Should The Democrats Support The $87 Billion ?

[THUNDER HANDS]

Poll question: Should The Democrats Support The $87 Billion ?

Yes or No

I say yes, because I don't want this spun by the GOP that the Democrats don't support our troops. And since I doubt they'll be able to get the $20 billion removed that goes towards rebuilding the infrastructure, it makes no sense to just oppose it for the sake of opposing ANYTHING.

[JohnKleeb]

1. ahem Kucinich opposed the war resolution and opposes this

He aint waffling.

[Padraig18]

2. Yes

We broke it, we bought it--- even though it GALLS me!

[Pale Blue Dot]

3. "because I don't want this spun by the GOP"

You know, a lot of people said the same thing about the vote to authorize the war.

We have Bush by the balls now, and we should hold out for the BEST bill for Iraq and the U.S.

[THUNDER HANDS]

6. hold out?

How, the GOP can pass it regardless?

It's just a vote on principle. Either you get the whole $87 B passed or you vote no.

I doubt they'll be able to shrink it to $67 B before the final vote comes.

[Pale Blue Dot]

8. Ok, if it's just a vote on principle,

then THIS TIME, we should vote on principle, and stop being so scared of Republican spin. Polls show that the majority of Americans do NOT support this 87B anyway, so I can't see it coming back and biting us.

[damnraddem]

20. The American people don't want this passed.

Let the GOP do it -- and then suffer for it.

[poskonig]

4. Bite the bullet and pass it.

Afterwards, we can *still* hammer the GOP for porkbarrelling it, as they did with the Homeland Security bill.

[rucky]

12. You can't hammer them if you vote yes

and still wish to remain credible to the consitiuents and the GOP. NO MORE BITING THE BULLET.

The 87B will be the straw that breaks this camel's back. If my Democratic congressperson votes for it, she's fired. I will actively campaign against her.

[poskonig]

13. I believe we can.

The problem with the 87 billion is that it is porkbarrelled. No?

[kiahzero]

5. How about:

Yes, because a large portion of it is paying the military. Approve or don't approve of the reconstruction money, but let's not be like the Rethugs who suggested it was unpatriotic for fire and policemen to get paid for the hours they worked.

[revcarol]

31. A large part of it is NOT paying the military!!

Personnel costs are already included in the astronomically enlarged Defense budget, in which they took $$ from every other service to have $$ for the ARMY in Iraq!!

Vests,body armor, are already included in the Defense budget. Replacing most destroyed equipment is included in the defense budget.


A HUGE proportion of this is pork for Halliburton for the MRE's,( not hot prepared food,) water and all the other junk that Halliburton is supposed to be providing the troops, but is skimping on.They are doing a terrible job with their contract and they ought to be removed and rehire military cooks and support people.

PLUS a large portion of the $20 billion for "reconstruction" will just be porked off the top by Bechtel, Halliburton, Dyncorp, and a thousand other Bush pigs eating at the trough, with MAYBE about 2 Billion $$ going to actual reconstruction.

So out of $87 billion, maybe $2 billion goes to the troops, $2 billion goes to Iraq reconstruction and the REST IS PORK.

fORGOT: $5 billion to train police officers, at $240,000 PER POLICEMAN TRAINED. Doesn't that fry your *****?

[janekat]

7. They should only support part of it - the BARE minimum

n/t

[rucky]

9. Spin is a constant...not a factor

No matter what we do, it will be spun against us.

Bush polls started diving when we got the bill: The people do not approve of the 87billion.

If the Dems claim to be the voice of the people, they too will not approve the 87Billion.

It doesn't mean it won't get passed...we just don't have to help it along.

It doesn't mean we are against humanitarian aid for Iraq reconstruction, or wish to give no money at all. If they spin it that way - so be it.

If we support it, they'll spin it the other way: "See, we were right about iraq and Congress democrats see it that way too." All opposition will be shrugged off as "radical" - just like the damn war. just like the patriot act - just like homeland security. That's a much more dangerous spin to have on us.

Screw the democrats who support this one. screw 'em.

[poskonig]

11. I don't see how supporting the troops = supporting the war.

The problem is the Republicans are porkbarrelling it for their special interests. We can attack them for this whether the bill is passed or not.

[Jacobin]

10. The outrage must stop NOW

The invasion is and was illegal, immoral, wrong, a pretext for the theft of oil and the enlargement of Israel's hegemony in the M.E. and was based on lies, as can be easily seen by anyone with eyes.

Shut off the money NOW.

Make Smirky bring the troops home. Stop enriching Repuke thug corporatists.

Stop the Hitleresque march of the neo-cons to conquer the world.

