A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry
GOP Riders
Posted: Apr 8, 2011
Is anyone aware of what exactly it is the GOP/TEA are trying to slide through here? Here is a list of what is on the riders and everything they want to defund...from the school lunch program (who cares if the children eat) to protecting water from mining, to not funding biomass efforts (hmm wonder if that is to please their OIL company masters). They are trying to change policy in a budget vote...that is NOT how it is done. How can people look at this list of things and tell me they give a flip about ANYONE in this country besides the rich I dont know. 
Read the WHOLE list and just let it soak in.
;
Trying again - Truthseekers
[ In Reply To ..]http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:m9MccLcqiuoJ:www.ombwatch.org/files/budget/OMB_Watch-HR1_Policy_Riders.pdf+epa+riders+HR1&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgXjplNxTD-SMRlHlCzGV6Pbb3A4GTJ4UIBNnTUh5-qCWIff9E_WU4plCRFd2CDznP032yI-jzi0Kb86gmjiv9HHi5b4QVU0YGwEkfJH4p5KhmJnp-JIwcI4jaKHkKyIy0oke3G&sig=AHIEtbS_1mwQJDUUMeXhFIEJUG97IIU6MA
Wow! Do you think the people who voted - sm
[ In Reply To ..]Wow! Do you think the people who voted these people in understood what they would do? I also understand that with the "shutdown" the military would not be paid, but congress would? Nauseating. But, hey, we can't expect the rich to pay their fair share, can we?
Beyond comprehension - Truthseeker
[ In Reply To ..]I honestly have no idea whatsoever would cause people to time and time again vote against their best interests. Even when it has been proven that the needs of the rich and corporations will be put above their needs, ability to make a living and even their health..all so millionaires can become billionaires and billionaires pushing to become trillionaires.
Most people I know just want to put food on the table, roof over their head, clothes on their backs, put their kids through college and have a safety net in case that fridge breaks, or the roof springs a leak, etc. Forget about vacations..that is a luxury. How many people who vote Republican actually HAVE those things I wonder.....
If we had a flat tax where every person paid - sm
[ In Reply To ..]a certain percentage on their gross earnings...EVERYONE...including the rich....would pay their fair share. No more loopholes.
It is sickening that the military won't get paid but congress still would. Perhaps if congress couldn't vote themselves raises and we could cut some of their benefits, etc....perhaps they would actually do a better job for us little peons who vote for those SOBs.
The bottom line...we are getting ever closer to reaching the debt ceiling. Our government is spending WAY too much of our money. Pubs and crats are both guilty in my opinion. Bush spent a lot of money and Obama has spent even more money. We definitely need to cut back on the wasteful spending. We are going to go bankrupt and we will all suffer horribly.
Get rid of the Bush tax cuts. Stop extending unemployment. Go through all government programs and see which ones overlap and are getting more money than they should. Stop funding NPR...they said they didn't need it anyway. Stop giving so much money to other countries when we have people in our own country who are homeless and need help.
Reform healthcare without making it a government takeover of healthcare. Reform welfare so we actually help those needing help instead of keeping them dependent on government. Get rid of outrageous subsidies.
There is so much that we need to do but politicians are too afraid to speak up because everyone wants another group to sacrifice but they don't want anything taken away from them. We are all gonna have to compromise and give a little here and I have yet to see anyone really willing to do that.
The military will get paid if the Dems and - Obama agree to the
[ In Reply To ..]short-term funding bill the House passed. If the government shuts down it is on them now. However, the White House said if the government did "shut down" it would be nonessential services. Soldiers in combat will continue to be paid. As to Congress...if Obama considers them "essential" they will continue to be paid.
He is the one who makes the decision who is essential or nonessential. Bet he gets paid too.
Republicans rejected offer to pay military - No compromise there.
[ In Reply To ..]On Wednesday, Democrats offered two different motions that would have continued funding for military pay through December. On the first, offered by Rep. Bill Owens (D-N.Y.), only a single Republican crossed the aisle to vote for it. On the second, sponsored by Steny Hoyer, every GOPer voted no.
Exactly, because they did not want budget - with no spending cuts.
[ In Reply To ..]and again, if you have been paying attention to what the White House said: if the government shuts down, only essential services will continue. And who decides what the essential services are? The President.
So blame HIM if they stonewall and don't pass in the interim spending bill in the senate or if he vetoes it...because if they shut down the govt he is going to have to decide who gets paid and who doesn't.
