They weren't right. Costs came in less than half of what was originally projected. But why would Democrats care about costs when it benefits so many people? What high ground do Democrats have to stand on here?
Ah...you mean the very thing Dems so vehemently objected to with Medicare Part D when deficits weren't anywhere near the problem they are now? The rationalization and hypocrisy I'm pointing out seems to elude you for some reason. You may want to look into that.Not raising taxes to pay for the cost.
What concerns? The concerns about not wanting to spend money on the veterans that the republican wars created?
Moar hatred of the troops by the GOP. Nothing new.
Well actually one of the sticking points, besides the funding, was the democrats insistence that the VA accept all veteran injuries including those that are not combat related. Many felt this would continue to overburden the system.
Obama's surge didn't go so well for us.as an aside under 8 years of Bush America suffered 575 deaths in Afghanistan, with berrie at the helm it took less that two years to surpass that total, and in 6 years our stumbling clusterfuck of a miserable preznit is responsible for 1620 +. guess the heros who died under berrie would be thankful they don't have to deal with a V.A. the republicans are dissembling.
the bill was a shit sandwich (without jelly) which should only be served to progressives and vets who were stupid enough to vote for them. the bill did not address one single solitary core problem with the V.A. it was in fact, as has been stated, nothing more than a feeble attempt at grandstanding by the party that all know don't give a fuck about vets, well except for the lame fucks who get their news from politico.
as an aside under 8 years of Bush America suffered 575 deaths in Afghanistan, with berrie at the helm it took less that two years to surpass that total, and in 6 years our stumbling clusterfuck of a miserable preznit is responsible for 1620 +. guess the heros who died under berrie would be thankful they don't have to deal with a V.A. the republicans are dissembling.
I remember when Democrats voted against Medicare Part D and bitched and moaned for years because of the cost. Democrats obviously don't give a fuck about the sick and elderly.
Obama's surge didn't go so well for us.
Obama didn't start the wars. The responsibility for all of the deaths go to the people who started the endless occupations.
It's an extremely fair and relevant comparison specifically directed towards the "intellectuals" among us who choose to wallow in idiotic partisan hyperbole. But you don't seem to get this point...'nuff said.Who cares if they voted against it? Did it stop it from being passed? No? Then it is an unbelievably bad comparison.
It's an extremely fair and relevant comparison specifically directed towards the "intellectuals" among us who choose to wallow in idiotic partisan hyperbole. But you don't seem to get this point...'nuff said.
Both parties suck. Why would anyone fight for a country that doesn't respect them?
Sad.
the bill was a shit sandwich (without jelly) which should only be served to progressives and vets who were stupid enough to vote for them. the bill did not address one single solitary core problem with the V.A. it was in fact, as has been stated, nothing more than a feeble attempt at grandstanding by the party that all know don't give a fuck about vets, well except for the lame fucks who get their news from politico.
as an aside under 8 years of Bush America suffered 575 deaths in Afghanistan, with berrie at the helm it took less that two years to surpass that total, and in 6 years our stumbling clusterfuck of a miserable preznit is responsible for 1620 +. guess the heros who died under berrie would be thankful they don't have to deal with a V.A. the republicans are dissembling.
It's an extremely fair and relevant comparison specifically directed towards the "intellectuals" among us who choose to wallow in idiotic partisan hyperbole. But you don't seem to get this point...'nuff said.
for berrie it's a feature, not a bug
no professor, the responsibilities lay with the fucks who said they would end it, yet continued, and of course you must be talking about the progressive idiots in congress who voted overwhelming in support of the conflicts
Are politicians responsible for their votes or not? Yes or no? Anyway that wasn't my point. I was directing my sarcastic hyperbole at those who said that Republicans don't give a shit about Vets.I get it that you think you are smart. Wishing something won't make it true though or your point less ridiculous.
It doesn't matter what the democrats voted, because it passed anyway. Conversely, in this case, the Republicans voting against it is WHAT KILLED IT. HUGE difference.
Are politicians responsible for their votes or not? Yes or no? Anyway that wasn't my point. I was directing my sarcastic hyperbole at those who said that Republicans don't give a shit about Vets.
So the votes of politicians doesn't matter if legislation you personally find pleasing passes anyway? Give it a rest....you're embarrassing yourself.If the vote is going to pass, then the remainder votes do not have the same impact as if their votes really mattered. It really is a simple concept.
Hyperboles still need relevance. The Republicans' votes directly caused this vote to fail, therefore the blame lies with them.
So the votes of politicians doesn't matter if legislation you personally find pleasing passes anyway? Give it a rest....you're embarrassing yourself.
the bill was a shit sandwich (without jelly) which should only be served to progressives and vets who were stupid enough to vote for them. the bill did not address one single solitary core problem with the V.A. it was in fact, as has been stated, nothing more than a feeble attempt at grandstanding by the party that all know don't give a fuck about vets, well except for the lame fucks who get their news from politico.
as an aside under 8 years of Bush America suffered 575 deaths in Afghanistan, with berrie at the helm it took less that two years to surpass that total, and in 6 years our stumbling clusterfuck of a miserable preznit is responsible for 1620 +. guess the heros who died under berrie would be thankful they don't have to deal with a V.A. the republicans are dissembling.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) moved Wednesday night to cut off debate on the bill and blocked consideration of amendments, including one on Iran sanctions demanded by Republicans. And on Thursday, Democrats came up four votes short of the 60 needed to keep the bill moving forward on a procedural budget vote, 56-41.
They could have passed it, except for Harry Reid.
Reid says it is my way or the highway and is not willing to let the republicans have any say at all.
What in the world does Iran sanctions have to do with taking care of our own troops? NOTHING. We need to stop throwing tons of unrelated crap together. Vote each separately.