PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Republicans love veterans


Mr. Laz
09-20-2012, 11:03 AM
Senate Republicans Kill Veterans’ Jobs Bill (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/09/19/875351/republicans-kill-vets-job-bill/)

By Ben Armbruster (http://thinkprogress.org/author/ben/) on Sep 19, 2012 at 1:42 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Honor-veterans-by-helping-legit-charities-0VIJAKQ-x-large.jpg (http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Honor-veterans-by-helping-legit-charities-0VIJAKQ-x-large.jpg)(Photo: Getty)

Senate Republicans prevented (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/250391-gop-kills-veterans-jobs-bill-with-budget-vote) a veterans’ jobs bill from coming to a vote today by forcing a budget point of order vote. Democrats came up 2 votes short of the 60 needed to defeat the GOP’s budget measure.The Veterans Jobs Corps bill — which is part of President Obama’s push (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/02/03/418833/obama-jobs-veterens/) to secure jobs (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/04/12/463609/michelle-obama-joining-forces-colbert/) for veterans — would have provided (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-veterans-jobs-corps-senate-obama-20120911,0,6773181.story) $1 billion over five years to hire 20,000 young veterans for public lands jobs and prioritize vets for first responder jobs such as police, firefighter, or EMT. The measure would have also provided young vets access to the infrastructure with which to assist in job searches, such as access to computers, internet and career services advisers.

The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, a vets group that supported the legislation,called the GOP move (https://twitter.com/iava/status/248461535725355008) “a huge disappointment,” adding, “Today, politics won over helping vets.”

While only five Republicans voted with the Democrats to waive the GOP budget point of order measure, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) led the GOP opposition. “When we find ourselves in $16 trillion of debt and we pay for a five-year bill over 10 years, we make the problem worse,” he said.

However, Veterans Jobs Corps bill co-sponsor Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) said on the Senate floor today that “this bill is fully paid for and does not violate pay-go rules.” (The New York Times said (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/republicans-vs-veterans-jobs.html) Murray’s aides say “say the program will be paid for by recovering more money from tax-delinquent Medicare providers and forcing big tax deadbeats to pay up before receiving passports.”)

Murray even tried to include (http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/who-could-oppose-a-jobs-bill-for-veterans/) most of the provisions of a competing Republican bill but Democrats still ran into opposition. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said he would block the measure until the Pakistani doctor that aided the CIA in looking for Osama bin Laden was freed, while Coburn claimed the bill would have no chance of passing the House so it wasn’t worth the effort.

“I’ve been surprised at the many obstacles and weird arguments that have been thrown at us,” Murray told (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/vets-jobs-bill-mired-in-hill-squabble/2012/09/18/874937a0-0109-11e2-b257-e1c2b3548a4a_story.html) the Washington Post.

The jobless rate for Iraq and Afghanistan war vets, while steadily declining, is still higher than the national average, yet congressional Republicans remain “resolute (http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/who-could-oppose-a-jobs-bill-for-veterans/) in their commitment to deny the Democrats anything that looks like an accomplishment in an election year.”

In an editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/republicans-vs-veterans-jobs.html) last weekend referring to today’s vote, the New York Times said, “We’ll know then whether good sense prevailed, or the wheels have come completely off the Congressional machine.” It looks like the Republicans have made sure of the latter.

BucEyedPea
09-20-2012, 11:04 AM
I don't see them dismantling all the other Veterans aid that are provided.

Providing jobs is a bit too much. Don't you think?
I mean did WWII veterans get jobs via govt?

FishingRod
09-20-2012, 11:13 AM
My natural inclination is to be ticked off because I believe our veterans deserve our help, respect and a hand up in transitioning from the military to the private sector but I need to know some answers before I formulate an opinion.

What are the Jobs?

How Long do they Last?

Do the Jobs actually need to be done?

Will these Jobs help in training our vets to re-enter the private sector?

What other pork is riding on the back of the bill?

And of Course where does the Billion come from?

If the answer to the last question is from the Salaries of our congressmen and senators I really don’t need the others answered.

patteeu
09-20-2012, 11:15 AM
Do you understand that one of the most pressing problems facing our country is one caused by spending beyond our means? How does passing any legislation that creates in 5 years what has to be paid for over 10 years going to help us with that problem? This is just another example of democrats putting electoral politics ahead of fixing the problems of the country and of Republicans being the responsible grownups in the room.

alpha_omega
09-20-2012, 11:42 AM
Aside from all this...why haven't we helped the Pakistani Doc that helped us find OBL?

Brock
09-20-2012, 11:46 AM
My natural inclination is to be ticked off because I believe our veterans deserve our help, respect and a hand up in transitioning from the military to the private sector but I need to know some answers before I formulate an opinion.

What are the Jobs?

How Long do they Last?

Do the Jobs actually need to be done?

Will these Jobs help in training our vets to re-enter the private sector?

What other pork is riding on the back of the bill?

And of Course where does the Billion come from?

If the answer to the last question is from the Salaries of our congressmen and senators I really don’t need the others answered.

— would have provided $1 billion over five years to hire 20,000 young veterans for public lands jobs and prioritize vets for first responder jobs such as police, firefighter, or EMT.

FishingRod
09-20-2012, 11:48 AM
The costs would be covered by imposing a levy on Medicare suppliers and providers who are delinquent on their taxes, and repealing funds for a deep-water natural gas research and development program.

AndChiefs
09-20-2012, 11:48 AM
Anytime I see Patty Murray as lead sponsor on a bill I know that it should not be passed.

DementedLogic
09-20-2012, 11:52 AM
My natural inclination is to be ticked off because I believe our veterans deserve our help, respect and a hand up in transitioning from the military to the private sector but I need to know some answers before I formulate an opinion.

What are the Jobs?

How Long do they Last?

Do the Jobs actually need to be done?

Will these Jobs help in training our vets to re-enter the private sector?

What other pork is riding on the back of the bill?

And of Course where does the Billion come from?

If the answer to the last question is from the Salaries of our congressmen and senators I really don’t need the others answered.

Rand Paul had a great idea for how to pay for it.

TMmYGkEtsrc

FishingRod
09-20-2012, 12:02 PM
— would have provided $1 billion over five years to hire 20,000 young veterans for public lands jobs and prioritize vets for first responder jobs such as police, firefighter, or EMT.

I thought Veterans were “prioritized” for pretty much all Government jobs already. I know they are for Police, Air Traffic Controllers Postal workers. I would assume they are for fire fighters and EMTs.

Deberg_1990
09-20-2012, 12:05 PM
I thought Veterans were “prioritized” for pretty much all Government jobs already.

They are. even more so if your a disabled vet.

DementedLogic
09-20-2012, 12:05 PM
I thought Veterans were “prioritized” for pretty much all Government jobs already. I know they are for Police, Air Traffic Controllers Postal workers. I would assume they are for fire fighters and EMTs.

Yes, veterans do get priority for gubmint jobs.

BIG_DADDY
09-20-2012, 12:07 PM
Yea, our military guys just love Obama/Dems.

Cave Johnson
09-20-2012, 01:11 PM
Yea, our military guys just love Obama/Dems.

Retired ones, not so much. But active military is more pro-Democrat than you think.

Two pointless wars will do that.

