TCUnation
social network for conservatives
HATING WARS...REASON #2
LIBS HATE “WARS”…REASON #2
“High Costs Weigh on Afghanistan Troop Debate, Christopher Drew, NYT
While President Obama’s decision about sending more troops to Afghanistan is primarily a military one, it also has substantial budget implications that are adding pressure to limit the commitment, senior administration officials say. Defense Secretary Robert Gates watching a mine-resistant troop carrier in motion. Analysts say vehicles like these and surveillance equipment are increasing the cost of troops in Afghanistan.”…Nov 15th excerpt.
==========
Its seems no problem to dem-socialists when a beloved program of theirs (again) proves to be 3-9x more costly (aka boondoggle) than they told us. (Remember that pattern remains.)
The whole idea of dem-socialists is to use tax money to create dependency (aka votes) as they grow the gov-meant yearly as if a mushroom without size limitations.
From time to time their disgust with never (ever) having enough tax money to continue the dependency-vote-buying binge surfaces and we hear some offhand comment about the ONE area they love to cut (and detest)…that is the military…being sooo costly.
If every thousand more American soldiers in Afgan land (volunteer service) does “cost a billion” as Obama tells us…what he really means deep down inside (being a strident socialist) is… that is a billion NOT spent on growing dependency via more (or bigger) gov-meant programs. It galls (actually seething rage) them to no end so it slips out as any military action goes past a few months. They see all those tens of billions lost to growing socialism and the dependency that they want to produce democrat votes.
This is also why they are quick to cut the military as some sort of “less-smaller gov-meant” move…yeah, right.
This from the gang that looks the other way as Medi-programs and such produce tens of billions in fraud year after year after year plus passes (failed) STIM-bailout bills at nearly a trillion a pop without blinking an eye.
Who do they think they are fooling?
http://conservablogs.com/theconservativecrawf
“High Costs Weigh on Afghanistan Troop Debate, Christopher Drew, NYT
While President Obama’s decision about sending more troops to Afghanistan is primarily a military one, it also has substantial budget implications that are adding pressure to limit the commitment, senior administration officials say. Defense Secretary Robert Gates watching a mine-resistant troop carrier in motion. Analysts say vehicles like these and surveillance equipment are increasing the cost of troops in Afghanistan.”…Nov 15th excerpt.
==========
Its seems no problem to dem-socialists when a beloved program of theirs (again) proves to be 3-9x more costly (aka boondoggle) than they told us. (Remember that pattern remains.)
The whole idea of dem-socialists is to use tax money to create dependency (aka votes) as they grow the gov-meant yearly as if a mushroom without size limitations.
From time to time their disgust with never (ever) having enough tax money to continue the dependency-vote-buying binge surfaces and we hear some offhand comment about the ONE area they love to cut (and detest)…that is the military…being sooo costly.
If every thousand more American soldiers in Afgan land (volunteer service) does “cost a billion” as Obama tells us…what he really means deep down inside (being a strident socialist) is… that is a billion NOT spent on growing dependency via more (or bigger) gov-meant programs. It galls (actually seething rage) them to no end so it slips out as any military action goes past a few months. They see all those tens of billions lost to growing socialism and the dependency that they want to produce democrat votes.
This is also why they are quick to cut the military as some sort of “less-smaller gov-meant” move…yeah, right.
This from the gang that looks the other way as Medi-programs and such produce tens of billions in fraud year after year after year plus passes (failed) STIM-bailout bills at nearly a trillion a pop without blinking an eye.
Who do they think they are fooling?
http://conservablogs.com/theconservativecrawf
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John Gibson White on -
Why don't we all just move to someplace where there is no spending on defense. Better yet why don't you move to a place where they don't need a defense. like San Fransisco where Pelosi can care for you.
If you don't ever want to be hurt by a terrorist thats the place to go, you can find more whacko, gay, liberal idiots there than any place else in the USA .................. Terrorists don't go there because they blend in so well they can't tell each other apart from one another.
-
Permalink Reply by Aaron C. Bunch on -
HaHa! XD
© 2013 Created by Earl B.
