Recently the Senate dealt with an amendment to change the Emergency Supplemental to provide an additional $213 million in funding to produce armored Humvees.

 

 

How did Senators from both parties vote?

 

Voting for the amendment:

 

43 democrats, 18 republicans, 1 independant

 

Voting against:

 

38 republicans, 1 democrat

 

What bothers me is not the Republicans may have had reason to vote against it. Its that these same people that vote nay will then go put out this sham of somehow being all for the troops and for America. Theyll have the audacity to claim democrats dont support the troops and crap. More proof that the troops are just a frikkin political pawn for people in this country.

 

And a lot of those liberal Republicans like Chafee and Snowe that are also unpatriotic voted for it.

 

 

Here's how the vote broke down:

 

 

 

YEAs ---61

Akaka (D-HI)

Alexander (R-TN)

Allen (R-VA)

Baucus (D-MT)

Bayh (D-IN)

Biden (D-DE)

Bingaman (D-NM)

Boxer (D-CA)

Burns (R-MT)

Byrd (D-WV)

Cantwell (D-WA)

Carper (D-DE)

Chafee (R-RI)

Clinton (D-NY)

Coleman (R-MN)

Collins (R-ME)

Conrad (D-ND)

Corzine (D-NJ)

Dayton (D-MN)

DeWine (R-OH)

Dodd (D-CT)

Dorgan (D-ND)

Durbin (D-IL)

Feingold (D-WI)

Feinstein (D-CA)

Harkin (D-IA)

Hutchison (R-TX)

Jeffords (I-VT)

Johnson (D-SD)

Kennedy (D-MA)

Kerry (D-MA)

Kohl (D-WI)

Landrieu (D-LA)

Lautenberg (D-NJ)

Leahy (D-VT)

Levin (D-MI)

Lieberman (D-CT)

Lincoln (D-AR)

Lott (R-MS)

Lugar (R-IN)

Martinez (R-FL)

McCain (R-AZ)

Mikulski (D-MD)

Murray (D-WA)

Nelson (D-FL)

Nelson (D-NE)

Obama (D-IL)

Pryor (D-AR)

Reed (D-RI)

Reid (D-NV)

Rockefeller (D-WV)

Salazar (D-CO)

Santorum (R-PA)

Sarbanes (D-MD)

Schumer (D-NY)

Snowe (R-ME)

Specter (R-PA)

Stabenow (D-MI)

Talent (R-MO)

Thune (R-SD)

Wyden (D-OR)

 

NAYs ---39

Allard (R-CO)

Bennett (R-UT)

Bond (R-MO)

Brownback (R-KS)

Bunning (R-KY)

Burr (R-NC)

Chambliss (R-GA)

Coburn (R-OK)

Cochran (R-MS)

Cornyn (R-TX)

Craig (R-ID)

Crapo (R-ID)

DeMint (R-SC)

Dole (R-NC)

Domenici (R-NM)

Ensign (R-NV)

Enzi (R-WY)

Frist (R-TN)

Graham (R-SC)

Grassley (R-IA)

Gregg (R-NH)

Hagel (R-NE)

Hatch (R-UT)

Inhofe (R-OK)

Inouye (D-HI)

Isakson (R-GA)

Kyl (R-AZ)

McConnell (R-KY)

Murkowski (R-AK)

Roberts (R-KS)

Sessions (R-AL)

Shelby (R-AL)

Smith (R-OR)

Stevens (R-AK)

Sununu (R-NH)

Thomas (R-WY)

Vitter (R-LA)

Voinovich (R-OH)

Warner (R-VA)

 

http://www.optruth.org/main.cfm?actionId=b...=14&entryID=498

 

 

Here is the article on the amendment itself:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-spending_x.htm

Wow thats amazing.

 

*supports troops with ribbon in back of car*

That's just pretty sad. I noticed that baseball HOFer and senator Jim Bunning voted against the bill.

ya cause you know the big bad democrats just dont support the troops, or at least the conservatives will spin that for you daily.

 

 

 

i like kay bailey as a texas senator.

 

 

john cornyn who i actually forgot his name a month ago, is garbage, i hate him, and i still cant figure out how he got elected other than many texans are mindless drones who will vote republican simply because thats dubya's party.

This post is irrelevant unless we hear the arguments for and against the bill. On the surface I see what you're saying, but votes on new legislation arent that simple. The fact that the vote is so partisanly divided means that we're missing something key here.

This post is irrelevant unless we hear the arguments for and against the bill. On the surface I see what you're saying, but votes on new legislation arent that simple. The fact that the vote is so partisanly divided means that we're missing something key here.

757883[/snapback]

Yeah thats the thing. If they didnt think it was appropriate then thats fine. It just pisses me off that guys like Sexby Chambliss will accuse Max Baucus, aman who lost his arms and legs for this country of being unpatriotic and weak on defense for doing the exact same thing. Why? Because if a democrat voted against a military spending bill, he is weak on defense but if a Republicn does, he has a legit reason to do so. Thats the central hypocrisy that bothers me..why one party gets to explain itself and the other doesnt.