DementedLogic
09-20-2012, 05:29 PM
Retired ones, not so much. But active military is more pro-Democrat than you think.

Two pointless wars will do that.

Seeing as I was in the military less than 2 years ago, I can say you are dead wrong on that.

BucEyedPea
09-20-2012, 06:08 PM
Seeing as I was in the military less than 2 years ago, I can say you are dead wrong on that.

I'd say your right about that as well.

cosmo20002
09-20-2012, 09:24 PM
Senate Republicans prevented a veterans’ jobs bill from coming to a vote today by forcing a budget point of order vote. Democrats came up 2 votes short of the 60 needed to defeat the GOP’s budget measure.



58 in favor, 40 against = Against wins! :facepalm:

BigRedChief
09-20-2012, 09:27 PM
58 in favor, 40 against = Against wins! :facepalm:We use to just have a majority vote in the Senate. The side that gets the majority of votes wins on the issue. Now you have to have 60 votes to help veterans.

Help people who put their life on the line for this country. Help them integrate back into our society and get their life back on track. The Republicans said fuck that and fuck those vets, we are going to fillibuster.

cosmo20002
09-20-2012, 09:32 PM
We use to just have a majority vote in the Senate. The side that gets the majority of votes wins on the issue. Now you have to have 60 votes to help veterans.

Help people who put their life on the line for this country. Help them integrate back into our society and get their life back on track. The Republicans said **** that and **** those vets, we are going to fillibuster.

Unless the issue has been the naming of a post office, they have pretty much filibustered it the last 4 years.

suzzer99
09-20-2012, 09:47 PM
Do you understand that one of the most pressing problems facing our country is one caused by spending beyond our means? How does passing any legislation that creates in 5 years what has to be paid for over 10 years going to help us with that problem? This is just another example of democrats putting electoral politics ahead of fixing the problems of the country and of Republicans being the responsible grownups in the room.

$800B unfunded war based on false pretenses? No problem. But $1B to help find those veterans jobs when they come back? Forget it.

Today's Republican Party ladies and gentlemen.

RaiderH8r
09-20-2012, 10:41 PM
How about Senate Dems pass any one of the dozens of jobs bills passed by the House designed to provide work for all Americans struggling under the yoke of Obama's neo-socialist economic agenda? How about they do that instead of thinly veiled political pandering and hiding behind vets as a pretend friend to humanity bullshit they like to pull? Ok? OK.

La literatura
09-20-2012, 10:48 PM
Do you understand that one of the most pressing problems facing our country is one caused by spending beyond our means? How does passing any legislation that creates in 5 years what has to be paid for over 10 years going to help us with that problem? This is just another example of democrats putting electoral politics ahead of fixing the problems of the country and of Republicans being the responsible grownups in the room.

I guess any bill that Obama can sign is a bad bill to Republicans. That's too bad, especially with veteran unemployment much higher than average unemployment.

La literatura
09-20-2012, 10:50 PM
How about Senate Dems pass any one of the dozens of jobs bills passed by the House designed to provide work for all Americans struggling under the yoke of Obama's neo-socialist economic agenda? How about they do that instead of thinly veiled political pandering and hiding behind vets as a pretend friend to humanity bullshit they like to pull? Ok? OK.

Yeah, like the Jumpstart our Business Startups Act. Dammit Obama!

J Diddy
09-20-2012, 11:51 PM
Do you understand that one of the most pressing problems facing our country is one caused by spending beyond our means? How does passing any legislation that creates in 5 years what has to be paid for over 10 years going to help us with that problem? This is just another example of democrats putting electoral politics ahead of fixing the problems of the country and of Republicans being the responsible grownups in the room.

Bullshit. There was a plan put forth to pay for this bill. A large problem (at least it's the largest talking point of GOP) is lack of jobs. Returning vets have an 11% unemployment rate, which is higher than the rest.

This shows nothing more than the GOP's unwillingness to work along side democrats. Point proven in the part about Rand Paul. For fucks sakes what does the return of the Bin Laden doctor have anything to do with this?

J Diddy
09-20-2012, 11:53 PM
$800B unfunded war based on false pretenses? No problem. But $1B to help find those veterans jobs when they come back? Forget it.

Today's Republican Party ladies and gentlemen.

somebody just watched the daily show

J Diddy
09-20-2012, 11:54 PM
Yea, our military guys just love Obama/Dems.

Yeah well this just helped that problem.

J Diddy
09-20-2012, 11:57 PM
Aside from all this...why haven't we helped the Pakistani Doc that helped us find OBL?

and I totally agree with this. That being said, it's totally unrelated to the topic on hand.

patteeu
09-21-2012, 08:29 AM
We use to just have a majority vote in the Senate. The side that gets the majority of votes wins on the issue. Now you have to have 60 votes to help veterans.

Help people who put their life on the line for this country. Help them integrate back into our society and get their life back on track. The Republicans said **** that and **** those vets, we are going to fillibuster.

We should give all veterans a brand new 4 bedroom house with a swimming pool, a Lexus, a private plane and a pension of $500K per year because we love the troops. Why were democrats so cheap with their attempted handout?

patteeu
09-21-2012, 08:33 AM
I guess any bill that Obama can sign is a bad bill to Republicans. That's too bad, especially with veteran unemployment much higher than average unemployment.

We don't have a money tree growing in the rotunda of the Capital Building. Is there any point at which you'll decide enough is enough? Veterans aren't the only group with a higher than average unemployment rate. It's about time we elect someone who can bring the rate down for everyone instead of using it to divide us.

patteeu
09-21-2012, 08:34 AM
Bullshit. There was a plan put forth to pay for this bill. A large problem (at least it's the largest talking point of GOP) is lack of jobs. Returning vets have an 11% unemployment rate, which is higher than the rest.

This shows nothing more than the GOP's unwillingness to work along side democrats. Point proven in the part about Rand Paul. For ****s sakes what does the return of the Bin Laden doctor have anything to do with this?

You'll believe anything. You make a perfect democrat drone.

FishingRod
09-21-2012, 08:35 AM
$800B unfunded war based on false pretenses? No problem. But $1B to help find those veterans jobs when they come back? Forget it.

Today's Republican Party ladies and gentlemen.

I was wondering... When was our last funded war?

DJ's left nut
09-21-2012, 08:51 AM
— would have provided $1 billion over five years to hire 20,000 young veterans for public lands jobs and prioritize vets for first responder jobs such as police, firefighter, or EMT.

Why do we need to spend $1 billion to convince police departments and firefighters to trained highly trained personnel that are used to structured, disciplined environments?

Being former military is already a huge edge in first responder jobs. If you aren't able to get that job without some form of government aid, you're probably a really lousy applicant.

We don't have any money. We're !@#$ing broke. This is a stupid use of funds to shepherd people into jobs that they either 1) Are already likely to get or 2) Simply weren't qualified for.

Sorry, but this isn't a politics problem, it's a simple budget problem. This is one of those 'nice' programs that you'd love to put into place if we had a money tree growing out back. We don't. And in the end there are far more critical uses for those funds.

DJ's left nut
09-21-2012, 08:54 AM
Bullshit. There was a plan put forth to pay for this bill. A large problem (at least it's the largest talking point of GOP) is lack of jobs. Returning vets have an 11% unemployment rate, which is higher than the rest.

