Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

What do you think about this?

Today the House is expected vote on the $94 billion "supplemental" 2009 spending bill that for the most part funds military costs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Republican leaders in the House made it clear to Democrats that they would advise a vote against this “must pass” legislation if it included the $108 billion bailout for the ailing International Monetary Fund (IMF) that President Obama pledged.

Do you think this type of funding (IMF) should be added to a needed military aid bill?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124217345624213065.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Answer Question
 
grlygrlz2

Asked by grlygrlz2 at 10:28 AM on May. 14, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

Level 39 (106,530 Credits)
Answers (15)
  • No, and what's worse is that's the kind of garbage they used to have to include just to get the Dems to vote for it. There's nobody left to bribe now, they have the majority, so there is absolutely no excuse for it.
    NotPanicking

    Answer by NotPanicking at 10:30 AM on May. 14, 2009

  • So, come campaign time, Republicans will be accused of not supporting military if they vote no for this bill. When in actuality they are voting no because of the IMF crap added to it by Dems. How despicable. Where is the Transparency Mr Obama.?

    grlygrlz2

    Answer by grlygrlz2 at 10:32 AM on May. 14, 2009

  • Sorry, but I don't think we are in ANY position to be giving a $108M Line of Credit to "prevent struggling countries from becoming further enmeshed in economic crises". Sounds like the USA. Seriously, Does Obama just write blank checks to EVERYONE? I need to send him my address!

    He needs to fund OUR TROOPS so they can do their jobs and get home!!! So we can focus on fixing this COUNTRY'S problems and rebuild & reunite the UNITED STATE OF AMERICA!!!
    thundernlight

    Answer by thundernlight at 10:33 AM on May. 14, 2009

  • In his movie room, watching movies and eating popcorn. Has he done anything good? He promised change, but all we hear about are his mistakes, and his broken promises. What good has he done? Anything?
    (I still have my McCain sticker on my truck!!)
    Buffie95

    Answer by Buffie95 at 10:35 AM on May. 14, 2009

  • Transparency...it is like Bribery!!!

    Like saying...OK, republican's...if you want funding to the troops (measly $94B), you need to sign a bill to send $108B to other "struggling" countries.

    He's UNBELIEVABLE. How much aid have we given other countries now? The whole, give a man a fish/teach a man to fish saying is running through my head!!!
    thundernlight

    Answer by thundernlight at 10:38 AM on May. 14, 2009

  • No, nothing other than military and defense funding should be "added" to a military budget bill or supplemental bill. And why would we add that much to the IMF? We are borrowing money ourselves, how can putting borrowed money into a fund that lends money be any good in the long run. Now is not the time to add any monies to the IMF.
    akinbottom2

    Answer by akinbottom2 at 10:40 AM on May. 14, 2009

  • They need to run an ad on this now. Just like they're doing for cap and trade. Something along the lines of call your congressman and tell them not to waste the military's money shoring up another bailout fund. And then once the bill passes, use those same ads at campaign time - don't vote for your incumbent Dem idjit who diverted military funds to the IMF. (nm that they aren't military funds, they're actually funds we shouldn't be spending at all, but if they insist, and they insist on putting them in a military bill they should go to the military)
    NotPanicking

    Answer by NotPanicking at 10:47 AM on May. 14, 2009

  • Me-thinks if they hadn't cut defense spending in the first place, they wouldn't even need to talk about this bill.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 11:06 AM on May. 14, 2009

  • Published on Saturday, February 10, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
    Bush Military Budget Highest Since WWII
    by William D. Hartung

    Even by Bush administration standards, the military spending proposal for Fiscal Year 2008 - the budget year beginning on October 1, 2007 -- is enormous. The request for the "regular" military budget, which includes Pentagon spending plus work on nuclear warheads and naval reactors at the Department of Energy, was $499 billion. This represents a $46 billion increase from the current budget year.

    Figures for the regular military budget exclude the costs of the current wars that the United States is engaged in. A proposed supplemental appropriation to pay for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq of $141.7 billion brings proposed military spending for FY 2008 to $647.2 billion, the highest level of military spending since the end of World War II - higher than Vietnam, higher than Korea, higher tha
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 11:09 AM on May. 14, 2009

  • This spending spree comes at a time when America's main enemy is not a rival superpower like the Soviet Union, but a network of terrorist groups armed primarily with explosives, shoulder-fired missiles, and AK-47s. And even if one accepts the "need" to fight a war like the current US occupation of Iraq, there are tens of billions of dollars in the administration's budget proposal that will never be used in that conflict. Requests for systems like the F-22 fighter ($4.6 billion), the V-22 Osprey ($2.6 billion), the CVN-21 aircraft carrier ($3.1 billion), the SSN-774 Virginia attack submarine ($2.7 billion), the Trident D-5 Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile ($1.2 billion), and Ballistic Missile Defense ($10.8 billion) are just a few examples of weapons that are unnecessary, unworkable, or both.

    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 11:10 AM on May. 14, 2009

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.
close Cafemom Join now to connect to other members! Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN