Originally Posted by NdAppy
Being the spouse of an Active duty military member.. the fact that you (dbarabians) are saying that your retirement was not in jeopardy is a joke. When a budget couldn't get passed the my husband's paycheck had already be cut with the expectation that the budget would not pass and we were scrambling trying to figure out how to pay for him to get to an from work with him not having a paycheck... As the military and government weren't going to let the service members not work... they just weren't going to pay them for the work they were doing. Not only was that money earmarked for current salaries but for the retirement pay as well. Between my husband and I, we do not know of any active duty (and ADOS/NG) military members who have any respect for Obama and who wouldn't be glad to see the last of him in office.
Yeah, that kind of stuff makes me sick - especially when you actually LOOK at the budget. When we don't have a budget, that doesn't mean tax and other revenues don't keep coming in - it just means there has been no agreement on how to spend it. There is always sufficient money to pay for the things we really need. And some things, like Social Security, are self funded, so don't need any money out of the general revenue fund. So what does Obama do? Threatens that without a budget, Social Security checks will stop - OUT OF A SELF FUNDED PROGRAM! He used it as a scare tactic, which honestly is BS. As you say, both civilian and military personnel were threatened with furloughs, which is par for the course, and retirees were also threatened.
But as I said, there is sufficient money to pay all the necessities. The only reason we need a budget is to find ways to spend the money we don't have, and to decide how much to fund descretionary (spelled...N.O.T. N.E.E.D.E.D.) programs. Did you hear him threaten to shut off welfare? Heck no - the liberals would never do that. Their obvious preference is to pay the people that refuse to work and don't pay the people that work or have retired from working.
All liberals don't feel that way of course, and we should remember that. There is nothing wrong about being liberal and conservatives shouldn't intimate there is or belittle them. But that is certainly the philosophy of the wacko radical liberals, and sadly, that is what is in power. I feel relatively certain that most liberals are opposed to many of the philosophies espoused by Obama and Pelosi and their kind - but still vote Democrat because Republican philosophy is too far removed from their own to support the Republican party.
This points out what, in my opinion, is one of the two basic failures of our political system, and that is the nomination process. In this specific case, it is obvious Obama does not really represent his constituency. He wasn't in office for 6 months before he was at war with his own party if you remember. Hilary was/is far more representative of the majority of Democrats than Obama could ever be, but Obama obviously won the nomination, and he won it for personality reasons - looks, public speaking ability, and the likeability factor.
Folks, and I am talking to you liberals, you need to someday come to the realization that electing a President for those reasons is like buying a horse for its color, mane, tail, and "kind eye", and those reasons have absolutely nothing to do with the horse's ability to do the job...