Looks like the Pres is taking one heck of a vacation before he leaves office.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bearing in mind that I voted for him twice, too...

In early January, Bush flies to Israel for his first visit as president.
Click to expand...
Notwithstanding that Israel is a political hot potato all it's own, I'm really surprised that it has taken him seven years to visit our one bona fide ally in the Middle East.

While in the region, he also will visit the West Bank, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The trip is a follow-up to the Israeli-Palestinian talks that the U.S. hosted in Annapolis, Maryland, last month.
Click to expand...
Good.

In February, Bush will tour Africa, where U.S. public health initiatives are popular.
Click to expand...
Another way of saying that we throw double handfuls of money at them. I will leave it at that.

That will be followed by an April North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit in Romania, a June U.S.-European summit in Slovenia, a July meeting of Group of Eight leaders in Japan, the summer Olympics in China and a November Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Peru. Bush is likely to visit other, nearby countries during those trips.
Click to expand...

Excellent. I hope all goes well.

As any of you who have travelled internationally on any kind of regular basis (corporate road warrior, miltary transport pilot, airline flight crew) will attest, it is no picnic. Numerous time changes and associated jet lag is a ball-buster, no other way to put it. Been there, done that. When you are 25 or 30, doing it once in a while, maybe not such a big deal. Do it at 40, do it at 50 and so on. Do it regularly--just try.
 
"I can't understand why anyone would even think that going on lengthy official trips is a "vacation" "

I don't either. I think they're uninformed.

John
 
But his studied, purposeful lack of action on the border is setting us up for the Mother of All 911's. And when it happens there is one and only one person responsible.
 
"But his studied, purposeful lack of action on the border is setting us up for the Mother of All 911's. And when it happens there is one and only one person responsible."

I have always said that it will take another 9/11 which is traceable to someone crossing the border in order to get the government to finally secure it. I pray it won't happen, but that'll be what it takes.

Mike
 
After whining that the Democrat congress is not getting the spending bills passed, Bush vetoed the military spending bill today.
 
"Gee, I wonder if there were disagreeable conditions to their bill? Duh."

Nope. The Shiites who run Iraq did not like a provision in the bill that would allow US military POWS from the Gulf War to sue the new Iraqi gov't for torture at the hands of Saddam.
 
Not only a good veto but quite unrelated to his planned diplomatic travels. It is on topic however if the real topic is 'how can we Bush Bash'.

The spin on this will be that he vetoed it because it contained pay raises for service members despite the White House saying they will work on those raises being retroactive to Jan. 1st in the reworked version. And it wasn't exactly vetoed but rather sent back to Congress to be reworked. Given Congress is still technically still in session due t Harry Reid's perversion of parliamentary rules, I expect they will have a re-worked version in front of the President post haste. Failing that an actual veto may be forced before the legislation becomes law by default due to the 10 day rule. Congressional inaction while in session will ring next election year as the motto of the 110th Congress. Puts Reid in quite a pickle eh. Since the Senate is still in session, their lack of action stands to cost vets a raise.
Hard for Reid to plea political mischief given his shady use of parliamentary rules in the first place.
 
Bruxley is correct. I think Bush was right to veto this. I agree with Bush that a raise for the military is not needed right now. We are meeting our recruiting needs at the present time, so the salaries must be OK with the new recruits . LIke everything else, the market can set the rates we pay the military. As long as recruiting goals are being met, there is no need to raise salaries. Plus, Bush is in the middle of bailing out thousands of home owners who are losing their houses in the current mortgage crisis. He knows we just don't have extra money to spend on the military right now.
 
Bruxley is correct. I think Bush was right to veto this. I agree with Bush that a raise for the military is not needed right now. We are meeting our recruiting needs at the present time, so the salaries must be OK with the new recruits . LIke everything else, the market can set the rates we pay the military. As long as recruiting goals are being met, there is no need to raise salaries. Plus, Bush is in the middle of bailing out thousands of home owners who are losing their houses in the current mortgage crisis. He knows we just don't have extra money to spend on the military right now.__________________
Click to expand...

There is so much wrong with the above statement it is frightening.:(
 
LOL. And less then an hour after the post predicting that the raise would be spun despite the White House stating they would be made retroactive to Jan.1st that very effort is made.

Retroactive MEANS that they WILL get the raise and despite the legislation not going through until AFTER Jan.1st they will still receive the same amount. The lack of understanding what the word retroactive means must have not have been understood.

Absolutely contrived and invented are the assertions that Bush feels the raises aren't needed, that Military rates are market driven (pure ignorance of market forces to make such a silly assertion as Congress, not the free market determine said rate), or that the raises are 'not affordable right now' was any motivation for sending this back to Congress.

Politics is complex. So also is the English language and understanding news articles. But it is prudent when ignorant of a subject to avoid impulsive comments. It was once said that it is better to say nothing and be thought a fool then to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Quite often all doubt is removed from posters bent on sophistry and with little interest in intellectual honesty.
 
Retroactive MEANS that they WILL get the raise and despite the legislation not going through until AFTER Jan.1st they will still receive the same amount.
Click to expand...

If Bush insists on things that Congress will not put in the bill, and vetoes it, then the retroactive pay raise never happens either. He's just yanking chains about the retroactive raise.

When we weren't meeting our recruitment numbers, they increased pay and incentives. Recruitment went up. Its market driven.
 
LOL. Still haven't read up eh.....wasn't vetoed.....was sent back to Congress with objections. Some call this a pocket veto but the difference is that this gives an in-session Congress an opportunity to re-work legislation the President likes but has objections to without it having to start over in the legislative process or face the need for a two-thirds majority vote to pass. Given that Reid has left the Senate technically in session the ball is in the Congress's court. The official veto may come should the in-session Congress fail to act before the 10 days expires.

Further, the provision for plaintiffs to sue the new government of Iraq for the actions of Saddam Hussein's Iraq are the objections NOT the raises.

You're propagating the doubt removal further if it is possible after your prior posts.
 
Last edited:
Veto or not, he didnt sign the bill did he? I understand it will be reworked, but ultimately he will sign or veto, and is it stands now, I suppose he would have to veto. Semantics are not the big issue. I believe you referred to it as a veto in post number 30.

You propagating the doubt removal further if it is possible after your prior post.
Click to expand...

Its late and I am tired, but I don't think that statement makes sense. I am not sure it is even a complete sentence. Could you rephrase that please?
 
Bruxley is correct. I think Bush was right to veto this. I agree with Bush that a raise for the military is not needed right now. We are meeting our recruiting needs at the present time, so the salaries must be OK with the new recruits . LIke everything else, the market can set the rates we pay the military. As long as recruiting goals are being met, there is no need to raise salaries. Plus, Bush is in the middle of bailing out thousands of home owners who are losing their houses in the current mortgage crisis. He knows we just don't have extra money to spend on the military right now.
Click to expand...

Hate to continue an off-topic tangent, but I think you're painting a rosier picture than actually exists. Raw recruitment numbers alone aren't definitive, there are other issues that are important as well. Things like retention of junior and midgrade officers and NCO's, which from what I understand are a bit wanting. The hardest hit is obviously the Army (along with its reserve components). Right now recruiting and retention goals are being met using larger bonuses and (for recruiting, at least last I heard) at least somewhat lowering standards for incoming recruits. The latter, of course, being a bit of a concern (the former being simple market forces, as you pointed out).

All that said, I don't think a simple bump in military pay scales would be enough to fix the problem, though it might help somewhat.
 
If there is a deficit in manpower in some areas, then salaries need to be bumped up to try to get people to stay. But if there are more applicants than positions, then those salaries don't need to be changed (at least, they don't need to be changed upward).

As for increasing recruitment by lowering standards, that does not seem to be a problem. We are still winning the war, even with more lax standards. Recruiting standards can be titrated to effect... as long as the recruits are getting the job done, we might as well keep the standards as low as possible. This keeps the pool of potential recruits as large as possible, which will drive down salary requirements. Supply and demand economics. Of course, many people join the military because of their personal ideals, and are not motivated by salary so much. But esoteric rationale for joining the military is beyond the scope of an economic model.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top