What if Bush did this?

[ekg]

We've turned into a nation of pussies.  We really have.  The reason this continuation of the Patriot Act has legs, is that Obama and anyone running for President knows that more people are willing to vote against anyone who tries to dismantle it, at or least take some of it's teeth away.

I've talked to several people who are all high on the indignation list of yelling their freedoms are being trampled...but they're the same people who find value and a sense of safety in the very thing they supposedly rail against.  Because this couldn't POSSIBLY apply to them, even in the abstract.

Until there is a majority outcry, that can unseat a politician from his or her job...or hinder them from getting elected...this won't change.

you can't even imagine how many times I was told "If you don't do anything wrong, this law won't affect you" or "They can look all they want, I've got nothing to hide" ... one of the most hilarious replies I got on the nsa wiretapping was

"I'm not meaning to start anything here but, you do realize that England was able to do what they did last week because they don't have these laws against tapping/eavsdropping.

MI-5 was intercepting emails and phone calls for months before they acted. Isn't that a good thing?"

of course the hard righties thought it was OK to be all 'European' during the Bush years...Now, it's the insult du jour saying that Obama want us to be more like 'Europe'.. hell, the tea party formed in part to stop him from committing this Fox-induced fantasy... ah, the irony..

by the way, the lil libertarian who started this thread has no problems with the Pat Act or any other 'tool' a president wants to use on the GWOT... so don't fall prey to his 'instigation' games..

[ekg]

I'm just glad you're here from what I hear I'm running people off.

yeah well, my legs are too short to run very fast..

[Howey]

yeah well, my legs are too short to run very fast..

 I heard your little top heavy.

[ekg]

I heard your little top heavy.

that's like saying the pope is a little catholic..  

[lil mike]

you can't even imagine how many times I was told "If you don't do anything wrong, this law won't affect you" or "They can look all they want, I've got nothing to hide" ... one of the most hilarious replies I got on the nsa wiretapping was

of course the hard righties thought it was OK to be all 'European' during the Bush years...Now, it's the insult du jour saying that Obama want us to be more like 'Europe'.. hell, the tea party formed in part to stop him from committing this Fox-induced fantasy... ah, the irony..

by the way, the lil libertarian who started this thread has no problems with the Pat Act or any other 'tool' a president wants to use on the GWOT... so don't fall prey to his 'instigation' games..

Just to be clear, the post you quoted wasn't written by me.  Since you seemed to refer to me in this post (lil libertarian) I just wanted to make that clear since you didn't.

Since when did libertarian become a dirty word for liberals?  I guess it's all part of the process of slowly realizing that state power is more important to you than individual liberty.

But I did go back and read that thread and it was a very good interesting thread.  What have we learned since that time?  You totally lost interest in "warrantless wiretaps" since January 2009!

And here is a bit of interesting prophesy from me in that very thread:

And if the next Democratic President breaks some kind of law, and I bring it up on the board, how will you respond?

Interesting times ahead...

[Howey]

Since when did libertarian become a dirty word for liberals?

Probably a looooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggggggggg time after liberal, policeman, fireman, school teacher, and community organizer became dirty words for you and your comrades.

Since when did libertarian become a dirty word for liberals?  I guess it's all part of the process of slowly realizing that state power is more important to you than individual liberty.

For me it was when I realized libertarians, led by Mr. Paul, play the dirtiest of tricks and are closet racists. Or were...

[ekg]

Just to be clear, the post you quoted wasn't written by me.  Since you seemed to refer to me in this post (lil libertarian) I just wanted to make that clear since you didn't.

never said it was, never implied it was.. since he's not here to defend it, I didn't use his name..

Since when did libertarian become a dirty word for liberals?

didn't know it was, just think it's funny you consider yourself one..

  I guess it's all part of the process of slowly realizing that state power is more important to you than individual liberty.

but that's where you and I (and real libertarians) differ.. I think liberty is more important... I'm sorry you don't.

But I did go back and read that thread and it was a very good interesting thread.  What have we learned since that time?  You totally lost interest in "warrantless wiretaps" since January 2009!

