i realise when bush took office is shot up a lot higher then it was. trust me, you have it good compared to 1999.God Save the Queen wrote:
you realize the bush administration has implemented even lower annual pay increases than clinton?
I joined before bush took office. I saw the the clinton bump and the bush bump. Both were pretty much the same. but, the increase has lowered steadily every year since then. regardless, its the congress that decides pay scales, not bush. same thing with the GI Bill.usmarine wrote:
i realise when bush took office is shot up a lot higher then it was. trust me, you have it good compared to 1999.God Save the Queen wrote:
you realize the bush administration has implemented even lower annual pay increases than clinton?
The record would appear to disagree with you.GStQ wrote:
you realize the bush administration has implemented even lower annual pay increases than clinton?
What Have Been the Annual Percentage Increases in Active Duty
Military Basic Pay Since 1993 (FY1994)? What Were Each Year’s
Major Executive and Legislative Branch Proposals and Actions on
the Annual Percentage Increase in Military Basic Pay?
The following subsections itemize action on the active duty military basic pay increase
going back to 1993 (the FY1994 budget). Unless otherwise noted, all increases were
proposed to be effective on January 1 of the fiscal year indicated. The same is true of
discussions of future pay raises.
===================<<Bush Administration>>=============================
2005 (FY2006). Statutory formula: 3.1%. s described below, current law provides,
through FY2006, that the military pay raise be 0.5% higher than the annual increase in the
Employment Cost Index (ECI). This increase was 2.6% Therefore, without further
congressional action, the FY2006 raise will be 3.1% (2.6 % + 0.5%), effective January 1,
2006.
Administration request: 3.1% across-the-board, included in President Bush’s FY2006
defense budget, released February 7, 2005.
Congressional action: None of the House, Senate, or conference FY2006 budget
resolutions (H.Con.Res. 95/ S.Con.Res. 18; both passed their respective houses March 17,
2005; conference resolution H.Con.Res. 95, agreed to by both houses April 28, 2005)
incorporated assumptions related to the FY2006 military pay raise. The House version of
the FY2006 NDAA (Sec. 601, H.R. 1815; H.Rept. 109-89, reported May 20, 2005; passed
May 25, 2005) includes the 3.1% increase requested by the Administration. The Senate
Armed Services Committee version (S. 1042; S.Rept. 109-69; May 17, 2005) does not
directly address the pay raise issue (the full Senate has not yet acted on the FY2006 NDAA),
but its recent practice has been to recede to the House in conference, thus in effect endorsing
the House request, and therefore the Administration’s request, of 3.1% as well.
2004 (FY2005). Statutory formula: 3.5%. Administration request: 3.5% across-theboard.
Final version: FY2005 NDAA (Sec. 601, P.L. 108-375, October 28, 2004; 118 Stat.
1811). 3.5% across-the-board. [Unlike the years 1999-2003 (FY2000-FY2004), the
Administration did not request and the Congress did not enact, a “targeted” increase based
on which particular pay grades and years-of-service cohorts need more pay to improve career
retention.]
2003 (FY2004). Statutory formula: 3.7%. Administration request: Average 4.1%;
minimum 2.0%; maximum of 6.5%. Final version. FY2004 NDAA (Sec. 601, P.L. 108-
136, November 24, 2003; 117 Stat. 1392). Average 4.15%: floor 3.7%; maximum 6.25%
for some senior NCOs. Also included language requiring that after FY2006, the annual
military pay raise would be equal to the annual percentage rise in the Employment Cost
Index (see above, #4, for a description of the ECI), thus repealing previous law that had the
effect of mandating a pay raise equal to the ECI minus 0.5%. Existing temporary law,
enacted in 1999 in the FY2000 NDAA, which requires an increase equal to the ECI plus
0.5% during FY2001-FY2006, would not be changed. (See below under “Suspension of
Statutory Formula during FY2001-FY2006.)