Fuck the repukes. Fuck what they "will say".

End it and END IT NOW.

[Superfly]

14. Fuck no....

I can't find a damned job worth a shit, but Bush wants to spend a tenth of a trillion dollars on killing Arabs?

Me no thinkie so.

BTW, I support our troops....I was (still am) one. Bring them back home out of that shithole.

[5thGenDemocrat]

15. If we're going to spend (yet another) $87B, I say we spend it right here

Oh, and I'm from Michigan -- both of my Democratic senators, Levin and Stabenow, voted AGAINST Murder in the Middle East. Here, we still expect our Democrats to act like Democrats --sorry about the gutlessness of the national party.
John
But I know the Dems will vote overwhelmingly for it -- mostly because they're cowards.

[mike_c]

16. I do not support what "our troops" are doing in Iraq...

...and I thoroughly oppose giving them one more dime to do it with. Let's see, $87b will buy a lot of war crimes....

[Guaranteed]

17. Wow.

Can't believe so many people don't think that we HAVE to support this.
Bush has us between a rock and a hard place on this. THIS stuff was the whole point of the war. Once we're IN it, we HAVE to go along with all the money funding it.
We absolutely have NO choice on this. As long as we're there, Bush can come along and ask for a billion dollars for nicotine suppositories for the troops, and we can whine and bitch all we want, but we'll have to give it to him. The key is to get in that "Where's your plan, Bush?" that Daschle keeps coming out with. Every time he asks for money you remind everyone that there ain't SHIT happening.

[Q]

18. Those Dems who voted for the blank check war...

...are having a difficult time opposing it now without looking like hypocrites. Bush* sucked them in with the phony patriotism shit and is trying to do it again with more money to support his illegal war.

- Voting for this only adds to the problem of the Dems looking like suckers. Now they'll look like two time losers because they KNOW this war was based on a lie.

[OneTwentyoNine]

22. Your right... but IF they would get some backbone...

They could come out and say they now know how badly they screwed up supporting Chimpboy and his Invasion.

Yes,might get a few knocks from the usual flaming RW'ers for a minute or two but so what?

Emmm...Earth to you Democrats we voted for and sent to Washington...get some balls OK? Quit checking your focus groups or whatever and just do whats RIGHT for a change...Damn...


David

[JohnKleeb]

25. I am just wondering who do you support

because Kucinich is one of those people we send to DC and he stood up against this war very well and is against the money, yet most say he doesnt have a chance thats their choice only.

[Darranar]

30. I think he's talking about the DLC Democrats...

who spinellessly refused to stand up to Bush.

[0007]

49. We might be surprised!

I hope I hope!

[5thGenDemocrat]

21. BGL

I disagree.
I wasn't for it in the first place, my senators and representative all voted against it and I see no reason whatsoever that we need to throw good money after bad. Call the UN, have the blue helmets come in and keep whatever peace there is to be had at this point and get out.
Of course, that would mean that the BFEE would lose control of the Iraqi oil fields -- but that's tough. I doubt either Levin or Stabenow (or Rep. Kildee) will vote for more funding but, if they do, I'll never vote for them again.
John
I didn't make the mess. I resent being told I have to pay for it (not by you -- by THEM).

[Guaranteed]

37. I wish the UN would come in too.

But, look, we've got 100,000 some-odd soldiers over there. They're ALREADY under-supplied. No we're talking about not funding them anymore? Man, I don't care what the war is over, that's just wrong. It's WRONG.
I was against this war JUST as much as anybody, if not more. I went through months of HELL because of this SHIT. And I am STILL PISSED that we're dealing with this. But we can't just leave now! We are past the point of no return- to leave now is to leave a power vacuum that going to get filled with nothing but big bad stuff (unless it was the UN replacing us). But the UN ain't showing up anytime soon.
Look, this is both politically and morally clear. We can't be, or even appear to be, holding the troops hostage. I KNOW it sucks...but it's WAY too late to be "standing up to Bush"....the time for that is over. If you're pissed that it's too late blame Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards, Lieberman and the rest like I do. Vote for Dean. But to not support this is political suicide, and not only that, it's wrong.
Those are OUR BOYS over there. You can't cut them off like that just because you're angry at Bush.