This shows nothing more than the GOP's unwillingness to work along side democrats. Point proven in the part about Rand Paul. For fucks sakes what does the return of the Bin Laden doctor have anything to do with this?

Returning vets have an 11% unemployment rate because they're actively seeking jobs. That 11% is actually pretty decent when you consider that they're all generally young men/women that are motivated and therefore remaining active in the workforce.

The only reason that's higher than the 'stated' unemployment rate is because the stated unemployment rate doesn't include the lazy assholes that aren't trying and have 'abandoned' the workforce. The 'real' unemployment rate is significantly higher among the general populace than 11% (anywhere from 12-19% depending on the source).

This is purely politically motivated and will do very very little to actually solve any problems.

philfree
09-21-2012, 09:06 AM
Why do we need a bill to get these guys jobs working on public lands? If there are jobs available there then tell them where to sign up. Of course those jobs are paid for with tax dollars of one form or another so it's just more government spending.:shrug: I don't know....

vailpass
09-21-2012, 09:13 AM
Unless the issue has been the naming of a post office, they have pretty much filibustered it the last 4 years.

And will for 4 more if obama wins.
Least effective, most reviled Potus ever.

J Diddy
09-21-2012, 09:19 AM
You'll believe anything. You make a perfect democrat drone.

Hi pot, meet kettle.

I have absolutely, positively, never heard you go against anything that doesn't fit with the GOP. This is all fine and dandy, however, don't come at me like you're middle of road and that's what I do (and I very well may), because that is the perfect definition of you.

J Diddy
09-21-2012, 09:21 AM
Why do we need to spend $1 billion to convince police departments and firefighters to trained highly trained personnel that are used to structured, disciplined environments?

Being former military is already a huge edge in first responder jobs. If you aren't able to get that job without some form of government aid, you're probably a really lousy applicant.

We don't have any money. We're !@#$ing broke. This is a stupid use of funds to shepherd people into jobs that they either 1) Are already likely to get or 2) Simply weren't qualified for.

Sorry, but this isn't a politics problem, it's a simple budget problem. This is one of those 'nice' programs that you'd love to put into place if we had a money tree growing out back. We don't. And in the end there are far more critical uses for those funds.

Sounds like what we need to do is to get some jobs going and collect some taxes.

J Diddy
09-21-2012, 09:25 AM
And will for 4 more if obama wins.
Least effective, most reviled Potus ever.

Obviously he's not ineffective. Being ineffective would mean he affected nothing. He's done plenty and the majority of which he campaigned on. The problem is he's too effective, which is great if you believe in what he's doing and horrible if you don't.

vailpass
09-21-2012, 09:26 AM
Obviously he's not ineffective. Being ineffective would mean he affected nothing. He's done plenty and the majority of which he campaigned on. The problem is he's too effective, which is great if you believe in what he's doing and horrible if you don't.

Not obvious at all. He failed to get much of anything done even when he had the majority.

That's the first time I've heard someone say that he's accomplished most of what he campaigned on. Such as? Enlighten me if you would please?

Bump
09-21-2012, 09:28 AM
stupid entitled soldiers.

/cp

La literatura
09-21-2012, 09:34 AM
We don't have a money tree growing in the rotunda of the Capital Building. Is there any point at which you'll decide enough is enough? Veterans aren't the only group with a higher than average unemployment rate. It's about time we elect someone who can bring the rate down for everyone instead of using it to divide us.

Veterans are an important group. Veterans are more susceptible to falling into depression, drug dependency, and homelessness as a result of multiple factors, especially lack of civilian direction and purpose when they return from overseas. It's not enough to allow them to go to the VA for their problems. It's important to help prevent these problems.

J Diddy
09-21-2012, 09:42 AM
Not obvious at all. He failed to get much of anything done even when he had the majority.

That's the first time I've heard someone say that he's accomplished most of what he campaigned on. Such as? Enlighten me if you would please?

Here's a link tracking them.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/obamas-promises/

patteeu
09-21-2012, 10:02 AM
Hi pot, meet kettle.

I have absolutely, positively, never heard you go against anything that doesn't fit with the GOP. This is all fine and dandy, however, don't come at me like you're middle of road and that's what I do (and I very well may), because that is the perfect definition of you.

Just to be clear, I've never claimed to be middle-of-the-road. I'm coming at you like you're blindly following the pied piper without any sense that you've been completely hoodwinked.

Brock
09-21-2012, 10:03 AM
Not obvious at all. He failed to get much of anything done even when he had the majority.

That's the first time I've heard someone say that he's accomplished most of what he campaigned on. Such as? Enlighten me if you would please?

You haven't read any of the 100 BRC threads on that subject?

patteeu
09-21-2012, 10:07 AM
Veterans are an important group. Veterans are more susceptible to falling into depression, drug dependency, and homelessness as a result of multiple factors, especially lack of civilian direction and purpose when they return from overseas. It's not enough to allow them to go to the VA for their problems. It's important to help prevent these problems.

Veterans already have special benefits, including preferential treatment when it comes to many jobs, by virtue of the important job that they've done for our country. That doesn't mean that every idea of how to give them even more is a good one. There isn't a single veteran who signed up for the military under the impression that they would be entitled to the benefits being contemplated by this legislation. At some point, bean counters need to have their voices heard over the wailing of politically-motivated demagogues with stories of higher rates of depression and homelessness (not you, but the people you're hearing this from).

Saul Good
09-21-2012, 10:10 AM
You haven't read any of the 100 BRC threads on that subject?

Cliff's notes:

1) Obama is great

2) BRC makes a lot of money

3) BRC could make even more money, but he generously chooses to work at a discount in order to be of service to his fellow Americans

La literatura
09-21-2012, 10:18 AM
Veterans already have special benefits, including preferential treatment when it comes to many jobs, by virtue of the important job that they've done for our country.

Yet there is still high unemployment, and it could have been reduced.

patteeu
09-21-2012, 10:21 AM
Yet there is still high unemployment, and it could have been reduced.

If we just hire them all to twiddle their thumbs doing something completely unproductive in some federal building somewhere, unemployment can be reduced. But at what expense? It's way past time to start thinking in terms of cost and benefit instead of benefit alone.

vailpass
09-21-2012, 12:35 PM
Here's a link tracking them.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/obamas-promises/

Rather than websites or chain e-mails I was hoping you would answer for yourself, with specific accomplishments you consider noteworthy. As many times as I have asked this question of obama supporters I have yet to get that kind of direct, ready response.

When you have to research on the internet in order to come up with what a Potus has accomplished in 4 years that is, in itself, an answer.

vailpass
09-21-2012, 12:38 PM
Yet there is still high unemployment, and it could have been reduced.

Contrary to what obama believes we can't throw money a billion dollars at a time at everything we perceive as a need or a problem. We need to consider alternative methods of resolution or we'll never right our fiscal ship.

suzzer99
09-21-2012, 06:04 PM
http://notsoexpertopinion.wordpress.com/tag/veterans-job-corp-act/

Four Republican Senators, John Boozman (Arkansas), Mike Johanns (Nebraska), Richard Burr (North Carolina), and Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania) helped to write the Veterans Job Corp Act (S.3457), and promptly voted against it. Read that again. They helped to write the bill, then voted against it. How’s that now?