2002 (FY2003). Statutory formula: 4.1%. Administration request: Minimum 4.1%;
average 4.8%; for some mid-level and senior noncommissioned officers, warrant officers,
and mid-level commissioned officers, between 5.0% and 6.5%. Final increase: identical to
the Administration request, embodied, as usual, in the FY2003 National Defense
Authorization Act (P.L. 107-314, December 2, 2002; 116 Stat. 2458). The House and Senate
had also approved the Administration request.
2001 (FY2002). Statutory formula: 4.6%. Administration request: numerous figures
for the “Administration request” were mentioned in the pay raise debate, depending on when
and which agency produced the figures. In general, however, they all proposed increases of
at least 5% and no more than 15% (the latter applying only to a very few individuals),
depending on pay grade and years of service; the average increase for FY2002 was 6.9%.
Final increase: Eventually, the FY2002 National Defense Authorization Act (Sec. 601, P.L.
107-107, December 28, 2001)endorsed an “Administration request” of between 5 and 10%,
depending on pay grade and years of service. These increases remain the largest across-theboard
percentage raises since that of FY1982, which took effect on October 1, 1981. The
latter was a 14.3% across-the-board raise, which followed an 11.7% raise the previous year,
FY1981, resulting in a two-year raise of almost 28%. This was principally in response to the
high inflation of the late 1970s.
2000 (FY2001). Statutory formula: 3.7% (based on the 1999/FY2000 legislation,
above; the original statutory formula would have led to a proposed raise of 2.7%).
Administration request: 3.7%. Final increase: The FY2001 National Defense Authorization
Act (Section 601, P.L. 106-398, October 30, 2000; 114 Stat. 1654A-1 at A-143) approved
the 3.7% figure. In addition, as was the case in the previous year, additional increases
averaging 0.4% (based on the size of the across-the-board raise the amount of money used
would have funded; the range of additional percentage raises was between 1.0 and 5.5%)
were provided to middle-grade officer and enlisted personnel, to be effective July 1, 2001.
==================<<Clinton Administration>>=============================
1999 (FY2000). Statutory formula: 4.8%. Administration request: 4.4% on January
1, 2000, but in addition, on July 1, 2000, a wide range of targeted increases averaging an
additional 1.4% (again, based on the size of across-the-board raise the cost of the targeted
increases would finance) in mid-level officer and enlisted grades’ pay levels. Final increase:
The FY2000 National Defense Authorization Act (Section 601, P.L. 106-65; October 5,
1999) raised the January 1, 2000 increase to 4.8%, and accepted the July 1, 2000 targeted
increases.
1998 (FY1999). Statutory formula: 3.1%. Administration request: 3.6%. The House
approved 3.6%, or whatever percentage increase was approved for federal GS civilians,
whichever was higher. The Senate approved 3.6%. Final increase: The FY1999 Strom
Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act (Section 601, P.L. 105-261; October 17,
1998; 112 Stat. 1920 at 2036) approved the House alternative, which resulted in a 3.6%
military increase, as GS civilians also received 3.6%.
1997 (FY1998). Statutory formula: 2.8%. Administration request: 2.8%. Final
increase: FY1998 National Defense Authorization Act (Section 601, P.L. 105-85, November
18, 1997; 111 Stat. 1629 at 1771): 2.8%.
1996 (FY1997). Statutory formula: 2.3%. Administration request: 3.0%. Final
increase: The House and Senate both approved the higher Administration request of 3.0%,
and it was therefore included in the FY1997 National Defense Authorization Act (Section
601, P.L. 104-201, September 23, 1996; 110 Stat. 2422 at 2539).
1995 (FY1996). Statutory formula: 2.4%. Administration request: 2.4%. Final
increase: Congress also approved 2.4% in the FY1996 National Defense Authorization Act
(Section 601, P.L. 104-106, February 10, 1996; 110 Stat. 186 at 356).
1994 (FY1995). Statutory formula: 2.6%. Administration request: 1.6%; one percent
less than the statutory formula. Final increase: The FY1995 National Defense Authorization
Act (Section 601, P.L. 103-337, October 5, 1994; 108 Stat. 2663 at 2779) authorized the
statutory formula figure of 2.6%.
1993 (FY1994). Statutory formula: 2.2%. Administration request: No increase;
military (and civil service) pay would have been frozen in FY1994. The Administration also
proposed limiting future civil service — and hence active duty military — pay raises to one
percentage point less than that provided by the existing statutory formula. None of these
proposals was adopted. Final increase: The FY1994 National Defense Authorization Act
(Section 601, P.L. 103-160, November 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1547 at 1677) authorized 2.2%.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
The situation was not NEARLY as bad as it is now under the Repubs, you guys fucked up too. Admit it.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
They inherited a shitty situation. Now they have a 1 man majority in Congress. Let's not forget Republicans controlled Congress for 12 years.SEREMAKER wrote:
Demos have lower approval rating then rep pres. ......... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
REPUBLICANS fucked up.
so what was 2006 and 2007 and 2008?FEOS wrote:
The record would appear to disagree with you.GStQ wrote:
you realize the bush administration has implemented even lower annual pay increases than clinton?
What Have Been the Annual Percentage Increases in Active Duty
Military Basic Pay Since 1993 (FY1994)? What Were Each Year’s
Major Executive and Legislative Branch Proposals and Actions on
the Annual Percentage Increase in Military Basic Pay?
The following subsections itemize action on the active duty military basic pay increase
going back to 1993 (the FY1994 budget). Unless otherwise noted, all increases were
proposed to be effective on January 1 of the fiscal year indicated. The same is true of
discussions of future pay raises.
===================<<Bush Administration>>=============================
2005 (FY2006). Statutory formula: 3.1%. s described below, current law provides,
through FY2006, that the military pay raise be 0.5% higher than the annual increase in the
Employment Cost Index (ECI). This increase was 2.6% Therefore, without further
congressional action, the FY2006 raise will be 3.1% (2.6 % + 0.5%), effective January 1,
2006.
Administration request: 3.1% across-the-board, included in President Bush’s FY2006
defense budget, released February 7, 2005.
Congressional action: None of the House, Senate, or conference FY2006 budget
resolutions (H.Con.Res. 95/ S.Con.Res. 18; both passed their respective houses March 17,
2005; conference resolution H.Con.Res. 95, agreed to by both houses April 28, 2005)
incorporated assumptions related to the FY2006 military pay raise. The House version of
the FY2006 NDAA (Sec. 601, H.R. 1815; H.Rept. 109-89, reported May 20, 2005; passed
May 25, 2005) includes the 3.1% increase requested by the Administration. The Senate
Armed Services Committee version (S. 1042; S.Rept. 109-69; May 17, 2005) does not
directly address the pay raise issue (the full Senate has not yet acted on the FY2006 NDAA),
but its recent practice has been to recede to the House in conference, thus in effect endorsing
the House request, and therefore the Administration’s request, of 3.1% as well.
2004 (FY2005). Statutory formula: 3.5%. Administration request: 3.5% across-theboard.
Final version: FY2005 NDAA (Sec. 601, P.L. 108-375, October 28, 2004; 118 Stat.
1811). 3.5% across-the-board. [Unlike the years 1999-2003 (FY2000-FY2004), the
Administration did not request and the Congress did not enact, a “targeted” increase based
on which particular pay grades and years-of-service cohorts need more pay to improve career
retention.]
