Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fire contract workers, switch money around to support the wars?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fire contract workers, switch money around to support the wars?

    Wall Street Journal, 12/3/2007:

    Iraq war: President Bush demands at least $50 billion in emergency funds. The House approved money with the condition that U.S. aims to end combat role by December 2008.

    And the Pentagon says it will send out furlough notices before Christmas for thousands of civilian employees unless it gets more war money.
    ************************************************** **

    This probably potentially affects a number of us, especially contract workers.

    Does anyone think it will actually happen? That is, that any furlough notices will go out, or that any furloughs will actually happen? Will Congress cave in, or will the Administration cave in?

  • #2
    Well, obviously as a contractor I'm going to disagree that this would be a good plan. I don't think there will be furloughs -- Congress is already showing signs of doing their duty on this and supporting the military.
    Barcsi János ispán vezérőrnagy
    Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2003 & 2006


    "Never pet a burning dog."

    RECOMMENDED WEBSITES:
    http://www.mormon.org
    http://www.sca.org
    http://www.scv.org/
    http://www.scouting.org/

    Comment


    • #3
      I thought the government supported the war, but not the troops....
      "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

      Comment


      • #4
        Once again the Democratic party have painted themselves into a no win corner.

        Just today Murtha is proclaiming that the 'surge' is working while old harry 'dingbat' Reid is still plying the same old 'woe is me all is lost' song.
        "If you are right, then you are right even if everyone says you are wrong. If you are wrong then you are wrong even if everyone says you are right." William Penn.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by piero1971 View Post
          I thought the government supported the war, but not the troops....
          Notices supposed to go out by Dec. 15 for "furloughs" Feb. 15, if they actually do it.

          Before, rightists said Congress should just cut off the funding if they wanted to stop the war, giggle-giggle.

          Now they ARE cutting off the funding, and the military is saying they'll switch around the money that WAS funded for base activities and maintenance to the war zones. But that base/training/maintenance money was funded for those purposes: the current emergency war funds is what Congress is trying to stop up to stop the war. Can the Army and Marines plausibly move those funds around and put 200,000 contractors out of work just to frustrate Congress' ability to stop the war?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Phebe View Post
            Can the Army and Marines plausibly move those funds around and put 200,000 contractors out of work just to frustrate Congress' ability to stop the war?
            Can the Democrats plausibly attempt to force this without committing political suicide?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by OmegaStrike View Post
              Can the Democrats plausibly attempt to force this without committing political suicide?

              That's a good question (I know it's good because my husband keeps asking it, too) --- but another good question is, can they keep failing and failing and caving in while they have an 11% approval rating and still have any hopes of capturing more of the House and Senate (and the Executive) in November 2008?

              The public seriously, no fooling, wants this war stopped. Okay, not you, OmegaStrike, but most people. So now people are tired of the Dems screwing around and want them to hold the line.

              It seems to me the Dems have a good case: they already approved funding for the bases and maintenance! Regular DoD funding. All that money was not supposed to go for war funding!!! BUT ------ the Army did this before, May 2006, when Congress bailed out and went home without an emergency funding bill for Memorial Day. It was clearly a shot across the bow by Congress, and the Army replied by (at my base, YMMV) temporarily discharging the janitorial contractors for a few weeks ----------- and they took the big packages of toilet paper! Really. Carried them right out to their cars, I guess the contractor was mad. And no grass cutting, men brought their little lawn tractors from home in their pickups and pitched in, good for them, and then in the fall we lost 30% contractors suddenly in our shop. I don't know how far that went through the agencies, but it was a belt-tightening measure, we were told. So all that was very exciting and showed the Army meant to fight this Congressional restriction on their money for the war by causing a lot of chaos and upset and voter letters.

              This is the real fight now. The Dems have to put up or forget they were ever born.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Phebe View Post
                Notices supposed to go out by Dec. 15 for "furloughs" Feb. 15, if they actually do it.

                Before, rightists said Congress should just cut off the funding if they wanted to stop the war, giggle-giggle.

                Now they ARE cutting off the funding, and the military is saying they'll switch around the money that WAS funded for base activities and maintenance to the war zones. But that base/training/maintenance money was funded for those purposes: the current emergency war funds is what Congress is trying to stop up to stop the war. Can the Army and Marines plausibly move those funds around and put 200,000 contractors out of work just to frustrate Congress' ability to stop the war?
                Actually..."the rightists" (AKA Constitutional constructionists) have been saying that Congress should repeal the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq if they want us out of the war.

                Congress authorized this war. The only way Congress can de-authorize it, is to repeal the authorizing legislation - For which they would need to be able to over-ride a Presidential veto. Until such time as Congress repeals the legislation, it is up to the President to determine how to fight the war and when to decide that it is over.

                These attempts to "de-fund" congressionally authorized military operations in a war zone are nothing less than Treasonous.

                Public Law 102-1…

                SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
                (a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
                (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
                (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.


                As long as this law remains in effect and the President determines that our military operations in Iraq are necessary to “defend the national security of the United States,” he is obligated by his Oath of Office to continue those operations. Congress is also obligated by their oaths to support those operations.

