Why Do Democrats Dislike the Military? Maybe because so few of them ever served. Currently, there are 101 members of Congress, (81 Representatives and 20 Senators ) who are vets. Of...

Loki Loc: Georgia

Maybe because so few of them ever served. Currently, there are 101 members of Congress, (81 Representatives and 20 Senators ) who are vets. Of these, 22 Congressmen and 6 Senators are Democrats. Thank you for your service anyway.

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

Loki wrote:

Maybe because so few of them ever served. Currently, there are 101 members of Congress, (81 Representatives and 20 Senators ) who are vets. Of these, 22 Congressmen and 6 Senators are Democrats. Thank you for your service anyway.

I don't get the idea that Democrats as a party dislike the military.
What I think many do dislike is the way the nearly $6 billion of military spending overshadows all other discretionary spending.

Rivers

PaulPisces wrote:

I don't get the idea that Democrats as a party dislike the military.
What I think many do dislike is the way the nearly $6 billion of military spending overshadows all other discretionary spending.

The Democrats have always disliked the military, that is why a conservative when elected to office always has to rebuild it. You only get peace through superior firepower. Obama, and the Democrats have turned the military into one big social experiment, which is in poor shape right now. Thank God Hitlery didn't get elected, or it would even be worse.

The military takes up around 15-16% of the national budget, one sixth. Entitlements take up almost two thirds (a little over 60%)! Interest on the debt takes up another 5%.

Loki Loc: Georgia

PaulPisces wrote:

I don't get the idea that Democrats as a party dislike the military.
What I think many do dislike is the way the nearly $6 billion of military spending overshadows all other discretionary spending.

The military is a far smaller percentage of total spending. No offense Paul, but maybe you think the next time we are attacked, we should send out troops armed with slingshots and spitballs to show the aggressors we don't take that crap. We spend 6 billion on the military and over 100 billion on wetbacks. I know you do not like the term. OK, illegal aliens. Extranjeros ilegales. A family of illegals is entitled to more government aid than a military family. There is something basically wrong with this.

solarkin

Loki wrote:

Maybe because so few of them ever served. Currently, there are 101 members of Congress, (81 Representatives and 20 Senators ) who are vets. Of these, 22 Congressmen and 6 Senators are Democrats. Thank you for your service anyway.

Well, perhaps they are just Communist Moles.
Ok not perhaps.
Sociopsychological media has lost the battle with common sense.
Too much blood in this soil to change Any True Americans Heart .
Mistakes, and sorrows included.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

PaulPisces wrote:

I don't get the idea that Democrats as a party dislike the military.
What I think many do dislike is the way the nearly $6 billion of military spending overshadows all other discretionary spending.

Paul, did you fail too see that there was $1.1 trillion in discretionary spending in 2015 and only $6 billion for the military? I think you failed to see what your pie chart said.

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

oldroy wrote:

Paul, did you fail too see that there was $1.1 trillion in discretionary spending in 2015 and only $6 billion for the military? I think you failed to see what your pie chart said.

Thanks for calling that out, Roy. I have been bamboozled by a misleading pie chart!
I will be more mindful going forward!

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

PaulPisces wrote:

Thanks for calling that out, Roy. I have been bamboozled by a misleading pie chart!
I will be more mindful going forward!

I don't have the ability to vet the facts, but Politifact indicates this chart is more representative of Federal spending, including both discretionary and non-discretionary. Just sharing what I've found, but thanking Roy again for his call to do more careful research before posting.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

PaulPisces wrote:

I don't have the ability to vet the facts, but Politifact indicates this chart is more representative of Federal spending, including both discretionary and non-discretionary. Just sharing what I've found, but thanking Roy again for his call to do more careful research before posting.

Darn it Paul I hated to do that to you but you did get a much better chart, anyway. Thanks for not being one of those libs who just won't talk when you feel you are being picked on. I really didn't want to call your attention to your mistake but others were beginning to do not it.

1969skoops

I have never understood having spent 21 years of my life in the military, how anyone from the top brass down can be a demarcate and at the same time be looked down upon by that same party?

.308 Remington S. R. Loc: Texas

A FAILED social experiment...as a vet, 1965 to 1971, I was not required to share a shelter half or fox hole with a faggot or a tranny or a female. I didn't ask for nor do I know anybody who asked for a sex change. We didn't send military secrets to foreign countries. We tried to stay alive and make sure our buddies stayed alive. We lived and died for our country, we respect the flag. A wise Drill Instructor told me, "in a war, if we kill more of them we win...if they kill more of us they win." What happened? The U S has not won a war since WWII. This country needs to get it's collective head out of it's A$$ and regain the military status once held prior to and during WWII. Just sayin'