2003 (FY2004). Statutory formula: 3.7%. Administration request: Average 4.1%;
minimum 2.0%; maximum of 6.5%. Final version. FY2004 NDAA (Sec. 601, P.L. 108-
136, November 24, 2003; 117 Stat. 1392). Average 4.15%: floor 3.7%; maximum 6.25%
for some senior NCOs. Also included language requiring that after FY2006, the annual
military pay raise would be equal to the annual percentage rise in the Employment Cost
Index (see above, #4, for a description of the ECI), thus repealing previous law that had the
effect of mandating a pay raise equal to the ECI minus 0.5%. Existing temporary law,
enacted in 1999 in the FY2000 NDAA, which requires an increase equal to the ECI plus
0.5% during FY2001-FY2006, would not be changed. (See below under “Suspension of
Statutory Formula during FY2001-FY2006.)
2002 (FY2003). Statutory formula: 4.1%. Administration request: Minimum 4.1%;
average 4.8%; for some mid-level and senior noncommissioned officers, warrant officers,
and mid-level commissioned officers, between 5.0% and 6.5%. Final increase: identical to
the Administration request, embodied, as usual, in the FY2003 National Defense
Authorization Act (P.L. 107-314, December 2, 2002; 116 Stat. 2458). The House and Senate
had also approved the Administration request.
2001 (FY2002). Statutory formula: 4.6%. Administration request: numerous figures
for the “Administration request” were mentioned in the pay raise debate, depending on when
and which agency produced the figures. In general, however, they all proposed increases of
at least 5% and no more than 15% (the latter applying only to a very few individuals),
depending on pay grade and years of service; the average increase for FY2002 was 6.9%.
Final increase: Eventually, the FY2002 National Defense Authorization Act (Sec. 601, P.L.
107-107, December 28, 2001)endorsed an “Administration request” of between 5 and 10%,
depending on pay grade and years of service. These increases remain the largest across-theboard
percentage raises since that of FY1982, which took effect on October 1, 1981. The
latter was a 14.3% across-the-board raise, which followed an 11.7% raise the previous year,
FY1981, resulting in a two-year raise of almost 28%. This was principally in response to the
high inflation of the late 1970s.
2000 (FY2001). Statutory formula: 3.7% (based on the 1999/FY2000 legislation,
above; the original statutory formula would have led to a proposed raise of 2.7%).
Administration request: 3.7%. Final increase: The FY2001 National Defense Authorization
Act (Section 601, P.L. 106-398, October 30, 2000; 114 Stat. 1654A-1 at A-143) approved
the 3.7% figure. In addition, as was the case in the previous year, additional increases
averaging 0.4% (based on the size of the across-the-board raise the amount of money used
would have funded; the range of additional percentage raises was between 1.0 and 5.5%)
were provided to middle-grade officer and enlisted personnel, to be effective July 1, 2001.
==================<<Clinton Administration>>=============================
1999 (FY2000). Statutory formula: 4.8%. Administration request: 4.4% on January
1, 2000, but in addition, on July 1, 2000, a wide range of targeted increases averaging an
additional 1.4% (again, based on the size of across-the-board raise the cost of the targeted
increases would finance) in mid-level officer and enlisted grades’ pay levels. Final increase:
The FY2000 National Defense Authorization Act (Section 601, P.L. 106-65; October 5,
1999) raised the January 1, 2000 increase to 4.8%, and accepted the July 1, 2000 targeted
increases.
1998 (FY1999). Statutory formula: 3.1%. Administration request: 3.6%. The House
approved 3.6%, or whatever percentage increase was approved for federal GS civilians,
whichever was higher. The Senate approved 3.6%. Final increase: The FY1999 Strom
Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act (Section 601, P.L. 105-261; October 17,
1998; 112 Stat. 1920 at 2036) approved the House alternative, which resulted in a 3.6%
military increase, as GS civilians also received 3.6%.
1997 (FY1998). Statutory formula: 2.8%. Administration request: 2.8%. Final
increase: FY1998 National Defense Authorization Act (Section 601, P.L. 105-85, November
18, 1997; 111 Stat. 1629 at 1771): 2.8%.
1996 (FY1997). Statutory formula: 2.3%. Administration request: 3.0%. Final
increase: The House and Senate both approved the higher Administration request of 3.0%,
and it was therefore included in the FY1997 National Defense Authorization Act (Section
601, P.L. 104-201, September 23, 1996; 110 Stat. 2422 at 2539).