Republicans turning on their own ideas again to eliminate the possibility of Obama getting to sign anything resembling a popular bill in an election cycle. Yawn.

Just keep carrying that water for these guys who nobody's interest at heart but the wealthy.

BigRedChief
09-21-2012, 06:11 PM
Cliff's notes:

1) Obama is great

2) BRC makes a lot of money

3) BRC could make even more money, but he generously chooses to work at a discount in order to be of service to his fellow AmericansYou and Brock are like a broken record the same shit over and over. You should get a life. It's really pathic.

J Diddy
09-21-2012, 06:45 PM
Just to be clear, I've never claimed to be middle-of-the-road. I'm coming at you like you're blindly following the pied piper without any sense that you've been completely hoodwinked.

Like you, I suppose.

Dallas Chief
09-21-2012, 07:55 PM
You and Brock are like a broken record the same shit over and over. You should get a life. It's really pathic.

Pot meet hypocritical kettle.

BigRedChief
09-21-2012, 08:10 PM
Pot meet hypocritical kettle.BS. Which poster am I constantly following around and being an asshole to?

LiveSteam
09-21-2012, 08:13 PM
BS. Which poster am I constantly following around and being an asshole to?

I think he means this (broken record) I agree.
















Oh & love the sig. Are you black & brainwashed ?

BigRedChief
09-21-2012, 10:01 PM
Veterans already have special benefits, including preferential treatment when it comes to many jobs, by virtue of the important job that they've done for our country. That doesn't mean that every idea of how to give them even more is a good one. There isn't a single veteran who signed up for the military under the impression that they would be entitled to the benefits being contemplated by this legislation. At some point, bean counters need to have their voices heard over the wailing of politically-motivated demagogues with stories of higher rates of depression and homelessness (not you, but the people you're hearing this from).The bill was paid for. No additional spending. But nice try to now care about fiscal issues. Good place to start............ throw vets under the bus. not talking to you but others that are hearing this stuff

Dallas Chief
09-21-2012, 11:23 PM
BS. Which poster am I constantly following around and being an asshole to?

Looks like me now. :D

Dallas Chief
09-22-2012, 11:34 AM
BS. Which poster am I constantly following around and being an asshole to?

You are correct, I have been an asshole to you for no reason other than the fact that I disagree with your politics. What makes it worse is you seem like a genuine and great person. My apologies.

patteeu
09-23-2012, 07:51 AM
The bill was paid for. No additional spending. But nice try to now care about fiscal issues. Good place to start............ throw vets under the bus. not talking to you but others that are hearing this stuff

We only have so much revenue to spend before we have to borrow. Saying that an unnecessary bill is paid for is nice, but it's not really true unless (a) we've already paid for the necessary things (see sequestration cuts that Leon Panetta calls "disasterous", for example) AND (b) we are no longer borrowing money to fund a deficit.

Comrade Crapski
09-23-2012, 07:56 AM
More central planning! Yes!

:drool:

BigRedChief
09-23-2012, 08:42 AM
We only have so much revenue to spend before we have to borrow. Saying that an unnecessary bill is paid for is nice, but it's not really true unless (a) we've already paid for the necessary things (see sequestration cuts that Leon Panetta calls "disasterous", for example) AND (b) we are no longer borrowing money to fund a deficit.Sooooo I see a goalpost change coming. if its only paid for by stuff you want whacked will you support our veterans?

Comrade Crapski
09-23-2012, 08:44 AM
Sooooo I see a goalpost change coming. if its only paid for by stuff you want whacked will you support our veterans?

Just stop.

This program just like all the other jobs programs won't help anyone. Not vets, not anyone.

It'll just be yet another billion dollars of taxpayer money flushed down the toilet.

Comrade Crapski
09-23-2012, 08:49 AM
Retired ones, not so much. But active military is more pro-Democrat than you think.

Two pointless wars will do that.

Yeah because Viet Nam was so frickin' awesome.

:drool:

BigRedChief
09-23-2012, 08:49 AM
Just stop.

This program just like all the other jobs programs won't help anyone. Not vets, not anyone.

It'll just be yet another billion dollars of taxpayer money flushed down the toilet.Then why did every Veterans group support this bill?

Comrade Crapski
09-23-2012, 08:52 AM
Then why did every Veterans group support this bill?

What groups are you talking about?

BigRedChief
09-23-2012, 09:00 AM
What groups are you talking about?How about the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans group?

IAVA's statement on the Senate's failure to pass critical jobs legislation
<small>Posted by Paul Rieckhoff (http://iava.org/user/23) on September 20 (http://iava.org/blog/all/201209)</small>

http://iava.org/files/imagecache/blog_teaser_with_bg/files/images/fathi20111202055209747.jpeg
IAVA released the following statement in response to the Senate’s failure to pass the Veterans Job Corps Act (VJC) – which would help put thousands of young veterans back to work. With Congress now shutting down to campaign, no employment legislation will pass until after the election. And with the unemployment rate officially at 10.9%, veterans across the country are left treading water while Congress blocks legislation with procedural tricks.

“This Congress let partisan bickering stand in the way of putting thousands of America’s heroes back to work. Lowering veteran unemployment is something both parties should be able to agree on – even in an election year,” said IAVA Founder and Chief Executive Officer Paul Rieckhoff. “Election politics should never stand in the way of creating job opportunities for our nation’s veterans, especially with an official 10.9% unemployment rate. We hope constituents, veterans and their families across the country will hold the Senate accountable for this failure.”

“The blockage of the Veterans Job Corps Act, a bipartisan effort authored by Senators Murray, Burr, Boozman, Heller and Toomey, should outrage all Americans. This bill was smart bipartisan policy that would put veterans back into service for their communities as policemen, firefighters and first responders. The result of today’s vote creates tremendous doubt that this Congress will be able to pass any additional veterans legislation in 2012. Iraq and Afghanistan veterans should not have to wait until 2013 for critical support from Congress.”

In addition to creating jobs for veterans as police officers, firefighters, first responders, and restorative conservationists, the Veterans Job Corps Act would have also extended the critical Transition Assistance Program (TAP). TAP provides employment, education and entrepreneurship advice for troops separating from the service, and to veterans and their spouses after they’ve left the military. The VJC would also require states to consider military training and experience in granting credentials and licensure for EMTs, nursing assistants and commercial driver’s licenses.

Click here (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00193) for the full vote roll call.

patteeu
09-23-2012, 09:11 AM
Sooooo I see a goalpost change coming. if its only paid for by stuff you want whacked will you support our veterans?

I'm not moving any goalposts. This bill was about spending money we don't have on a luxury we don't need.

Comrade Crapski
09-23-2012, 09:34 AM
How about the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans group?

IAVA's statement on the Senate's failure to pass critical jobs legislation
<small>Posted by Paul Rieckhoff (http://iava.org/user/23) on September 20 (http://iava.org/blog/all/201209)</small>

http://iava.org/files/imagecache/blog_teaser_with_bg/files/images/fathi20111202055209747.jpeg
IAVA released the following statement in response to the Senate’s failure to pass the Veterans Job Corps Act (VJC) – which would help put thousands of young veterans back to work. With Congress now shutting down to campaign, no employment legislation will pass until after the election. And with the unemployment rate officially at 10.9%, veterans across the country are left treading water while Congress blocks legislation with procedural tricks.

