House Republicans appear more interested in abortion and transgender issues than national defense!

abortion keeps soldiers on the field, having a baby would seem to be more disruptive, would we really keep a pregnant\nursing soldier on the battlefield? so I do not think that argument works there...

 

I have said several times before that my problem is with transgender issues. I proposed the democrats pass a national defense bill and then two supplements, one for abortion and one for transgender issues.

 

transgender issues should be treated as elective surgery, same as a heterosexual woman wanting breast implants

now there are gray areas, such as a woman shot in the breasts or a man\woman in the privates - reconstructive surgery then should be paid in full

 

National defense is too important to be held up by abortion and transgender issues. It will not pass as is. Pass a national defense bill and then pass two supplementals bills and see where they go.

 

so pass it then, if it's so important

 

Govt, you want to say its your money. Become a member of congress.

 

Likely, that is how it will be done.

 

Do you believe the money belongs to congress?

 

Who spends the money, congress.

 

Nonsense.

 

Do you believe the money belongs to congress?

 

Pretty much yep.

 

Pretty much is not owning it.

If it belonged to congress, they could do anything they want with it.

 

If it was yours then you could, can you?

 

I don't know what makes you think that-- it is bullshit. While you needn't take my word for that, you would need provide a factual basis, via some link (preferably, with the appropriate snip), to support your grand statement that, as initially passed, our budgets are revenue neutral-- B.S.

No, threatening to crash the economy, is not part of the normal negotiations. But, if you believed that it was, then your inconsistency would be to not assume that what Dems want to include in the Defense bill, is not also "part of the negotiations which goes on every year." That is how the concept of "consistency" works: it means to treat similar things, in the same way. And Democrats putting a couple of protections, in the Defense spending bill, for groups which GOP Congressmen have been targeting for persecution, is only a much diluted form of the extortionary demands of Republicans, which led President Biden to give back a not insignificant portion of his legislative victories, from the first half of his term.

That is:
1) More bullshit, that it is "Democrats in particular," who do this.
2) Truly, part of the standard practice, in Congress (by both Parties).
3) A contention which clearly cries out for some evidential support, which you fail to provide.
4) A perfect example of your erroneously skewed, partisan perspective.

Well, that is not how Congress operates. When it comes to a Budgetary Bill, doing every single item separately is not only impractical, but it would be more likely, according to your first quote in this post, to lead to greater cost overruns: that is, to higher deficits. Also, this would clearly lead to many more stalemates, on keeping parts of the budget, consistently funded. So this messy horse trading, you disdain, is an essential part of forging an agreement, amongst our diverse legislators, and the only way to keep the government's overall expenditures, in perspective.

But to the point, the Republican demands related to merely raising (or suspending) the Debt Limit, so that the government is able to pay for the budget, that had previously been passed by Congress, should have nothing to do with the single issue, of allowing the government to raise money, to pay its debts. So this is in direct contradiction, to what you claim you "have repeatedly said." Yet, when Republicans do this, raising grave concerns, worldwide, about U.S. creditworthiness-- even leading to a downgrading in the rating given to U.S. debt instruments (securities, bonds)-- I have been unable to find one peep from you, calling out Republicans and even mildly chastising them over this; which is in no way consistent, with your condemnation of Democrats, only, as being willing to compromise our national security.

 

The error in your logic, is in assuming that Republicans are modern thinking enough, to have accepted the idea of women in our Armed Forces. They want the military to shed its female members.

 

That is precisely why we bust the budget every year. We have all these programs which have good sounding names, but when you look at the programs, very little has to do with the name. For instance "infrastructure". How much was actually for roads, bridges, etc? They threw the name "infrastructure" or every crappy thing that some congressman wanted. They need to break these bills into pieces and vote on the individual pieces.

 

You are just making crap up. I served twenty years in the air force and I never heard once that we wanted to shed the female members.

 

Actually I do.

And what concept is nonsense? It appears certain elected representatives are holding up the defense budget because their constituents are unwilling to pay for abortions and sex changes and they're getting their say. In this particular case, the system seems to be working precisely as it was intended to.

 

I'm a veteran and think the healthcare is great. "Bombing non-white civilians"??? What the heck are you talking about? Where? When?
"Nukes we don't need"???? Huh? Again, what are you talking about?
I'm a veteran like I said and have never felt "shafted".
I am with you about Ukraine though. Depleting our war stocks defending Ukraine's borders while leaving our own borders wide open is lunacy.

 

Except their not paying for it.

 

The army needs cooks, though. That’s how the GOP plans to keep girls in the kitchen.

 

Do you not understand how much money the military loses under Republican bills? The loss of the cost of training one soldier because she becomes pregnant would have paid for the costs of transport for dozens getting desired abortions.
The irony here is that the military only pays for medically required abortions, by forcing the soldiers to quit or have an unwanted baby the costs to the military are high because in order to keep a highly trained soldier that gets pregnant they'll have to transfer her to a state that allows abortion. Do not forget the military does not pay for the abortion itself unless it's for medical reasons as per existing law. The military is simply trying to save money and keep trained soldiers.

 

Who is paying for the abortions and sex changes? Cuz if its not the people getting the abortions and sex changes, then its the rest of us paying.

 

Then who is getting them, aliens?