He sits in the big chair and it is time to make some big decisions and take the responsibility for the ones he makes.
We were having a mature conversation and you went "angry" on us - Would love to have a "No Bellering" zone
[ In Reply To ..]We could have a "No Bellering" zone where people could discuss as we were above, without mean-spirited name-calling. That would be so nice.
And I would love to have a no tsk, tsk zone. - Did someone make you
[ In Reply To ..]moderator when I wasn't present?
You don't handle disagreement very well, do ya?
Why not address the issues instead of pointing your finger at someone else...and we wonder why the country is in the shape its in.
You should really run for Congress on the Dem ticket. Your arrogant attitude would fit right in, realllyyyy well.
Tsk Tsk! Have a nice weekend. - :)
[ In Reply To ..]I hope you have a very nice weekend. Have some fun.
Boehner stated they still have a sticking point with spending but - Backwards Typist
[ In Reply To ..]he was turning his paycheck back to the Treasury if the shutdown takes place and urges all lawmakers to do the same.
In our local paper, 3 representatives will turn their salaries to charity if the Treasury will not accept the return How generous of them.....this happened before and how do we know they really did this?
Sounds dramatic, but these people are rich and a paycheck makes little difference to them - More dramatics I think
[ In Reply To ..]Anything for a sound bite. It looks good, sounds good, but the truth is, many of these people don't need their paychecks. There will be food in their pantries regardless. They will be able to make their car payment. It's just drama, and I think the country is tiring of so much drama.
I feel a little sorry for Boehner because the Tea Party has him over a barrel - But he could stand up for what is right
[ In Reply To ..]Yes, he's getting lots of pressure and threats from the Tea Party, but he doesn't have to give in to them, or maybe he does.
One hopes he is listening to the people who - gave him back the majority
[ In Reply To ..]in the House...some tea party, some Republicans, and a lot of Independents.
The regular Republicans are getting a little left out though - Need up up their energy level
[ In Reply To ..]The regular Republicans don't stand a chance unless they get a little more energized.
Oh, he's definitely listening to the tea party group; they are loud - and have a giant big blue bird with them
[ In Reply To ..]He couldn't help listening to them. The voices of the moderates are being lost, but the tea party group will be heard, or else. Seriously, they have him under their thumb. He will do whatever they tell him. He doesn't want them to turn against him. Nobody else matters right now. They must and will be appeased.
Some of these really concern me, but take a look at this one - What in the world--Texas bailout?
[ In Reply To ..]Rider In House Republican Spending Plan Aims To Give Gov. Perry $830 Million Bailout
When Congress approved a $10 billion education jobs bill last year aimed at preserving the jobs of teachers and other public school employees, it included a clause requiring Texas to maintain its current education funding if it wanted to access its share of the money. The justification for including this provision was good: Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) took education funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, but then “simultaneously slashed the state’s contributions to the education budget, allowing the state to essentially pocket the federal dollars without increasing school aid.”
Perry did not take the restriction in the education jobs bill well, saying “Texas will not surrender to Washington’s one-size-fits-all, deficit-spending mindsetâ€Â¦We’ll continue to work with state leaders, including the attorney general, to fight this injustice.” Texas is now suing the Department of Education to release the funds, while Perry’s chief of staff said that the state will “look for ways around” actually spending the money on education.
But if House Republicans get their way, Perry won’t need to work any harder to secure his share of the money, which stands at $830 million. A rider included in H.R. 1 — the House Republican spending plan for the remainder of 2011 — would prohibit the Education Department from enforcing the restrictions placed into the education jobs bill:
Sec. 4051: Prohibits funds for implementing a provision specific to the State of Texas in the “Education Job Fund.”
This would be a convenient windfall for Perry, who is currently grappling with a $27 billion budget hole. But according to the office of Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) — who spearheaded the restrictions in the education jobs bill — the practical upshot of the rider wouldn’t be to give Perry the $830 million to with as he pleases, but to simply deny Texas from ever accessing any of the education jobs funding:
Defectively written, this amendment fails to repeal anything. The enforcement funds that it would limit are not in this bill. They are already appropriatedâ€Â¦Though this is presented as an attempt to repeal our amendment, it does not repeal it. It is a meaningless gesture, though it does cloud up the possibility that some federal court may suggest that Texas is not entitled to any money.