1995 (FY1996). Statutory formula: 2.4%. Administration request: 2.4%. Final
increase: Congress also approved 2.4% in the FY1996 National Defense Authorization Act
(Section 601, P.L. 104-106, February 10, 1996; 110 Stat. 186 at 356).
1994 (FY1995). Statutory formula: 2.6%. Administration request: 1.6%; one percent
less than the statutory formula. Final increase: The FY1995 National Defense Authorization
Act (Section 601, P.L. 103-337, October 5, 1994; 108 Stat. 2663 at 2779) authorized the
statutory formula figure of 2.6%.
1993 (FY1994). Statutory formula: 2.2%. Administration request: No increase;
military (and civil service) pay would have been frozen in FY1994. The Administration also
proposed limiting future civil service — and hence active duty military — pay raises to one
percentage point less than that provided by the existing statutory formula. None of these
proposals was adopted. Final increase: The FY1994 National Defense Authorization Act
(Section 601, P.L. 103-160, November 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1547 at 1677) authorized 2.2%.
how can 2000 be a bush year?
who ran congress?
No data was available for those years, but it has been at least the statutory minimum (normally more) each year.God Save the Queen wrote:
so what was 2006 and 2007 and 2008?
My bad. FY2001 started on 1 Oct 2000, so it would've been a Clinton year. Doesn't change what he requested in the 90's.GStQ wrote:
how can 2000 be a bush year?
That's why I highlighted the Administration's request in each case. Takes Congress out of it.GStQ wrote:
who ran congress?
Last edited by FEOS (2008-09-19 16:50:48)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
He would of put his hand on his heart but he had a lil wet patch on his crotch.usmarine wrote:
http://caosblog.com/wp-content/uploads/ … atriot.jpg
Bottomline : The neoconservatives are fucking crazy and really fucked up the country. Everyone with a brain can figure this out. Now the GOP is trying as hard as possible to seem like a different party than they've been for a while.
It all comes down to how well McCain can seem like a moderate, old school conservative. If he does it well, he's going to win. If he doesn't, its Obama.
PS -- The "Democrat" congress only barely holds a majority in the senate. (And Lieberman, who counts as a Dem, spoke at the GOP convention). So saying that the "Democrat" congress is less popular than Bush is pretty damn misleading in my opinion and its been sold well by the right wing propaganda folks.
Besides, the only people who approve of Bush are Republicans who apparently would approve of him no matter how much he fucked up as long as he was right wing. Bottomline, the majority of American disapproves of Bush, and the vast majority disapproves of the gridlocked senate. (That means both Dems and Republicans are not happy with their party).
Now who's it going to be? McCain, who sold out to the GOP to win his party's nomination and picked a VP who's mold is similar to Bush? Or Obama, who singehandedly kicked out the Clinton dynasty in the Democratic party (even when the GOP was helping the Clintons, too). Oh yeah, and now even the GOP is recycling old Clinton arguments against Obama. Do you really think its a coincidence?
I'm sorry, anyone who says Obama is not for real change needs to open their eyes. Both parties tried to beat Obama, and so far, up until the last few weeks both have seemed to fail.
You can say whatever the hell you want but the paragraphs above are enough for me. Obama has challenged the status quo for his party and politics in general and there's evidence to show it. Is he perfect? No. McCain on the other hand sold out from being a moderate, and its still not good enough for lots of right wingers.
Washington needs to change, it needs to connect with the mainstream again. I think Obama is more mainstream. I dare you to prove me wrong.
It all comes down to how well McCain can seem like a moderate, old school conservative. If he does it well, he's going to win. If he doesn't, its Obama.
PS -- The "Democrat" congress only barely holds a majority in the senate. (And Lieberman, who counts as a Dem, spoke at the GOP convention). So saying that the "Democrat" congress is less popular than Bush is pretty damn misleading in my opinion and its been sold well by the right wing propaganda folks.