 

The fact is, we arent allowed to have a legit conversation about military spending this country because of the way things get distorted.

I think you meant Max Cleland. Max Baucus is a Senator from Montana and, to the best that I know, has all four limbs intact.

I think you meant Max Cleland. Max Baucus is a Senator from Montana and, to the best that I know, has all four limbs intact.

757908[/snapback]

Whoops, youre right. Max Cleland is who I was thinking of.

Same thing happens for economic policy. Republicans' economic plans are automatically thrown out as being 'only beneficial to the rich' and any time they vote against a social govt spending program they are accused of it. If the dems strike down a social spending program they get to explain themselves. The problem is that public perception is very important in a democracy. If the public, who is oft influenced by the media believes a certain way, it cannot be easily changed.

The standards are:

Dems are anti-troops

Republicans only support the rich

Republicans are racist

Dems are weak on defense

 

If anyone truly believes any of these generalizations they are ignorant or stupid.

I think those two can be distinguished. Tackling poverty is not an issue that resonates with voters so its something that cant be used against Republicans in general. If that was the case, the massive welfare reductions in the mid90s would have been devastating for Republicans. In fact I think the opposite is true. Democrats have taken the brunt for being called big government give em handout liberals. Whereas Bush hasnt gotten in as much trouble with the current defecit.

 

You might be right if the prowelfare block(which really doesnt exists but would be the counterpart to the protroop block) had clout but it really doesnt.

I think those two can be distinguished. Tackling poverty is not an issue that resonates with voters so its something that cant be used against Republicans in general. If that was the case, the massive welfare reductions in the mid90s would have been devastating for Republicans. In fact I think the opposite is true. Democrats have taken the brunt for being called big government give em handout liberals. Whereas Bush hasnt gotten in as much trouble with the current defecit.

 

You might be right if the prowelfare block(which really doesnt exists but would be the counterpart to the protroop block) had clout but it really doesnt.

757927[/snapback]

 

that isnt accurate at all. The reason the welfare cuts in the mid-90s didnt doom republicans is b/c the public thought it was clinton's doing. Its ok for a dem to do it but not for a rep, b/c then they hate the poor. The pro-social spending and helping the poor block which is as large if not larger than the support the troops block, has equakl influence and it does go both ways.

I think those two can be distinguished. Tackling poverty is not an issue that resonates with voters so its something that cant be used against Republicans in general. If that was the case, the massive welfare reductions in the mid90s would have been devastating for Republicans. In fact I think the opposite is true. Democrats have taken the brunt for being called big government give em handout liberals. Whereas Bush hasnt gotten in as much trouble with the current defecit.

 

You might be right if the prowelfare block(which really doesnt exists but would be the counterpart to the protroop block) had clout but it really doesnt.

757927[/snapback]

 

that isnt accurate at all. The reason the welfare cuts in the mid-90s didnt doom republicans is b/c the public thought it was clinton's doing. Its ok for a dem to do it but not for a rep, b/c then they hate the poor. The pro-social spending and helping the poor block which is as large if not larger than the support the troops block, has equakl influence and it does go both ways.

758751[/snapback]

 

 

Yet candidate Bush rode in with the same welfare reforms. If its something thats ok for Clinton to do it because he a democrat, but not ok for Bush to do it because he is a Republican, then why was it never used against Bush?

 

Candidate Bush in 1999:

 

I proposed two sweeping welfare reform packages, to:

place time limits on welfare benefits;

require able-bodied welfare recipients to get a job, attend school, or train for work;

require participating mothers to identify the fathers of their children so they could contribute to their support;

and emphasize personal responsibility by requiring welfare recipients to sign an independence contract pledging to stay drug-free and keep their kids immunized and in school.

Source: ?A Charge to Keep?, p. 32 Dec 9, 1999

 

Too much government fosters dependency

The new culture said if people were poor, the government should feed them. If criminals are not responsible for their acts, then the answers are not in prisons, but in social programs. People became less interested in pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and more interested in pulling down a monthly government check. A culture of dependency was born. Programs that began as a temporary hand-up became a permanent handout, regarded by many as a right.

Source: ?A Charge to Keep?, p.229-230 Dec 9, 1999

 

 

 

http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/George_W__...e_+_Poverty.htm

 

Now Bush never got in trouble for having such views that can easily be considered anti poor.

 

The pro-social spending and helping the poor block which is as large if not larger than the support the troops block, has equakl influence and it does go both ways.

 

 

Are you saying that to people in this country, welfare is more important than the troops?

 

Legacy, the entire country is the support the troop block. There is no reason anyone can give to not support the troops. If you dont support the troops, every able bodied American will vote against you.

 

Why is it that in this recent election, Bush kept pointing out to Kerrys spending cuts on military matters going all the way back to the 80s? Why is it that Kerry never called Bush out his welfare spending reductions, even if not a net reduction?

I support them!