“This Congress let partisan bickering stand in the way of putting thousands of America’s heroes back to work. Lowering veteran unemployment is something both parties should be able to agree on – even in an election year,” said IAVA Founder and Chief Executive Officer Paul Rieckhoff. “Election politics should never stand in the way of creating job opportunities for our nation’s veterans, especially with an official 10.9% unemployment rate. We hope constituents, veterans and their families across the country will hold the Senate accountable for this failure.”

“The blockage of the Veterans Job Corps Act, a bipartisan effort authored by Senators Murray, Burr, Boozman, Heller and Toomey, should outrage all Americans. This bill was smart bipartisan policy that would put veterans back into service for their communities as policemen, firefighters and first responders. The result of today’s vote creates tremendous doubt that this Congress will be able to pass any additional veterans legislation in 2012. Iraq and Afghanistan veterans should not have to wait until 2013 for critical support from Congress.”

In addition to creating jobs for veterans as police officers, firefighters, first responders, and restorative conservationists, the Veterans Job Corps Act would have also extended the critical Transition Assistance Program (TAP). TAP provides employment, education and entrepreneurship advice for troops separating from the service, and to veterans and their spouses after they’ve left the military. The VJC would also require states to consider military training and experience in granting credentials and licensure for EMTs, nursing assistants and commercial driver’s licenses.

Click here (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00193) for the full vote roll call.

You said "every" veterans group and you list one. OK. yeah. and?

Why is that supposed to impress upon me that this jobs bill will do anything more than what I said it would do?

C'mon, this is political agitation and nothing more.

Hey, while we're at it, how about a bill to get everybody employed! Yeah and pay everybody's mortage and pay off everybody's student loans!

Oh, and better yet, let's raise the minimum wage so we can f@ck even more 16 year olds out of their first entry level job.

You want to help veterans? Or anybody else? Tell the ****ing pigs in wash dc to leave us alone, and get their boots off the neck of small businesses.

Thanks.

LiveSteam
09-23-2012, 09:51 AM
You want to help veterans? Or anybody else? Tell the ****ing pigs in wash dc to leave us alone, and get their boots off the neck of small businesses.

Thanks.

:clap:

Baby Lee
09-23-2012, 10:52 AM
Pot meet hypocritical kettle.

Well I guess you just want more of all that crap Bush gave us. How did that work out!!!


http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mabvigMFB81qhi0ft.gif

BucEyedPea
09-23-2012, 10:55 AM
Then why did every Veterans group support this bill?

Collective ignorance. Herd mentality....like lemmings.

Most average Americans don't understand economics or know what form of govt we even have. You see it reflected in polls even. Like when people say the govt spends too much but then they still want their benefits. Or Congress has a low rating but they like their congressman. It's the congressmen of everyone else that is the problem.

Democracies are like this. That's why they don't last largely due to profligate spending.This country is about to go over a cliff. But a war will be started, to take our attention off it. Much like the 1930's.

BigRedChief
09-23-2012, 04:47 PM
I'm not moving any goalposts. This bill was about spending money we don't have on a luxury we don't need.We didnt need to invade Iraq without spending cuts. How much did we spend on the Iraq war?

We didnt need to a new prescription drug benefit without spending cuts did we?

We didnt need trillions of tax cuts weighted heavily to favor the rich without spending cuts, did we?

But, it happened under a republican president. Now the R's want to be fiscal conservative?

patteeu
09-23-2012, 06:17 PM
We didnt need to invade Iraq without spending cuts. How much did we spend on the Iraq war?

We didnt need to a new prescription drug benefit without spending cuts did we?

We didnt need trillions of tax cuts weighted heavily to favor the rich without spending cuts, did we?

But, it happened under a republican president. Now the R's want to be fiscal conservative?

Did anyone let you in on the secret that Bush isn't President anymore? It's time for you democrats to put on your big boy pants and take responsibility for the federal budget that you've controlled for nearly 6 years (in terms of Congress) and nearly 4 years (in terms of the rudderless leadership coming from the WH).

When Bush was President, we didn't have $16 trillion debt or a $1+ trillion deficits for as far as the eye can see. If Bush was a Pop Warner level irresponsible spender, Obama and your democrats are going to end up in Canton. It's disgraceful that so many people continue to support these bums.

BigRedChief
09-23-2012, 07:01 PM
Obama and your democrats are going to end up in Canton.you didn't answer the question and it is relevant.

When Bush was president, you had no issues supporting deficit spending. Now its fuck the vets, we are broke. What is different?

Comrade Crapski
09-23-2012, 10:45 PM
Yeah, let's create another redistribution effort for the important task of planting trees, then when the GOP turns down yet another unnecessary tack on to the deficit, yell "Republicans hate veterans".

JFC people, the country is bankrupt because of stupid shit like this.

Hey wait, I got a great idea:

Why don't we round up homeless vets and pay them $10 bucks an hour to take down all of those ****ing eyesore American Recovery and Reinvestment Act signs. Of course they will need do nothing federal commisar supervisors making $100,000 a year.

What a ****ing joke.

More transparent, predictable BS from clueless pigs in congress, but the public is so stupid (validated right here in this thread) they'll buy it on face value.

Dallas Chief
09-23-2012, 10:47 PM
Well I guess you just want more of all that crap Bush gave us. How did that work out!!!


http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mabvigMFB81qhi0ft.gif

Thanks for your input. I have clearly been an asshole to certain members of CP without provocation and solely due to reasons unrelated to CP. Why am I telling you this? I've no idea...

Dallas Chief
09-23-2012, 10:49 PM
you didn't answer the question and it is relevant.

When Bush was president, you had no issues supporting deficit spending. Now its fuck the vets, we are broke. What is different?

The degree of how broke we are and the amount of the deficit spending? Is that the difference maybe? Idk. Not sure.

J Diddy
09-23-2012, 11:32 PM
The degree of how broke we are and the amount of the deficit spending? Is that the difference maybe? Idk. Not sure.

Or who's asking for it

suzzer99
09-24-2012, 12:22 AM
The degree of how broke we are and the amount of the deficit spending? Is that the difference maybe? Idk. Not sure.

You don't think 2 unfunded wars, giant unfunded tax cuts, TARP, the bailouts and Medicare pt. D were major contributors to the deficit? From the guy who inherited a budget surplus and whose right hand man famously said "deficits don't matter"?

patteeu
09-24-2012, 07:05 AM
you didn't answer the question and it is relevant.

When Bush was president, you had no issues supporting deficit spending. Now its **** the vets, we are broke. What is different?

Your premise is as wrong as your support for the guy who is currently ruining our country. I've repeatedly said that Bush overspent on domestic programs and entitlement expansions. We'll have to agree to disagree about Iraq.

Your question is hypocritical in the extreme given that the Bush deficit spending you complain about is far more modest than the Obama deficit spending you support.

patteeu
09-24-2012, 07:19 AM
You don't think 2 unfunded wars, giant unfunded tax cuts, TARP, the bailouts and Medicare pt. D were major contributors to the deficit? From the guy who inherited a budget surplus and whose right hand man famously said "deficits don't matter"?