Besides, the only people who approve of Bush are Republicans who apparently would approve of him no matter how much he fucked up as long as he was right wing. Bottomline, the majority of American disapproves of Bush, and the vast majority disapproves of the gridlocked senate. (That means both Dems and Republicans are not happy with their party).
Now who's it going to be? McCain, who sold out to the GOP to win his party's nomination and picked a VP who's mold is similar to Bush? Or Obama, who singehandedly kicked out the Clinton dynasty in the Democratic party (even when the GOP was helping the Clintons, too). Oh yeah, and now even the GOP is recycling old Clinton arguments against Obama. Do you really think its a coincidence?
I'm sorry, anyone who says Obama is not for real change needs to open their eyes. Both parties tried to beat Obama, and so far, up until the last few weeks both have seemed to fail.
You can say whatever the hell you want but the paragraphs above are enough for me. Obama has challenged the status quo for his party and politics in general and there's evidence to show it. Is he perfect? No. McCain on the other hand sold out from being a moderate, and its still not good enough for lots of right wingers.
Washington needs to change, it needs to connect with the mainstream again. I think Obama is more mainstream. I dare you to prove me wrong.
Last edited by Spearhead (2008-09-19 17:48:00)
erm... also, obama has to try and not seem like a liberal. you forgot that important fact.
I don't think he forgot it, marine.usmarine wrote:
erm... also, obama has to try and not seem like a liberal. you forgot that important fact.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
no, i know. lulzFEOS wrote:
I don't think he forgot it, marine.usmarine wrote:
erm... also, obama has to try and not seem like a liberal. you forgot that important fact.
And McCain has tried to seem like a liberal in order to win moderate votes.usmarine wrote:
erm... also, obama has to try and not seem like a liberal. you forgot that important fact.
Both of them do it.
I'm not denying it at all/. Read my edit.
ps I dont see what you posted has to do with what I posted tbh. Unless you're trying to make me sound like a radical left winger to ruin my credibility. The GOP is running against themselves. Its gone farther than trying to be more moderate.
Last edited by Spearhead (2008-09-19 17:50:43)
When has Obama challenged the status quo for his party? On what issues does he differ with the Democrats?Spearhead wrote:
Bottomline : The neoconservatives are fucking crazy and really fucked up the country. Everyone with a brain can figure this out. Now the GOP is trying as hard as possible to seem like a different party than they've been for a while.
It all comes down to how well McCain can seem like a moderate, old school conservative. If he does it well, he's going to win. If he doesn't, its Obama.
PS -- The "Democrat" congress only barely holds a majority in the senate. (And Lieberman, who counts as a Dem, spoke at the GOP convention). So saying that the "Democrat" congress is less popular than Bush is pretty damn misleading in my opinion and its been sold well by the right wing propaganda folks.
Besides, the only people who approve of Bush are Republicans who apparently would approve of him no matter how much he fucked up as long as he was right wing. Bottomline, the majority of American disapproves of Bush, and the vast majority disapproves of the gridlocked senate. (That means both Dems and Republicans are not happy with their party).
Now who's it going to be? McCain, who sold out to the GOP to win his party's nomination and picked a VP who's mold is similar to Bush? Or Obama, who singehandedly kicked out the Clinton dynasty in the Democratic party (even when the GOP was helping the Clintons, too). Oh yeah, and now even the GOP is recycling old Clinton arguments against Obama. Do you really think its a coincidence?
I'm sorry, anyone who says Obama is not for real change needs to open their eyes. Both parties tried to beat Obama, and so far, up until the last few weeks both have seemed to fail.
You can say whatever the hell you want but the paragraphs above are enough for me. Obama has challenged the status quo for his party and politics in general and there's evidence to show it. Is he perfect? No. McCain on the other hand sold out from being a moderate, and its still not good enough for lots of right wingers.