                Congress can either convince the President to sign on to a repeal of Public Law 102-1 or they can muster the votes to over-ride a veto…Or they can wait to see what the next President will do. However, their attempts to de-fund operations blatantly violate the constitutional process and endanger our troops
                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Phebe View Post
                  That's a good question (I know it's good because my husband keeps asking it, too) --- but another good question is, can they keep failing and failing and caving in while they have an 11% approval rating...
                  Perhaps such back-stabbing, purely political stunts are the reason for the 11% approval rating, not the cure.

                  The public seriously, no fooling, wants this war stopped. Okay, not you, OmegaStrike, but most people.
                  I want it stopped too. But there are different ways to "stop" a war. One of those ways is called victory. Victory cannot be achieved by quitting at the bellowing behest of ignorant, politically-corrected sheep...er, I mean, "the public."

                  This is the real fight now. The Dems have to put up or forget they were ever born.
                  Oh, yes. Please, please, please pull a stunt like cutting off funding for troops in the field due to a childish political tantrum. That would ensure another Republican administration and maybe even a re-taking of Congress.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                    Actually..."the rightists" (AKA Constitutional constructionists) have been saying that Congress should repeal the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq if they want us out of the war.

                    Congress authorized this war. The only way Congress can de-authorize it, is to repeal the authorizing legislation - For which they would need to be able to over-ride a Presidential veto. Until such time as Congress repeals the legislation, it is up to the President to determine how to fight the war and when to decide that it is over.

                    These attempts to "de-fund" congressionally authorized military operations in a war zone are nothing less than Treasonous.

                    Public Law 102-1…

                    SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
                    (a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
                    (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
                    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.


                    As long as this law remains in effect and the President determines that our military operations in Iraq are necessary to “defend the national security of the United States,” he is obligated by his Oath of Office to continue those operations. Congress is also obligated by their oaths to support those operations.

                    Congress can either convince the President to sign on to a repeal of Public Law 102-1 or they can muster the votes to over-ride a veto…Or they can wait to see what the next President will do. However, their attempts to de-fund operations blatantly violate the constitutional process and endanger our troops

                    Very interesting analysis.

                    Clinton is the only Dem candidate (?? is that right??) who HAS been talking about deauthorization of the war.

                    You are saying that the rightists who said they should just kill the spending (secure in the expectation that the Dems couldn't politically do that) were simply wrong about that strategy.

                    I don't agree that it is in any sense TREASONOUS to try to de-fund the war --- Congress DOES have funding authority constitutionally, after all!! It's hardly treasonous for Congress to try to solve the problem of a runaway executive as the great majority of the people want! I think people throw this "treason" word around too much --- if Jane Fonda wasn't charged with treason, may as well forget that category of crime. It would be dereliction (and HAS been dereliction of duty all this year) for Congress to neglect trying to solve the war problem and get us out: that's what the people want, that's what they are trying to do. And high time, too.

                    Still, I see your point. There is that authorization ----- and so THAT is what the prez and Gates can point to if Reid says wait a minute, we funded those bases and activities, you can't switch that money around!!

                    They'll say, oh yes we can, you authorized this war and we can fight it as we choose to.

                    Good, thank you.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by trailboss49 View Post
                      Once again the Democratic party have painted themselves into a no win corner.

                      Just today Murtha is proclaiming that the 'surge' is working while old harry 'dingbat' Reid is still plying the same old 'woe is me all is lost' song.
                      Are you happy that it took another 30k troops (the surge) for things to start to work 4 and a half years after invasion? I am not...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by GeneralTsoGood View Post
                        Are you happy that it took another 30k troops (the surge) for things to start to work 4 and a half years after invasion? I am not...
                        Yes, you would be happier if the troops came home defeated.

                        "Halliburton!"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Im not sure it was the surge in itself that has led to this progress rather the change in tactics.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by GeneralTsoGood View Post
                            Are you happy that it took another 30k troops (the surge) for things to start to work 4 and a half years after invasion? I am not...
                            That bis because the progress did not start in four and a half years.

                            The Iraqi Armed forces ceased to exist as a fighting force in mid 2003.

                            Saddam Hussein was captured in December 2003.

                            Fallujah pocket was overcome in 2004.

                            Iraq had its first elections with a record turn out in 2005.

                            Iraq put together its permanent government in 2006.

                            The troops surge destroyed Al Quaeda and sent the Sunnis to negotiations in 2007.
                            "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
                            George Mason
                            Co-author of the Second Amendment
                            during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Cyberknight View Post
                              That bis because the progress did not start in four and a half years.

                              The Iraqi Armed forces ceased to exist as a fighting force in mid 2003.

                              Saddam Hussein was captured in December 2003.

                              Fallujah pocket was overcome in 2004.

                              Iraq had its first elections with a record turn out in 2005.

                              Iraq put together its permanent government in 2006.

                              The troops surge destroyed Al Quaeda and sent the Sunnis to negotiations in 2007.
                              QFT. Don't forget the pacification of JAM, also in 2007.

                              I think one problem is that a long, "boring" COIN campaign is beyond comprehension for most of a population that can't sit still or pay attention for longer than a 30-second sound bite, or comprehend anything more complex than the remote control. The things you list above are simply too far apart temporally for those people to grasp their connectedness. Oh yeah, and the list doesn't rhyme.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X