There are plenty of riders attached to H.R. 1 that would increase federal spending, even as Republicans use the deficit as justification to cut scores of vital and popular programs. But this particular provision is an attempt to force the federal government into throwing money to Perry without any oversight, when his past actions show that such oversight is sorely needed.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2011/03/30/rider-texas-bailout/
You were okay with bailing out GM but not - Texas. Really?
[ In Reply To ..]nm
Argumentative, without substance - No comment
[ In Reply To ..]nm
It's a valid question. Why would someone - embrace bailing out a car
[ In Reply To ..]company and complain about a bailout to Texas? What about Wisconsin getting $800 million in stimulus funds, a large part of which went to the labor unions? Can't manage to get your knickers in a knot over that one either, but want to pounce on giving money to Texas. Your hypocrisy is showing....
There you go again, with more spewing - Tsk Tsk
[ In Reply To ..]Nobody mentioned GM here and I, for one, never have, good or bad. Spew on! You're good at it.
THere's that spew word again. When you - refuse to address a
[ In Reply To ..]valid question, trot out the "spew" word and insults, you also expose your agenda, which you are also good at. Of course you didn't mention GM...or the states that got bailouts from Obama's stimulus. You seem to only be concerned about the bailout if Republicans want to give one.
H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y.
BAILOUT TEXAS - FED UP
[ In Reply To ..]The government bailed out GM not the state of Michigan. Big difference. Even though I did not agree with any of the bail outs, GM employs people. Michigan is in horrible financial need but again I would not support the state trying to get bailed out until all the legislators earn what we earn and follow the same rules we follow.
The state of Texas employs people, too, and - as far as I'm concerned,
[ In Reply To ..]we shouldn't be bailing anyone out.
BAILOUT TEXAS - FED UP
[ In Reply To ..]The state of Michigan employs people too, and our lovely governor is going after them too. I didn't agree with any of the bailouts as I said, but to bail out a state, when their politicians are making more money than they are worth would be wrong too. Show me a poor politician, do you know of any? Why make the poor people take all the cuts and they don't have to.
Why would you assume that I was okay with the GM bailout? - OP
[ In Reply To ..]I definitely didn't say that.
Last I heard, Texas was planning to secede from the USA - Did they decide to stay and why are we giving them
[ In Reply To ..]Are we paying them to stay, or what? Did they decide to stay in the USA? Governor Perry was adamant that they had the right to secede and he planned to do just that. So why are we giving them a bailout because their state budget failed? I recently read that the reason their budget failed was that they lowered their taxes dramatically, but even with the "Sales tax" that is much higher that was supposed to make up the difference, it didn't. People didn't spend as much and for that reason didn't pay enough sales tax, and they are going under. So do we bail them out? I think it's their problem.
This is the Section referred in your link - Backwards Typist
[ In Reply To ..]
This Rider that you referenced:
Sec. 1284. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this division or any other Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to transfer in fiscal year 2011 to the Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service under subsection (b) of section 14222 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122 Stat. 2245) an amount in excess of $1,098,000,000: Provided, That none of the funds made available by this division or any other Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out section 19 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1769a) utilizing funds otherwise required to be made available under subsection (i)(1)(D) of such section 19 in excess of $33,000,000, including the transfer of funds under subsection (c) of such section 14222, until October 1, 2011: Provided further, That the remaining $117,000,000 of the amount specified in subsection (i)(1)(D) of such section 19 made available on October 1, 2011, to carry out such section 19 shall be excluded from the limitation described in subsection (b)(2)(A)(iv) of such section 14222 for fiscal year 2012.
Sec. 1284: None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this division or any other Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to transfer in fiscal year 2011 to the Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service under subsection (b) of section 14222 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246; 122 Stat. 2245) an amount in excess of $1,098,000,000: Provided, That none of the funds made available by this division or any other Act shall be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out section 19 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1769a) utilizing funds otherwise required to be made available under subsection (i)(1)(D) of such section 19 in excess of $33,000,000, including the transfer of funds under subsection (c) of such section 14222, until October 1, 2011: Provided further, That the remaining $117,000,000 of the amount specified in subsection (i)(1)(D) of such section 19 made available on October 1, 2011, to carry out such section 19 shall be excluded from the limitation described in subsection (b)(2)(A)(iv) of such section 14222 for fiscal year 2012.
This section, in no way, lets children go hungry. In another section that I found so far referencing the Richard B. Russell National School lunch Act is this:
Subtitle C: Child Nutrition and Related Programs - (Sec. 4301) Directs the Secretary to report annually to the appropriate congressional committees assessing the each state's effectiveness in enrolling school-aged children in households receiving supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits for free school meals using direct certification.