[5thGenDemocrat]

46. The UN would come in tomorrow

If (IF) we turned the reins over to them.
Heck, I'm not talking about abandoning the troops -- I'm one of the DUers who served in the US Army (1974-76). The only reason pResident Dopey hasn't gotten the UN's cooperation yet is because he wants the say over what happens there (like, us controlling all that oil) and refuses to give the international community any control over the situation -- though he'd surely love it if foreign troops could die to achieve his ends.
I don't want the troops held hostage -- I want them HOME.
I think you and I agree on most of this. Like I said -- turn it over to the UN. Heck, I'd even agree with sending beaucoup cash to straighten out the mess we made in spite of the UN (it's going to cost us BIG, no matter what we do now). I'd rather sacrifice our fortune than our sons and daughters. But the Pinhead-in-Chief is all too happy to continue sacrificing both.
John
What happens in the power vacuum after we leave is of little concern to me. We have enough problems right here right now. Bring the troops home.

[Jacobin]

26. Let me get this straight.

It's generally understood to be a total fuck-up and a disaster, and so we must continue to fund the insanity in perpetuity and continue to give money to Smirk's cronies? How 'bout a trillion? Jeeze, guess we just have to.

Bullshit. YOu must not be old enough to remember Vietnam. It's the same goddamned reasoning.

[Guaranteed]

38. You have to solve the problem and/or get them out

before you cut off their money. VERY preferably solve the problem first. The worst thing we could do is leave a power vacuum when we're gone. And I mean the worst thing for our country...no kidding! (NO, I'm not a conservative!)

[revcarol]

33. I remember when they said the same thing about Vietnam.

"We gotta follow this through to the end."

"We gotta support our troops: more equipment, more men,(means more money).."

When will we ever learn, when will we ever learn...?

Get those men and women out in the next 90 days, to be gradually replaced by experienced UN peacekeepers, open up the contracts to the world including Iraqis and it will cost a LOT LESS MONEY...and we WON'T BE ABANDONING THEM.

[Guaranteed]

40. Well then hell, let's get the UN in there!

I totally agree! Give em everything! Let em take over the whole operation, just get our fricking troops back home safe.

[damnraddem]

19. No blank checks for Dubya. No wasting of more money on ...

Bushista schemes.

Support the troops by bringing them home, now.

Authorize money to support the UN in its cleanup of the mess Dubya made -- that will be nothing like $87 billion, because the UN won't give no-bid contracts to Halliburton.

[Iverson]

23. opposition for principle, not for opposition's sake

Funding of this military adventure will bankrupt the country (further) in support of clearly illegal and immoral policies. The very notion that opposition would be for opposition's sake is just astonishing.

Back when I was a Democrat, only a Republican would have considered uttering that charge of opposition for its own sake.

[Guaranteed]

41. Principle or principal?

The principle I'm working with here is the 100,000+ troops we have over there having enough food to eat and bullets to protect themselves with. Man, we've been in agreement about this war for months and months, but now I seem to be nearly the only one who knows when we absolutely can NOT be playing games with the money. I don't agree with this "hypothetically," in that we shouldn't be over there in the first place! But the fact is that we are there! We can't be cutting off our OWN TROOPS!! Get the UN in, get our troops out (PLEASE), I don't care how you work it, but you're NOT cutting off our troops from their supplies!!

[Darranar]

24. Heck NO!

This money is going STRAIGHT to powerful corporations.

[Clete]

27. Nope.

This money is going into the 'rebuild Iraq' ME pork barrel. It won't make any difference though. The Rethugs will take the money anyway, even if they get no votes. Haven't you heard yet? This government is run for the enrichment of a few by those few.

[VOX]

28. No bleeping way!

God knows how pork-heavy the $87 billion figure is. (If the figure even remains at that level.)

No more major infusions of money for the mega-corporations that are profiting off of this tragedy.

:thumbsdown:

[Polemonium]

29. No - throwing money and military at the problem

doesn't solve the problem when there is a vacuum of understanding regarding the people involved.

[CWebster]

32. Supporting the troops

Is pulling them out.

[Cascadian]

34. If this passes, expect more cuts on social services.

This is just another giveaway of Treasury money. This will devestate the economy more and raise the debt further. More money for social services will be cut. The Democrats would be stupid to pass this. If they do then I hope they don't get reelected. Let some real street-fighting progressives run against them in the primaries.


John

[Deja Q]

45. Exactly!

But social services are one of the priniciples of "wasteful spending" that the repukes always harp on. (the general public is too indolent or too stupid to bother to look at what the repukes mean by "wasteful spending", though there is some genuine wasteful spending... repukes care only for roads, SUVs, the world's most advanced weapons of mass destruction, and their own paychecks - even if they themselves are government and not corporate, they'll dig for every luxury they can get the taxpayers to pay for and help corporations to make sure the taxpayers pay their way out, right stadium lovers? x( )

We need REAL progressives in power again. Not these namby-pamby Bushlickers who somehow think that this $87 mil will do any good. x( x( x(

We need to resolve the problem. Not blindly throw money at it using the cover of "Well, uh, um, uh, we want to uh, um, uh help the peo- uh, um, uh -ple of Eye-rack, uh oh um but under our uh-oh-eh-um terms only." For a man representing the "party of fiscal responsibility", Bush and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF HIS COHORTS has been far more irresponsible than even Reagan!