Washington needs to change, it needs to connect with the mainstream again. I think Obama is more mainstream. I dare you to prove me wrong.
Now look at McCain. There are three major pieces of legislation that he co-sponsored with Democrats...which still piss off the Republicans to no end. What does Obama have that's similar?
Mainstream? Pretty sure Obama's position on live-birth abortion isn't mainstream. He has the most liberal voting record of anyone in the Senate. That's certainly not mainstream, either.
McCain's liberal leanings are well-documented. What conservative leanings does Obama have?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
What you're saying is legitimate to bring up.FEOS wrote:
When has Obama challenged the status quo for his party? On what issues does he differ with the Democrats?
Now look at McCain. There are three major pieces of legislation that he co-sponsored with Democrats...which still piss off the Republicans to no end. What does Obama have that's similar?
Mainstream? Pretty sure Obama's position on live-birth abortion isn't mainstream. He has the most liberal voting record of anyone in the Senate. That's certainly not mainstream, either.
McCain's liberal leanings are well-documented. What conservative leanings does Obama have?
The only thing I will say is that Obama is the only one at least trying to unite America again. He has not called himself a moderate.. sure sometimes he tries to look moderate but that's just politics that everyone plays.
Obama's trying to move on beyond all this "liberals and conservatives" bullshit thats ruined Washington. Partisanship. He says that he will try to bring everyone together to get a consensus and get a plan that everyone can agree with. That's all he's got and I admit he's walking on thin ice. You've got to be the judge of whether or not he means it. I think he does.
McCain, yes, he was a moderate. Maybe you think he still is. But the McCain of today is not the same McCain who ran against Bush in 2000. The fact that McCain won the GOP nomination in 2008 is his biggest strength as well as the parties biggest weakness : If you think the GOP, on the whole, is really changed from the last few years, then okay, you will like McCain. But, if you see things the way I see them, I think the GOP is the same party which was forced into picking the most moderate person possible, because they know they're in trouble. On the outside, the GOP may look different, but if you look inside, its same old, same old. Of course, you may say the same about Obama, but the fact that his race against Hillary (and that he's still slightly limping away from it) was so fucking close says otherwise.
McCain sold out to his party, Obama hijacked his party and turned it around to a new direction. Thats what it comes down to, for me anyway, and thats all I have for saying why Obama is really better than McCain. Fuck the labels and the "culture war" crap that the last two elections have been about.
ok I'm done editing now.... be sure to get all of it, I keep adding stuff in the middle and all over the place, trying to cover my flanks.
Last edited by Spearhead (2008-09-19 18:10:27)
you didnt look very hardFEOS wrote:
No data was available for those years, but it has been at least the statutory minimum (normally more) each year.God Save the Queen wrote:
so what was 2006 and 2007 and 2008?My bad. FY2001 started on 1 Oct 2000, so it would've been a Clinton year. Doesn't change what he requested in the 90's.GStQ wrote:
how can 2000 be a bush year?That's why I highlighted the Administration's request in each case. Takes Congress out of it.GStQ wrote:
who ran congress?
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl … =1960,2003
I was going off the official numbers. Regardless, if you look at the Clinton administration's proposals (particularly the early years) and the Bush administration's proposals, only one of them actually tried to freeze COL increases...and it wasn't Bush. Say what you want about the man, but his administration has done far more good for military members' benefits than his predecessor.God Save the Queen wrote:
you didnt look very hardFEOS wrote:
No data was available for those years, but it has been at least the statutory minimum (normally more) each year.God Save the Queen wrote:
so what was 2006 and 2007 and 2008?My bad. FY2001 started on 1 Oct 2000, so it would've been a Clinton year. Doesn't change what he requested in the 90's.GStQ wrote:
how can 2000 be a bush year?That's why I highlighted the Administration's request in each case. Takes Congress out of it.GStQ wrote:
who ran congress?
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl … =1960,2003
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular