A little help with $87 billion funding vote

[jamesinca]

I have found myself tangled up in an argument bout Kerry's vote on the $87 billion that was for the war in Iraq. The Republicans are saying it is one of his flip flops and that is why he is not strong on national security because he voted against it.

I am under the impression that he voted against it because there was a lack of oversight on the funds. Now we are seeing that $8.6 billion or so (44% of the Halliburton money ) is missing. Can anybody give me a link to what he voted on and why? The "why" is the important part of the argument I think.

I am also hearing that Bush refused the original funding because it called for a roll back of his tax cuts so he ran it through again. Is this true?

[Ducks In A Row]

1. He wanted to pay for it by taking back the rich folk tax cuts...

and Kerry wanted increase for vet health (which bush threatened to vote the bill over).

[gratuitous]

2. The $87 billion was going to be authorized anyway

The Democratic version of the bill would have been fiscally responsible, requiring that the supplemental expenditure (that is, outside the budget) be paid for by cancelling tax cuts for the overrich. President Bush publicly stated that he would veto any appropriation that was fiscally responsible.

Instead, the Republicans ran a bill through Congress that appropriated the $87 billion by getting the money from our good friends in China. And we all know how much the Chinese love the United States and can be fully trusted never to take unfair advantage of their superior economic position. John Kerry, who understands the Chinese and their tactics in a way that George W. Bush never can, voted against a bill that would have further indentured the United States to them.

Try that on your adversaries for size.

[DoBotherMe]

3. Only $16 billion of the $87 billion has been spent

and $8 billion of that is missing. And I don't think the troops have their personal protection equipment as yet. It's a total cluster fuck!

[liveoaktx]

4. Here's a little long-winded clip I did for myself

to explain the 87 billion. It was NOT a flip flop.

87 billion

[lapfog_1]

5. Here is my reply on this previously

"Kerry voted FOR the 87 Billion, when YOU REPUBLICANS were going
to PAY for your war, and he voted AGAINST the 87 Billion when
it was going to be paid by OUR CHILDREN! Guess who is now paying
for it?"

Also helps to point out that Bush flip flopped on the EXACT same
bill. First "voting" against it, before "voting" for it (he
threatened to veto the first one, and then signed the second).

[K-W]

6. You've basically got it. Heres the deal.

He supported providing the 87 billion by reducing the tax cuts on the very wealthy. When the final bill came up, it called for borrowing the money and adding onto the debt, so he voted against it.

At no point did he ever flip flop. He always supported funding the troops fully by using tax money. Asking the very wealthy to sacrifice a little to fund the troops. He never supported borrowing it, and thus voted against it when it called for borrowing the money.

So no flip flop. As far as being weak on national security heres your best argument (very oversimplified of course): Kerry and Bush both wanted to provide the troops with the 87 billion, it costs money to keep our troops safe and supplied. Bush chose to borrow that money, thus increasing our debt and economically damaging the country. Kerry would have funded the military with tax money by asking only the very wealthy to sacrifice some of thier tax cut.

The only difference between Bush and Kerry on this issue is whether or not we should fund our military through taxes or through borrowing money while we are already massively in debt. Which is better for our long term national security?

[jamesinca]

7. Thanks

That helped, gave me some things to consider and to look up. Keep up the good fight.