Let's compare the size of the Bush deficits with those of Obama, shall we?

BTW, Dick Cheney never said that deficits never matter. Deficits to support temporary spending surges, which are manageable in size, and that fund important spending don't matter. Those, like Obama's, that are perpetual, enormous, and which fund programs of questionable or ephemeral value do.

dirk digler
09-24-2012, 07:38 AM
Your premise is as wrong as your support for the guy who is currently ruining our country. I've repeatedly said that Bush overspent on domestic programs and entitlement expansions. We'll have to agree to disagree about Iraq.


If it was a priority to send our troops into war then it should be a priority to take care of them when they come home regardless of cost.

For small government types like yourself this is EXACTLY what government is supposed to do, national defense and take care of our troops when in combat and when they come home. It is the noble and right thing to do.

patteeu
09-24-2012, 08:15 AM
If it was a priority to send our troops into war then it should be a priority to take care of them when they come home regardless of cost.

We already take care of them.

For small government types like yourself this is EXACTLY what government is supposed to do, national defense and take care of our troops when in combat and when they come home. It is the noble and right thing to do.

We already take care of them.

Gary
09-24-2012, 08:37 AM
Discuss.
http://cjrarchive.org/img/posts/Debt-graph-CBPP.jpeg

patteeu
09-24-2012, 08:58 AM
Discuss.

If the tax cut band was reduced, the economic downturn band would be expanded.

Meanwhile, "recovery measures" (aka "porkulus") and "other debt" (aka "welfare state") make up just as large a portion of the debt as the two mentioned in the headline.

J Diddy
09-24-2012, 09:15 AM
We already take care of them.



We already take care of them.

So your stance is we are doing enough and it's good for them?

Comrade Crapski
09-24-2012, 09:20 AM
We already take care of them.



We already take care of them.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR EVERYBODY!

ROFL

dirk digler
09-24-2012, 09:25 AM
We already take care of them.



I disagree. If we did there would be no need for outside groups like Wounded Warrior

patteeu
09-24-2012, 09:27 AM
So your stance is we are doing enough and it's good for them?

Yes. And for a large number of them, we're doing more than was promised when they joined.

patteeu
09-24-2012, 09:29 AM
I disagree. If we did there would be no need for outside groups like Wounded Warrior

Wounded Warrior has no relationship with this legislation and in any event, we don't need to nationalize every charitable organization. Bigger government isn't the solution to every perceived issue.

dirk digler
09-24-2012, 09:35 AM
Wounded Warrior has no relationship with this legislation and in any event, we don't need to nationalize every charitable organization. Bigger government isn't the solution to every perceived issue.

I didn't say nationalize any charitable organization. If we were doing enough for our veterans there would be no need for them to exist. The job of the government is to take care of our veterans that we send to defend this country.

patteeu
09-24-2012, 09:40 AM
I didn't say nationalize any charitable organization. If we were doing enough for our veterans there would be no need for them to exist. The job of the government is to take care of our veterans that we send to defend this country.

There's no difference between what you're saying and what I said. You want the function that's being performed by a charitable organization to be taken over by the government. Your answer to every problem, whether it's your own healthcare or veteran unemployment rates, is bigger government. Government is too big already.

dirk digler
09-24-2012, 09:51 AM
There's no difference between what you're saying and what I said. You want the function that's being performed by a charitable organization to be taken over by the government. Your answer to every problem, whether it's your own healthcare or veteran unemployment rates, is bigger government. Government is too big already.

In this specific case yes government needs to do this since they were the ones that sent our men and women into combat to get their legs blown off, get brain damage, or get PTSD.

patteeu
09-24-2012, 11:13 AM
In this specific case yes government needs to do this since they were the ones that sent our men and women into combat to get their legs blown off, get brain damage, or get PTSD.

You're so dedicated to bigger government that you come up with new ways to spend money even when they're off-topic.

J Diddy
09-24-2012, 11:22 AM
You're so dedicated to bigger government that you come up with new ways to spend money even when they're off-topic.

Ha, you're spinning in circles.

The topic is supporting our veterans. You said the bill was unnecessary because you claimed we already did enough . His point is that if we did do enough then there would be no need for other groups to be involved. At which point you got off on some rant about getting government involved with every charitable organization(off topic) and his dedication to government spending (off topic).

patteeu
09-24-2012, 11:26 AM
Ha, you're spinning in circles.

The topic is supporting our veterans. You said the bill was unnecessary because you claimed we already did enough . His point is that if we did do enough then there would be no need for other groups to be involved. At which point you got off on some rant about getting government involved with every charitable organization(off topic) and his dedication to government spending (off topic).

Thanks for the recap. I've highlighted the important part of it in blue.

J Diddy
09-24-2012, 11:28 AM
Thanks for the recap. I've highlighted the important part of it in blue.

So now you're going to just repeat saying the same thing over and over again.

I've heard of the chewbacca defense but not the spoiled 5 year old defense.

patteeu
09-24-2012, 11:32 AM
So now you're going to just repeat saying the same thing over and over again.

I've heard of the chewbacca defense but not the spoiled 5 year old defense.

Do you have any fresh arguments about why the GOP should have supported this wasteful spending program or are you going to keep trying to change the subject?

J Diddy
09-24-2012, 11:37 AM
Do you have any fresh arguments about why the GOP should have supported this wasteful spending program or are you going to keep trying to change the subject?
You made the claim that it's unnecessary. That's the premise for your argument. I disagree with that.
I'm still waiting for the answer to Dirk's question. Which is why are other groups necessary if we are doing enough already?

You're the one changing the subject as I've provided examples previously, but by all means, let's stay on topic and feel free to answer that question so we can move on.

patteeu
09-24-2012, 11:49 AM
You made the claim that it's unnecessary. That's the premise for your argument. I disagree with that.
I'm still waiting for the answer to Dirk's question. Which is why are other groups necessary if we are doing enough already?

You're the one changing the subject as I've provided examples previously, but by all means, let's stay on topic and feel free to answer that question so we can move on.

I'll take that as a "no" wrt fresh arguments and a "yes" wrt continued deflection.

Gary
09-24-2012, 12:51 PM
If the tax cut band was reduced, the economic downturn band would be expanded.

Meanwhile, "recovery measures" (aka "porkulus") and "other debt" (aka "welfare state") make up just as large a portion of the debt as the two mentioned in the headline.

It appears that the top of the chart is expanding while the bottom two are getting smaller.

J Diddy
09-24-2012, 01:01 PM
I'll take that as a "no" wrt fresh arguments and a "yes" wrt continued deflection.

You can choose to take it anyway you want but here are the facts. Your premise was we have already done enough. I'm asking you to defend the basis of your argument. That's not deflection.

Deflection is when asked to support that argument you then told Dirk " Your answer to every problem, whether it's your own healthcare or veteran unemployment rates, is bigger government."

Bottom line: not enough has been done, we put them in harms way to begin with and owe them that they will be taken care of, and you're just spouting off useless mind numbing recycled politician talk without anything to back it up.

BucEyedPea
09-24-2012, 01:08 PM
JDiddy doesn't have the facts. Often deflects himself. Pot meets kettle when he says this.