(Sec. 4302) Amends the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to direct the Secretary to allow institutions receiving funds under this Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, including the Department of Defense (DOD) fresh fruit and vegetable program, to use a geographic preference for the procurement of unprocessed agricultural products, both locally grown and locally raised.
(Sec. 4303) Directs the Secretary to carry out a pilot program of grants to nonprofit organizations or public entities in up to five states for community gardens at high-poverty schools to teach the students about agriculture production practices and diet.
(Sec. 4304) Directs the Secretary, beginning with the school year opening July 2008, to provide grants to states for programs to make free fresh fruits and vegetables available in elementary schools.
Sets forth program and funding provisions.
Authorizes appropriations (in addition to other funding).
(Sec. 4305) Directs the Secretary to: (1) purchase whole grain products for distribution in the school lunch and breakfast programs; and (2) evaluate the program and report to the appropriate congressional committees.
(Sec. 4306) States that the Department should undertake training, guidance, and enforcement of the various current Buy American statutory requirements and regulations, including those of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act.
(Sec. 4307) Directs the Secretary, for FY2009, to: (1) carry out a survey of the foods purchased during the most recent school year for which data is available by school authorities participating in the school lunch program; and (2) report to the appropriate congressional committees.
Provides CCC funding for such survey.
I'm still looking at the references cited (you know, bills, amendments, and laws are not very easy to decifer or find because of the many layers).
I imagine that whoever first posted those items on Google did not intend for anyone to say the Congress wants to starve the children.
Because why.... - Truthseeker
[ In Reply To ..]Wow so apparently Bush's czars could get paid whether they went through the Senate or not but Obama's cant?
So they shouldnt be able to know someone is stockpiling multiple weapons? - Truthseeker
[ In Reply To ..]Again, because why.......
Prohibits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from collecting information
on multiple sales of rifles or shotguns to the same person.
Prevents the Environmental Protection Agency from Protecting---Duh! - Thinking about the ramifications of that one
[ In Reply To ..]Greenhouse gasses, plants dumping toxic waste, etc. Nobody to stop that from happening.
First let me say I liked a lot of the riders... - especially defunding of
[ In Reply To ..]the czars, unconstitutionally employed in the first place. If Obama wants'em, let HIM pay them. There are other riders that I liked.
Now having said that...please truthseeker...what is YOUR answer to the debt problem? Tax the rich some more? Won't work. They cannot possibly pay enough more to fix the debt and balance what comes in vs what goes out. So what programs WOULD you have cut? Last time I looked, kids could take lunches to school. Are you saying there are really parents who could not eke out enough money to send a PB&J sandwich to school for lunch?? We had school lunches when I was a kid, but I carried mine every day because my folks didn't want to pay for the school lunches. We were by no means rich, but I did get a lunch.
All the Democrats had to do was suggest alternatives, not put up a freakin' 1.3 TRILLION dollar budget in this economy with the size of our debt.
So please...instead of screeching at what the Republicans want to cut, do something constructive and make suggestions to the Dems on what to cut if they don't like these cuts...
or are you like the Dems who just can't seem to understand the financial situation of these United States?
Until people like you only want to screech about Republicans/tea party whatever and don't have a single valid suggestion about cuts...we the people are not going to keep voting Democrats in. They really do NOT understand the mood of the country. They have effectively told us what we want just doesn't matter. Do you think we actually will vote for them again?
Good for you that you had parents who made your lunch for you - Congratulations!
[ In Reply To ..]I'm very happy for you. Really. I would wish the same for every child.
You seriously think children are going to - starve to death if school
[ In Reply To ..]lunches are defunded?? Come on. Okay, if you don't want that program defunded, pick one that you do. Because unless you really have no grasp of finances, you know this country is in severe financial trouble. Much more is going OUT than is coming in. And it is so bad now that not even taxing the rich into oblivion will fix it. It has gone way past that. We have to balance the books so we are taking in as much as we are paying out, and the only way to do that right now is cut spending.
So instead of blaming those who are trying and lamblasting what they choose to cut, get up and figure out what cuts you would accept (if that is possible) and try to get the Democrats to see reason and make suggestions. A 1.3 trillion dollar budget is NOT the way to fix it.
That's the only good meal some children get. - nm
[ In Reply To ..]nm
Okay...again...do you understand - the financial situation
[ In Reply To ..]this country is in? Do you??
Let the millionaires and the corporations who are avoiding taxes pay their fair share - and not take it out on the helpless
[ In Reply To ..]There is a better way than to take it out on the helpless.
There are food stamps and other programs around to feed children - Kendra
[ In Reply To ..]If parents do not send a lunch with their children to school, especially when it is already tax payer funded (food stamps), how is that to be blamed on anyone but the parent of that child?
The Republican plan also cuts food stamps and WIC - unfortunately
[ In Reply To ..]I'm very disappointed that they decided to go that direction.
I have issues with food stamps - sm
[ In Reply To ..]I see people in the store buying their food with food stamps and their cart is full of nothing but junk. Drives me insane!!!
Also, I have a niece...who I have nothing to do with because she is worthless....but she sold her food stamps for her and her 2 kids so she could get money for a new tattoo.
It's true that there wll always be people who abuse anything - but the children are still hungry
[ In Reply To ..]There is no good answer to people who do bad things. Good people having tough times shouldn't have to suffer because of those people we all know who abuse anything good that they get.
Rich people and cooporations - sm
[ In Reply To ..]are not the only ones abusing the tax code with ridiculous loopholes. It is only scandalous when the rich and cooperations do it though. Why is that? There are plenty of poor folks abusing the system as well. I have a brother-in-law who makes very little as he works on a school bus as an aide. We are talking barely 20K a year. Between state and federal....he got back 9K dollars. That is ridiculous as well.
The best way for everyone to pay their fair share is for a flat tax with no exemptions or loopholes. That would take care of a lot of tax evasion going on...particularly with the big cooperations, the rich and politicians.
I think we all would be amazed at the amount of revenue is brought in by getting rid of the loopholes and having a flat tax.
Let's see, $ from 10,000 regular guys paying their share = to 1 rich guy or corporation - Just a few rich guys doing the right thing solves
[ In Reply To ..]All we need to do is get 10,000 of the regular tax avoiders and maybe 5 of the wealthy tax dodgers, and problem solved! I think the answer is to do both, but we'll get more bang for our buck by starting with the multi-millionaires and billionaires. Just one of them paying his fair share is going to make a big difference.
I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU - FED UP
[ In Reply To ..]What about General Electric making billions in profits, outsourcing all of their work out of country and not paying a penny in taxes. What is wrong with that picture? Maybe since they outsource work that belongs here in the US they should have to pay a huge service tax to help all the people that can't find work since all these companies are screwing their own people for the almighty dollar. If they are taxed at 3-40% of their bottom line regardless of anything else, maybe they will bring the work back where it belongs and no one would need the programs they are wanting to cut.
Nah...people like Jeff Immelt - sm
[ In Reply To ..]will never get in trouble for sending jobs out of our country and not paying any taxes. Instead Obama appoints them to head his outside panel of economic advisers. No conflict of interest at all there, huh?
Last week I read that if only 1 of these corporations actually paid taxes at the rate we do - it would solve half the Social security problem
[ In Reply To ..]I wish I could remember where that was. If I can find it, I'll post it. The statistics were eye-opening.
If one of my neighbors started paying the taxes they are supposed to pay, it wouldn't make much difference in the whole scheme of things, but only one corporation who starts paying their fair share makes an enormous difference, much more than the amount saved by taking the food away from the children (school lunches) and babies (WIC) (food stamps).
Flat tax for all...no loopholes! - nm
[ In Reply To ..].
Okay, make that happen and I'll be for it - if you can keep the big guys from cheating
[ In Reply To ..]I'm completely in favor of that, if you can keep the big guys from hiding their income. I don't think you can. There are too many ways to mask income so that it appears that they aren't making any money, although they just bought 4 vacation homes across the world, and have billions in their personal accounts. I don't think you can make it work, but if you can, so that it's really fair, I'm for it.
At least a flat tax would make it better, IMO. - sm
[ In Reply To ..]I would hope that we could figure out a way to keep the big guys from hiding their income. Our biggest problem is finding a politician with enough ba11s to try for a flat tax because a lot of politicians enjoy those loopholes too. How many of our politicians in and out of office have been in trouble for tax evasion? Ridiculous really.
I just think simplifying the tax code is a step in the right direction. You make x amount of money...you pay x%...simple and easy. All you would need is a calculator. No more paying H&R Block to screw you up the butt by overcharging to do your taxes for you, etc.
I guess so. At least we could hope, and we need some hope - Sigh!
[ In Reply To ..]I would definitely vote for the flat tax even though my gut feeling is that it will be just as abused as what we have now. We have to try, don't we?
I don't think it will be abused like the - sm
[ In Reply To ..]system we have now. When you simplify things, it makes it harder to abuse it. It would be pretty cut and dry. You make X amount of money...you pay X%. Pretty simple.
I would be very happy with that. - nm
[ In Reply To ..]Let's start today. :)
First of all...taxing millionaires more is NOT - going to fix this, and for
[ In Reply To ..]you to make this statement shows you do not have a clue as to the magnitude of the situation.
Second, stop screeching out loopholes if you are not willing to hold your Democrat legislators' feet to the fire, as they have had control of the ways and means committee where tax law is made 44 out of the last 55 years. AND they had a majority of both houses and the white house up until the midterms, and they did ZIP about the deficit other than add to it, and did ZIP about corporate loopholes except complan about it.
And excuse me, lunch at school is not hurting the helpless. Those kids have parents who can fix them a lunch or pony up a few bucks to pay for their kids' lunch. Surely they can work lunch for their kids into what they buy with their food stamps, right??
So..again...other than taxing the rich which will not fix this, it has gone so far only spending cuts give us any chance of coming out of this hole...if not school lunches, what then?
This same old mantra gets really old, especially when all you do is complain but have no answers to the problems.
And...again...the top 5% of wage earners in this country (personal income taxes, which CEOs pay too) pay over 41% of ALL taxes that are paid into the treasury. Oh, but I guess you think 100% would be their "fair share."
In what alternate reality is that fair???
Nobody said tax them more. We said make them pay taxes without loopholes - No More Corporate Welfare!
[ In Reply To ..]If they would pay their fair share, without all the loopholes and other methods of getting corporate welfare, we would all be in better shape. Problem solved.
Talk to Congress. They make tax law and - only they can change it.
[ In Reply To ..]The Dems have had control of the Ways and Means committee much more than the Republicans and they have not closed a single loophole, and I would venture a guess if one had the time and energy would find several that they have opened.
ALL of Congress protects corporations. Dems say ONE thing, but DO the opposite.
bail out - FED UP
[ In Reply To ..]How about not fighting everyone else's war in the name of humanity. How about humanity right here in our own country. The government is spending billions on the war in Iraq and now they are going to spend billions in Libya. And they want to cut programs to feed kids, for what reason, to feed the people of Lybia. Who is going to help the poor of this country?
My biggest pet peeve is the foreign aid - sm
[ In Reply To ..]we give to other countries. Amazing how everyone hates us and thinks we should keep our nose out of their country's business and yet they never seem to refuse our foreign aid we are dumb enough to give them.
As to the middle east...bring our troops home. Let the sunni and shiite kill each other. That isn't our concern.
I am an independent and I didn't like going to Iraq or Afghan. I was upset that Obama continued to stay there. Now this whole Libya thing has made me madder than he!!. What next? Syria? Their people are being shot at too. Sheesh.
Enough is enough. Time to close our borders and take care of our own. Stop these bailouts!!! If we start bailing out states, their governors won't have a reason to try to budget their state better. No big deal...I just bankrupted my state...oh well...the fed gov will bail us out. Time to end that gravy train.
So you were against going into Iraq and nation-building there? - Is that what you are saying?
[ In Reply To ..]I was against the war in Iraq. The Libya situation was so complicated, children being shot down in the streets, etc., that my heart went out to them, but I also don't want to take them on to raise, as we have in Iraq for example. There is nothing easy or simple about this, is there, no matter which side of things a person might be on.
BRAVO!! Great post. Thank you. - nm
[ In Reply To ..]nm
Maybe a country like Iran will attack, occupy and destroy - our country. sm
[ In Reply To ..]I mean, after all, we are the one who butts our collective heads into the business of other countries.
Iran simply may not like the fact that the poor and middle aged are being thrown to the wolves, AND they have (or are about to have) nuclear weapons.
Maybe if we get a taste of our own medicine, we might learn something.
Similar Messages:
Riders By Lee Casual PantsNov 08, 2015
I bought them for years - but they don't make them anymore - and Lee casual pants are just not the same - has anybody found anything comparable to the Riders by Lee that was sold at Walmart and K-mart? The Lee brand doesn't fit the same and the black ones I bought are stiff and stuff clings to them so they never look nice. ...