[Noordam]

35. I think it came out there

was 9Billion in petty cash for Rummy to spend as he wishes......

Things like that should be out of there.

[snippy]

36. Democrats should have done a massive, massive, PR campaign on this.

The democrats can not stop this spending, but they could have used it to their politcal advantage.

Roughly $66 billion of this is for military spending. The rest is for "reconstruction." Democrats should have educated the public on these amounts and argued that the money should be voted on separately. One vote for the military funds and one vote for the reconstruction funds. A large percentage of the voting public would agree with the military spending but not all of the reconstruction spending. Especially if they see it as pork to Whistle Ass's supporters. The republicans would still force it through as a single vote, but a lot of voters would have preferred the democratic alternative and resent the republicans outright rejection of it.

Every democrat in the Senate and in the House or thinking about running next year should have been doing interviews on this subject with every local media outlet in their district or state.

[frank frankly]

39. no

no
no
no

[Deja Q]

42. No, we can't afford it and Bush needs to look after the United States 1st,

his prepubescent vendettas second.

Bush should be impeached for his gross mishandlings and ineptitude while in office.

Period.

He allowed 9/11 to happen despite plenty of existing knowledge.

He's already squandered billions on a situation that is getting no better.

He's insulted the civilized world dozens of times over with his ignoring treaties and walking out of summits and everything else, with the Iraq gambit being the latest show of arrogance and hatred for the model of international co-operation. (oh but then he wants the UN to help, but with the US maintaining control, Bush* is an arrogant little smelly fart and a wretched little man to boot!)

He's given gigantic tax cuts to the richest in this country, claiming it will help the economy. How many times has each cut FAILED TO DO SHIT with him then proposing doing the same thing again, only bigger?

Only the Lord FULLY knows the volumes of incidents I can't remember off the top of my head!

Bush* is an incompetent dumbfuck who must be impeached NOW.

Even Saddam Hussein would make a better ruler for the United States right now, at least he's honest about his selfishness and brutality! x( x( x( x( x(

[Cascadian]

43. I agree but Bush doesn't care about the U.S.

EOM

John

[Deja Q]

48. That's why he needs to be impeached... the future ain't pretty...

It's quite clear he doesn't care if the US fails, just so long as his vendettas and corporate buddies continue to suck on the sweet mellow teets of money and might. As long as he gets his money and might, he doesn't care. Period. I think these should be taken away from him post haste.

Any CIVILIZED society would have Bush and his corrupt buddies thrown in jail, with the keys MELTED and the locks fused.

But we're in America, where insideous creatures like Bush* are allowed to florish and prosper.

In my heart, I know the beginning of the end of America started in January 2001. So far, there's no hope in sight of a recovery, economically, morally, or anything else. Not while * is in power. * will more likely cause the infrastructure to collapse on itself, if not cause a total civil war (which his party has been fostering on an ideological level for quite some time now.) :cry:

[snoochie]

44. NO

Here's the story exposing the bill as a request for Rummy's 9 BILLION dollar slush fund:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2089674/

Not only do the vast majority of Dem voters oppose this bill, most of the Repugs do too. They don't want to pay premium prices for American companies to rebuild Iraq... even THOSE intellectually-challenged sheeple can figure out that we could get it done cheaper with Iraqi labor / companies. And this isn't just the Repug voters, but Repugs on the hill too -- imagine Dems on the hill voting with Bush against SANER REPUGS! CRIPES!

To see DU'ers saying we have no choice is mind-boggling!

They either change this bill or it gets DENIED!

And if any Dems vote for it I hope they aren't counting on having a job after their terms are up... for heaven's sake... didn't they learn from the IWR?!

GEEZ!!!!

[AntiCoup2K4]

47. Fuck no! If a bunch of billionaires think it's their job to "build Iraq"..

Then let the treasonous bastards do it with their own damned money.

[SideshowScott]

50. I WILL not support any more bush spending on ANYTHING!

They have alot of nerve to call the dems the spenders..How in the heck are we going to pay for all of this..While the rich enjoy thire big honking tax cut IM still paying the same amount if not more with the chunk of change taken out of my paycheck every week..We are paying for it while the wealthy get a free ride

[Cascadian]

51. And here's another question....

Would you vote for any Democrat that votes for this money giveaway?

Bring on the flaming!


John