This bill was election year politics by the Democrats. This bill duplicates what veterans already have but sets up more bureaucracy. Better to do things that lead to a prosperous economy for all which helps veterans instead of more New Deal crap that crowds out the private sector economy which lengthened the last Great Depression.

J Diddy
09-24-2012, 01:15 PM
JDiddy doesn't have the facts. Often deflects himself. Pot meets kettle when he says this.

This bill was election year politics by the Democrats. This bill duplicates what veterans already have but sets up more bureaucracy. Better to do things that lead to a prosperous economy for all which helps veterans instead of more New Deal crap that crowds out the private sector economy which lengthened the last Great Depression.

Oh Bucky. I'm starting to think you don't like me.

Please continue to post your whacky theories, although they tend to be the death knell of the argument, because when you lend support it typically means the other guys right.

patteeu
09-24-2012, 02:11 PM
It appears that the top of the chart is expanding while the bottom two are getting smaller.

It appears that the assumptions baked into the graph are divorced from reality to meet an agenda. Afterall, for example, are we really going to see war expenses essentially steady at higher than peak war levels out to 2019 despite the fact that we've all but left Iraq and we're told that our Afghanistan withdrawal will be complete by the end of 2014?

patteeu
09-24-2012, 02:12 PM
You can choose to take it anyway you want but here are the facts. Your premise was we have already done enough. I'm asking you to defend the basis of your argument. That's not deflection.

Deflection is when asked to support that argument you then told Dirk " Your answer to every problem, whether it's your own healthcare or veteran unemployment rates, is bigger government."

Bottom line: not enough has been done, we put them in harms way to begin with and owe them that they will be taken care of, and you're just spouting off useless mind numbing recycled politician talk without anything to back it up.

Not a fresh argument in the entire post. Your bottom line is nothing but stale political opportunism.

Baby Lee
09-24-2012, 02:43 PM
I disagree. If we did there would be no need for outside groups like Wounded Warrior

The need for groups like Wounded Warrior is more the need for outlets for charitable/gratitude expressing urges.

Don't know why you would use people's willingness to help veterans privately as evidence of a need for more government.

J Diddy
09-24-2012, 04:12 PM
Not a fresh argument in the entire post. Your bottom line is nothing but stale political opportunism.

BucEyedPatteeu?

J Diddy
09-24-2012, 04:17 PM
The need for groups like Wounded Warrior is more the need for outlets for charitable/gratitude expressing urges.

Don't know why you would use people's willingness to help veterans privately as evidence of a need for more government.
According to their website they have social programs, education programs, and employment programs. That doesn't sound like a handout to me.

patteeu
09-24-2012, 04:46 PM
According to their website they have social programs, education programs, and employment programs. That doesn't sound like a handout to me.

Huh?

Baby Lee
09-24-2012, 05:22 PM
According to their website they have social programs, education programs, and employment programs. That doesn't sound like a handout to me.

Where did I say handout? I seem to recall explicitly including a '/' to reference expressions of gratitude.

Cancer foundations are charitable organizations, doesn't make cancer treatment a 'handout.'

J Diddy
09-24-2012, 05:34 PM
Where did I say handout? I seem to recall explicitly including a '/' to reference expressions of gratitude.

Cancer foundations are charitable organizations, doesn't make cancer treatment a 'handout.'

Point being they shouldn't need to count on charitable donations.

BigRedChief
09-24-2012, 05:40 PM
Point being they shouldn't need to count on charitable donations.Thats the fucking point. You R's are killing me. GEEZZZ H. CHRIST :banghead:

They served our country. They have sacrificed, their families have sacrificed for the country. No vet from Iraq or Afghanistan is wanting hand outs but help getting on their feet back here in the real world.

We fucking owe them. They are heroes and deserve better treatment than letting Republican partisan politics derail the bill.

dirk digler
09-24-2012, 05:58 PM
The need for groups like Wounded Warrior is more the need for outlets for charitable/gratitude expressing urges.

Don't know why you would use people's willingness to help veterans privately as evidence of a need for more government.

Don't get me wrong BL I love WW and donate to them. I think they are a great organizaton but they do more than just make people feel good.

As stated in a Congressional hearing
Without these outside veterans organizations, such as the Wounded Warrior Project, soldiers such as myself would be very lost.
—1LT John A. Fernandez, injured veteran of the Iraq War in 2005 testimony before the U.S. CongressWhich goes back to my original point is that government needs to do alot more for the veterans of this country including funding VA a million times better.

They haven't done enough...

patteeu
09-24-2012, 06:02 PM
Big government is never big enough because we can always find another problem that needs to be solved. And where private charities have already stepped in to help, we need to squeeze them out with another big government program!! And don't worry about the cost... we can always charge it to the fat cats.

You people are unbelievable.

BigRedChief
09-24-2012, 06:05 PM
Big government is never big enough because we can always find another problem that needs to be solved. And where private charities have already stepped in to help, we need to squeeze them out with another big government program!! And don't worry about the cost... we can always charge it to the fat cats.

You people are unbelievable.We just care more about taking care of our war heroes than worrying how billionaires feel about paying the same tax rate change they did under Clinton.

banyon
09-24-2012, 06:06 PM
What a bunch of clueless, gutless retards in the Democratic senate caucus.

If this issue is so great, then don't just let the Republicans threaten to filibuster it and drop the issue and move on to the next thing they won't vote for either.

Make them do it on the FLOOR. Let them stand up there for days, week explaining to the American public why they are not only willing to vote against jobs for veterans, but are willing to hold up the rest of the nation's business to do it. See how that plays in the news cycle from here until november.

J Diddy
09-24-2012, 06:07 PM
Big government is never big enough because we can always find another problem that needs to be solved. And where private charities have already stepped in to help, we need to squeeze them out with another big government program!! And don't worry about the cost... we can always charge it to the fat cats.

You people are unbelievable.

It's called humanity look it up.

I don't think that soldiers who defend your right to sit on this bulletin board all high and mighty should just get by on donations. They should be taken care of. This bill most likely wasn't perfect, I'll concede that. However, I will not concede that "we are already doing enough" and I will not concede that they should suffer for Mitt fucking Romney's dancing horse deductions and his 14% tax rate.

patteeu
09-24-2012, 06:10 PM
We just care more about taking care of our war heroes than worrying how billionaires feel about paying the same tax rate change they did under Clinton.

I don't doubt how much you guys care. I doubt how much you think.

patteeu
09-24-2012, 06:11 PM
It's called humanity look it up.

I don't think that soldiers who defend your right to sit on this bulletin board all high and mighty should just get by on donations. They should be taken care of. This bill most likely wasn't perfect, I'll concede that. However, I will not concede that "we are already doing enough" and I will not concede that they should suffer for Mitt ****ing Romney's dancing horse deductions and his 14% tax rate.

It's not even doubt in your case.

BigRedChief
09-24-2012, 06:14 PM
What a bunch of clueless, gutless retards in the Democratic senate caucus.

If this issue is so great, then don't just let the Republicans threaten to filibuster it and drop the issue and move on to the next thing they won't vote for either.

Make them do it on the FLOOR. Let them stand up there for days, week explaining to the American public why they are not only willing to vote against jobs for veterans, but are willing to hold up the rest of the nation's business to do it. See how that plays in the news cycle from here until november.They dont have to stand on the floor anymore. Thats one of the reasons the fillibuster is used so often, no political blowback like there would be with a Senator reading the phone book to stop a bill designed to help war heroes.

