Nickle-and-Diming the Troops
- Thread starter ZarathosNY
- Start date
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
That's outrageous! Talk about not supporting the troops.
MrFriday18
CAGiversary!
also not added is the troops get free room and bored and food at no cost, and most get a free college education after they leave the armed forces.
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='MrFriday18']also not added is the troops get free room and bored and food at no cost, and most get a free college education after they leave the armed forces.[/quote]
That'll make up for a few bullet holes.
Did you notice the part where WWII soldiers were paid much more in combat that the soldiers in Iraq now?
That'll make up for a few bullet holes.
Did you notice the part where WWII soldiers were paid much more in combat that the soldiers in Iraq now?
Ikohn4ever
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
how about a 45 million dollar spending on inauguration balls, when troops still need better equipment in combat. It really shows who cares about the people fighting overseas.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
They voted for Bush. As their god likes to say, "You reapth what you soweth..."
MrFriday18
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']how about a 45 million dollar spending on inauguration balls, when troops still need better equipment in combat. It really shows who cares about the people fighting overseas.[/quote]
Most people believe that Presidents Bush's inaguration was the most exspensive when it was not. Bush the 41st inaguration cost somewhere around $50 million and Clintons considering how the economy was doing costed around $55 million.
Most people believe that Presidents Bush's inaguration was the most exspensive when it was not. Bush the 41st inaguration cost somewhere around $50 million and Clintons considering how the economy was doing costed around $55 million.
Ikohn4ever
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
[quote name='MrFriday18'][quote name='Ikohn4ever']how about a 45 million dollar spending on inauguration balls, when troops still need better equipment in combat. It really shows who cares about the people fighting overseas.[/quote]
Most people believe that Presidents Bush's inaguration was the most exspensive when it was not. Bush the 41st inaguration cost somewhere around $50 million and Clintons considering how the economy was doing costed around $55 million.[/quote]
well we arent comparing, I am talking about people risking their lives with unsafe equipment and the pres sippin on some Crystal. If he was a man of the people he would have done something about it. Hell we spend a billion a week on the war, but we give a measley 350 million to a disaster where over 200,000 people die. We are really doing a bang up job on winning the hearts and minds of the world.
Most people believe that Presidents Bush's inaguration was the most exspensive when it was not. Bush the 41st inaguration cost somewhere around $50 million and Clintons considering how the economy was doing costed around $55 million.[/quote]
well we arent comparing, I am talking about people risking their lives with unsafe equipment and the pres sippin on some Crystal. If he was a man of the people he would have done something about it. Hell we spend a billion a week on the war, but we give a measley 350 million to a disaster where over 200,000 people die. We are really doing a bang up job on winning the hearts and minds of the world.
Drocket
CAGiversary!
[quote name='MrFriday18']Most people believe that Presidents Bush's inaguration was the most exspensive when it was not. [/quote]
Only as long as you don't count the nearly $20M for security that Bush simply didn't feel like paying for, and so simply dumped on Washington DC. Historically, the extra security costs have been paid for out of the inauguration budget, but that would have seriously cut down on the money available for ballons, so in a nice '
you' to the city that voted against him, he just dumped that part of the bill on DC, a move that's going to impair the city's ability to protect our nation's captial against terrorist threats.
Only as long as you don't count the nearly $20M for security that Bush simply didn't feel like paying for, and so simply dumped on Washington DC. Historically, the extra security costs have been paid for out of the inauguration budget, but that would have seriously cut down on the money available for ballons, so in a nice '
you' to the city that voted against him, he just dumped that part of the bill on DC, a move that's going to impair the city's ability to protect our nation's captial against terrorist threats.
MrFriday18
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Ikohn4ever'][quote name='MrFriday18'][quote name='Ikohn4ever']how about a 45 million dollar spending on inauguration balls, when troops still need better equipment in combat. It really shows who cares about the people fighting overseas.[/quote]
Most people believe that Presidents Bush's inaguration was the most exspensive when it was not. Bush the 41st inaguration cost somewhere around $50 million and Clintons considering how the economy was doing costed around $55 million.[/quote]
well we arent comparing, I am talking about people risking their lives with unsafe equipment and the pres sippin on some Crystal. If he was a man of the people he would have done something about it. Hell we spend a billion a week on the war, but we give a measley 350 million to a disaster where over 200,000 people die. We are really doing a bang up job on winning the hearts and minds of the world.[/quote]
a measely $350 million. come one we have also send troops, planes, and aircraft carriers to the affected tsunami region. Also almost all of the countries affected don't even want us there. Also why do we need countruies like indonesia where many supports terrorist to love us. To be honest to you no1 will love us until we fall and are no longer a supper power. Also we spend rufly $400 million a weak on the war, not $1 billion.
Most people believe that Presidents Bush's inaguration was the most exspensive when it was not. Bush the 41st inaguration cost somewhere around $50 million and Clintons considering how the economy was doing costed around $55 million.[/quote]
well we arent comparing, I am talking about people risking their lives with unsafe equipment and the pres sippin on some Crystal. If he was a man of the people he would have done something about it. Hell we spend a billion a week on the war, but we give a measley 350 million to a disaster where over 200,000 people die. We are really doing a bang up job on winning the hearts and minds of the world.[/quote]
a measely $350 million. come one we have also send troops, planes, and aircraft carriers to the affected tsunami region. Also almost all of the countries affected don't even want us there. Also why do we need countruies like indonesia where many supports terrorist to love us. To be honest to you no1 will love us until we fall and are no longer a supper power. Also we spend rufly $400 million a weak on the war, not $1 billion.
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='MrFriday18'][quote name='Ikohn4ever']how about a 45 million dollar spending on inauguration balls, when troops still need better equipment in combat. It really shows who cares about the people fighting overseas.[/quote]
Most people believe that Presidents Bush's inaguration was the most exspensive when it was not. Bush the 41st inaguration cost somewhere around $50 million and Clintons considering how the economy was doing costed around $55 million.[/quote]
And we weren't at war during either of those inaugurations - that's the point. Not to mention Bush sticking DC with the security tab.
Most people believe that Presidents Bush's inaguration was the most exspensive when it was not. Bush the 41st inaguration cost somewhere around $50 million and Clintons considering how the economy was doing costed around $55 million.[/quote]
And we weren't at war during either of those inaugurations - that's the point. Not to mention Bush sticking DC with the security tab.
Most people believe that Presidents Bush's inaguration was the most exspensive when it was not. Bush the 41st inaguration cost somewhere around $50 million and Clintons considering how the economy was doing costed around $55 million.
Thats not true
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A48775-2001Jan25¬Found=true
Clinton's 97' inauguration cost $29.6 million , so unless youa re talking about his 93' and 9'7 combined that is flat out wrong.
Thats not true
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A48775-2001Jan25¬Found=true
Clinton's 97' inauguration cost $29.6 million , so unless youa re talking about his 93' and 9'7 combined that is flat out wrong.
Drocket
CAGiversary!
Yes, but "considering how the economy was doing", it was $55M. Actually, I have no clue what that means. That's just the current Republican talking-point. Its not inflation: with inflation, Clinton's would still be less than $35M.
Republican talking points incorrect: who'd have thunk it?
Republican talking points incorrect: who'd have thunk it?
MrFriday18
CAGiversary!
This article is incorrect, an average soldier makes rufly between $800-$1,200 a month. So that article is totaly incorrect.
bread's done