not do, but I have now heard at many, many outlets that the Top Dog at PP has either lied or exaggerated to the max about it. I don’t know whether any of this has been in front of Congress or not, but what I would like to see is consequences for lying, and for these lies to be brought up in Congressional committees and floor debates, not just on the websites where we all find out about them.

  5. Pamela April 7th, 2011 at 11:03 pm

    Oh dear, looks like the Democrats seem to have forgotten or might just be ignorant of the fact Military pay and Military pensions are guaranteed and funded straight from the U.S. Treasury and not through Congressional machinations. That was done from the beginning so our brave Men and Women in uniform wouldn’t march on DC for non-payment.

Leave a Reply