And here is a bit of interesting prophesy from me in that very thread:

nope, just like the Pat Act.. I'm still against both.. but it's the law of the land now.. I've tried and tried to tell you that once these kinds of powers are given up, it's impossible to get them back... since you read that thread, maybe you read where I was told that during wartimes we give these powers up, but when it's peaceful we get them back (I think it was that one).. well HAHA to that... Once that power is given up, we don't ever get it back. I warned you repeatedly that it wouldn't just be GWB using it, and you were  fine with ...since ya know, you're the only one who really wants to win the GWOT and all.. but I'll tell you again, it doesn't matter who is in the big chair, they won't always be the one in that chair, so giving up liberties just because you like the (R) or (D) after their name is pretty fucked up..

if only you would have listened and been against it from the start.. maybe we could have done something then.. but nope, you abide by that party affiliation no matter what liberties or laws are broken..and now those laws are hear to stay..

[lil mike]

never said it was, never implied it was.. since he's not here to defend it, I didn't use his name..

didn't know it was, just think it's funny you consider yourself one..

but that's where you and I (and real libertarians) differ.. I think liberty is more important... I'm sorry you don't.

I think you are fooling yourself if you think that you actually think liberty is more important to you than state power. 

nope, just like the Pat Act.. I'm still against both.. but it's the law of the land now.. I've tried and tried to tell you that once these kinds of powers are given up, it's impossible to get them back... since you read that thread, maybe you read where I was told that during wartimes we give these powers up, but when it's peaceful we get them back (I think it was that one).. well HAHA to that... Once that power is given up, we don't ever get it back. I warned you repeatedly that it wouldn't just be GWB using it, and you were  fine with ...since ya know, you're the only one who really wants to win the GWOT and all.. but I'll tell you again, it doesn't matter who is in the big chair, they won't always be the one in that chair, so giving up liberties just because you like the (R) or (D) after their name is pretty fucked up..

if only you would have listened and been against it from the start.. maybe we could have done something then.. but nope, you abide by that party affiliation no matter what liberties or laws are broken..and now those laws are hear to stay..

Irony, considering the many many items I've brought up since the Obama administration begin in which he's followed lockstep with the Bush administration and now, you've totally lost interest in.  But you said it yourself that you are a hypocrite on those matters.  So why would you say I'm the one who abides by party affiliation?  That's really wacky since you've shown time and time again that fits the bill for you.  I've been consistent on the issues, regardless of who is in power.  The TSP program?  I supported it when Bush was in office and I support it now that Obama's in office.  The Pat Act?  Just like when Bush was in office, I supported somethings in it and disagreed with others.  You really do seem to do either a lot of projection or self delusion.  Either you really think that I'm being the partisan one here because you are, or you are really just confused.

Let me make this inquiry:  I've spent 2 1/2 years posting about the issues that were horrified by when the Bush administration did them, but when the Obama administration did them... eh, nothing to see here.

If you think I'm more partisan than you are why don't you describe the issues that I supported when Bush did them but have criticized Obama for doing the same thing?

[ekg]

I think you are fooling yourself if you think that you actually think liberty is more important to you than state power. 

more than you, yes.. case in point

I The TSP program?  I supported it when Bush was in office and I support it now that Obama's in office.  The Pat Act?  Just like when Bush was in office, I supported somethings in it and disagreed with others. 

how can you even pretend to be for liberty and be for those kinds of gov't infringement?  The fact is you can't. Which is why you are not a real libertarian, you've just gloomed onto the word to hide the (R) streak in you.. the same way you gave 'Huntsmen' for you presidential candidate answer.. When in practice, you vote for someone like Rick Scott. You can't be both, but you want to seem less partsian, when we both know you're not.. not in any way shape or form. But what about me? Am I partisan? Not as much as you think I am and more than I think I am.. huh, look at that, I can admit that along with being ok with being hypocritical on some (not most, but nice try) issues..

I'll answer your 'why don't you can when Obama does it' question again.. These things are the law of the land now,that horse has left the stable.. it would like re-arguing the Peterson trial.. The outcome is the same, the law was passed.. and in practice.. what good does re-hashing it do? Am I going to change the Peterson conviction? nope? and I ain't going to change the Pat Act or TSP program either.

You'll never get it since you are OK with giving up these liberties.. the fight is before it's given because once it's handed over, there ain't no going back...

what you are looking for now, the ONLY thing you are looking for, is to nit-pick, nothing more-nothing less..

you are simply the person Starla overheard  after Obama's election when they said "lets see how you like it"..  I'm not playing that game, if you've got something new? fine, let's talk.. but my arguments on  those topics remain the same...

[lil mike]

more than you, yes.. case in point

how can you even pretend to be for liberty and be for those kinds of gov't infringement?  The fact is you can't. Which is why you are not a real libertarian, you've just gloomed onto the word to hide the (R) streak in you.. the same way you gave 'Huntsmen' for you presidential candidate answer.. When in practice, you vote for someone like Rick Scott. You can't be both, but you want to seem less partsian, when we both know you're not.. not in any way shape or form. But what about me? Am I partisan? Not as much as you think I am and more than I think I am.. huh, look at that, I can admit that along with being ok with being hypocritical on some (not most, but nice try) issues..

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean.  I gave Huntsman as an answer but in practice it's Rick Scott.  Are you saying that I never really supported Huntsman and he was merely my cover to vote for ... Rick Scott for President?  I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be.   Just a tangle of thoughts I supposes since it doesn't have anything to do with partisanship; they're both Republicans.

I'll answer your 'why don't you can when Obama does it' question again.. These things are the law of the land now,that horse has left the stable.. it would like re-arguing the Peterson trial.. The outcome is the same, the law was passed.. and in practice.. what good does re-hashing it do? Am I going to change the Peterson conviction? nope? and I ain't going to change the Pat Act or TSP program either.

You'll never get it since you are OK with giving up these liberties.. the fight is before it's given because once it's handed over, there ain't no going back...

what you are looking for now, the ONLY thing you are looking for, is to nit-pick, nothing more-nothing less..

you are simply the person Starla overheard  after Obama's election when they said "lets see how you like it"..  I'm not playing that game, if you've got something new? fine, let's talk.. but my arguments on  those topics remain the same...

I didn't think the TSP was unconstitutional during Bush and I don't think it's unconstitutional now under Obama.  And unless your understanding of the issue has greatly improved since we've discussed it on the Muche I don't think we'll accomplish anything by re litigating that.  But if I understand your argument, anything that you thought Bush did that was unconstitutional that Obama is currently doing is "the law of the land now,that horse has left the stable.. it would like re-arguing the Peterson trial."  I have a hard time wrapping my head around such an argument since controversial issues like that are never settled.  At least as long as their constitutional.

Meanwhile I point out violations of the constitution occurring now and you're mad at me for pointing it out!  You're a mess of inconsistencies. 

[lil mike]

http://freebeacon.com/trashing-tricare/

TRASHING TRICARE
OBAMA TO CUT HEALTHCARE BENEFITS FOR ACTIVE DUTY AND RETIRED US MILITARY

The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.

The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.

The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.

[Howey]

http://freebeacon.com/trashing-tricare/

TRASHING TRICARE
OBAMA TO CUT HEALTHCARE BENEFITS FOR ACTIVE DUTY AND RETIRED US MILITARY

The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.

The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.

The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.

Huh. I was wondering when you were going to start quoting the Beacon. That boy running it is one jilted bitch! 

Be sure to follow their twitter account. @WashFreeBacon

Their section of this board is the most popular part of the forum!

[Howey]

http://freebeacon.com/trashing-tricare/

TRASHING TRICARE
OBAMA TO CUT HEALTHCARE BENEFITS FOR ACTIVE DUTY AND RETIRED US MILITARY

The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.

The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.

The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.

Since you brought up Bush, seems like he was all for raising Tricare fees as well as lots more things that hurt the troops. During wartime.

Bush 'Strongly Opposes' Troop Pay, Benefit Initiatives
Talk about lousy timing.

With President Bush’s popularity scraping bottom in opinion polls, with U.S. casualties rising in Iraq in a force surge that has stretched soldier tours to 15 months, the Bush administration July 10 said it “strongly opposes” key military pay and benefit gains tossed into their fiscal 2008 defense bill.
Initiatives the administration “strongly opposes” include:

    A military pay raise for next January of 3.5 percent versus 3 percent endorsed by the White House.

    Lowering the age-60 start of reserve retirement annuities for reserve component members by the length of their future mobilizations.

    Expanding eligibility for Combat-Related Special Compensation to service members forced by combat disabilities to retire short of 20 years.

    Directing pharmaceutical manufacturers to provide the Department of Defense with same price discounts for TRICARE retail pharmacy network that are provided already on medicines dispensed from base pharmacies.

    The administration also grumbled that the Senate intends to block for another year TRICARE fee increases for under-65 retirees and dependents.

    The objections appear in a “Statement of Administration Policy” from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget delivered to Senate leaders as they opened floor debate on the defense authorization bill.

A day later, Senate Republicans, at White House’s urging, blocked amendments to the bill that would have shortened Iraq tours for U.S. ground forces and slowed frequency of wartime deployments. Republicans said the amendments really were aimed at changing administration policy in Iraq.
Here is more on Senate provisions that the White House opposes:

PAY RAISE – Like the House, senators favor a 3.5 percent military pay raise for 2008 versus the administration's proposed 3 percent to match private sector wage growth as measured by the government's Employment Cost Index (ECI). The White House calls the extra half percentage point unnecessary and notes that basic pay has jumped by 33 percent since 2001. The added cost of the bigger raise, $2.2 billion through 2013, is money “that would otherwise be available to support our troop,” said OMB letter.

The White House will lose this one. Congress intends to approve the ninth consecutive military raise to be set at least .5 percent above private sector wage gains, continuing to close a perceived “pay gap” with civilians.

However, a Congressional Budget Office report released in late June suggests no such gap exists. When housing allowances growth and associated tax advantages are weighed, the pay gap for the enlisted force, which advocates say started in 1982, actually was closed by 2002. Since then, the military pay gap has become a “pay surplus,” even excluding improvements in special pays and bonuses, CBO says.

Military associations dispute the CBO findings and support congressional efforts to continue to special military pay adjustments. The House in May voted to sustain the string of ECI-plus-a-half-percent military raises through 2012. The Senate bill deals only with the 2008 raise. When House-Senate conferees work a final compromise bill later this summer, the CBO findings could persuade conferees to adopt the Senate pay raise plan.

TRICARE INCREASES – Dr. S. Ward Casscells, the new assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, has said he intends to work with Congress and service associations on more modest TRICARE fee increases for under-65 retirees and their dependents than has been pushed so far by the Bush administration. The OMB letter doesn’t reflect that air of compromise.

By not allowing the TRICARE fees and deductibles to rise as the administration planned, OMB chided, the Senate is adding $1.86 billion, again “funds that would otherwise be available to support our troops.”

That's just one year, his last. Want me to look up the rest?

[Howey]

Since you brought up Bush, seems like he was all for raising Tricare fees as well as lots more things that hurt the troops. During wartime.

That's just one year, his last. Want me to look up the rest?

Boy...was he ever!

As defense budgets grew over the past decade, Congress shrugged off complaints of runaway military health costs and blocked every proposal from the Bush administration to raise TRICARE fees sharply on retirees.

Defense budgets have stopped rising, however, and Defense officials today are sounding more confident that Congress will follow last October’s $5-a-month bump in TRICARE Prime enrollment fees for working-age retirees with more substantial fee increases for retirees of all ages.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Arm Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, outlined plans Jan. 26 to lower defense budgets over the next 10 years by $487 billion in compliance with the Budget Control Act passed last spring to dampen growth in federal debt.

[ekg]

http://freebeacon.com/trashing-tricare/

TRASHING TRICARE
OBAMA TO CUT HEALTHCARE BENEFITS FOR ACTIVE DUTY AND RETIRED US MILITARY

The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.

The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.

The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.

from what I read earlier on another site, he's going to ask them to pay $200 a year for tricare? I don't know if that's 'trashing' it..but you guys are the ones demanding debt reduction, so you had to know that meant some things would get cut..

9/20/2011 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- Military retirees would pay an annual fee for TRICARE-for-Life health insurance and TRICARE pharmacy co-payments would be restructured under the deficit reduction plan President Barack Obama released Sept. 19.

"If we're going to meet our responsibilities, we have to do it together," Obama said during a Rose Garden speech to announce the President's Plan for Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction. The plan reduces $4.4 trillion from the $14.7 trillion federal deficit over 10 years through a combination of spending cuts and increased tax revenue.

For the military portion, Obama said the government will save $1.1 trillion from the drawdown of forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are to be complete at the end of this year and in 2014, respectively.

The plan includes savings of $6.7 billion over 10 years by establishing "modest annual fees" for members of TRICARE-for-Life, which becomes a second-payer insurance to military retirees who transition to the federal Medicare program upon turning age 65. The change would begin with a $200 annual fee in fiscal 2013.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123272713

To bring the TRICARE plan more in line with private and other federal plans, the president's proposed plan would eliminate co-pays for generic mail-order drugs, while shifting retail co-pays from a dollar amount to a percentage co-pay. The change would apply to military families and retirees, but not active-duty service members.

"The administration believes that any major military retirement reforms should include grandfathering provisions that ensure that the country does not break faith with military personnel now serving," the statement said.

so why exactly do you guys whine when he makes cuts?