J Diddy
09-24-2012, 06:15 PM
It's not even doubt in your case.

Same old recycled bullshit and name games patty. You have one train of thought and it's derailed.

banyon
09-24-2012, 06:18 PM
They dont have to stand on the floor anymore. Thats one of the reasons the fillibuster is used so often, no political blowback like there would be with a Senator reading the phone book to stop a bill designed to help war heroes.

Who was the genius who undid that rule? Filibuster with no political consequences. Great idea. Look how it has worked out.

They need to reverse that part of it anyway. That's not an old-time tradition to protect.

BigRedChief
09-24-2012, 06:20 PM
Who was the genius who undid that rule? Filibuster with no political consequences. Great idea. Look how it has worked out.

They need to reverse that part of it anyway. That's not an old-time tradition to protect.Give you one guess.

patteeu
09-24-2012, 06:26 PM
Give you one guess.

Barack Obama? He's screwed up everything else. :shrug:

Baby Lee
09-24-2012, 08:11 PM
Point being they shouldn't need to count on charitable donations.

Thats the fucking point. You R's are killing me. GEEZZZ H. CHRIST :banghead:

They served our country. They have sacrificed, their families have sacrificed for the country. No vet from Iraq or Afghanistan is wanting hand outs but help getting on their feet back here in the real world.

We fucking owe them. They are heroes and deserve better treatment than letting Republican partisan politics derail the bill.

We just care more about taking care of our war heroes than worrying how billionaires feel about paying the same tax rate change they did under Clinton.

Unless you can document that these foundations are providing something that the government absolutely refuses to, and would continue to refuse to provide in the absence of foundations of this nature, I simply don't see the problem.

I applaud citizen generosity, and use of foundation offered services is not necessarily evidence of a governmental void. Maybe their training programs are more effective. Maybe they've cultivated better connections with the employment sector. Maybe they offer services to servicemen who are reluctant to seek government services. It could be as simple as the foundation offices being closer than the government offices. There are myriad reasons and rationales to ally oneself with private foundations rather than rely on government.

Not everything has to go to DC where it's then funneled back to localities with all the attendant palm greasing and side-interest serving along the way in order to be legitimate help. Folks helping folks is a powerful signifier of community.

Ideally, government provides adequate services and opportunities, and private foundations and foundational/governmental alliances provide additional services and opportunities that prove more attractive, for whatever reason, to a segment of the citizenry.

I agree that the US, and the US government, owe servicemen a debt. I don't agree that the existence of private foundations is definitive evidence that the government is failing that regard. Further, I applaud the fact that our society is sufficiently generous to augment governmental assistance with foundational opportunity as well.

By way of background, my mother's side of the family were of the 'dependent class' if you will. Dirt poor in the South, the government largely existed to provide moldy cheese and powdered milk. OTOH charity hospitals provided many generations quality health care free of charge [yes, even in 'clinging to guns and religion' country]. My maternal grandpa was on Omaha beach, did the whole 'hiding under corpses from the Krauts' thing, went all the way to Berlin, as a buck private. Throughout my life they constantly made $25-$50 to much a month for easy assistance. They were too proud and not sufficiently sophisticated to press for more from the government. The first house they EVER owned was when gramps was in his 70s that they FINANCED with $500 down [provided by my mom and dad] and a $10,000 note on an abandoned church in rural RURAL Louisiana. Prior to that, they lived the sharecropper existence. We had to find out where they were living EVERY TIME we visited them. I've posted here in the past how for long stretches they subsisted from my gramps culling copper and aluminum from electronics and machinery deposited in rural dumps.

OTOOH, my paternal grandparents were scrimpers and savers for decades. He worked '45-'80 repairing locomotive brakes, as blue collar job as ever there was, but a solid living. By retirement their investments were sizeable, and they spent their golden years donating to foundations like WW, and volunteering 3-4 times weekly cooking and serving at soup kitchens because it was a fulfilling way to get out and about and interact with others. And the food kitchen wasn't even at their church, it was a higher profile kitchen back in their old neighborhood [they had moved out into rural KCK long ago].

BigRedChief
09-24-2012, 08:23 PM
Unless you can document that these foundations are providing something that the government absolutely refuses to, and would continue to refuse to provide in the absence of foundations of this nature, I simply don't see the problem.You dont see a problem? This country and its citzens, not charity have a moral obligation to take care of its war heroes, To help them integrate into society after killing for our freedom, having their friends blood splattered all over them etc.

We dont send them to the salvation army and the homeless shelters and say good luck hero.

If you truly cant see the problem with your view, I cant help you. It's a clear as it can be to me. We have a moral obligation to fulfill.

Baby Lee
09-24-2012, 08:31 PM
You dont see a problem? This country and its citzens, not charity have a moral obligation to take care of its war heroes, To help them integrate into society after killing for our freedom, having their friends blood splattered all over them etc.

We dont send them to the salvation army and the homeless shelters and say good luck hero.

If you truly cant see the problem with your view, I cant help you. It's a clear as it can be to me. We have a moral obligation to fulfill.

Who 'sent' who to WW? And, if that 'who' exists' was it because government REFUSED to help, or was it because WW was more effective?

So we're clear, as there seems to be a concerted effort to twist things, I agree that we owe servicemen. But it's all-to-often too difficult to discern the difference between governmental failure because it's not trying, and governmental failure because it's government. If private foundations do a superior job, I applaud the foundation while others here are prefer more $$ --> DC --> grease palmers --> interest servers --> localities --> bureaucrats who tell the unsophisticated that they don't qualify.

dirk digler
09-24-2012, 08:45 PM
Who 'sent' who to WW? And, if that 'who' exists' was it because government REFUSED to help, or was it because WW was more effective?

So we're clear, as there seems to be a concerted effort to twist things, I agree that we owe servicemen. But it's all-to-often too difficult to discern the difference between governmental failure because it's not trying, and governmental failure because it's government. If private foundations do a superior job, I applaud the foundation while others here are prefer more $$ --> DC --> grease palmers --> interest servers --> localities --> bureaucrats who tell the unsophisticated that they don't qualify.

I don't know if the VA has refused I think they are not well funded and the military in general for the longest time didn't even think PTSD existed or denied its existence. That is just one example

We all have read the stories of the conditions in some of the VA hospitals like Walter Reed...deplorable conditions

Baby Lee
09-24-2012, 09:04 PM
And no, the irony of participating in this thread as I watch 'Moonrise Kingdom' isn't lost on me.

Comrade Crapski
09-24-2012, 10:46 PM
The moonbats are still trying to run with this?

ROFL

J Diddy
09-24-2012, 10:49 PM
The moonbats are still trying to run with this?

ROFL

Yup, us moonbats are still wondering why a bill to assist troops got squashed.

Glad you find it amusing.

Comrade Crapski
09-24-2012, 10:54 PM
Yup, us moonbats are still wondering why a bill to assist troops got squashed.

Glad you find it amusing.

Do you have your arms crossed and an angry look on your face?

J Diddy
09-24-2012, 11:17 PM
Do you have your arms crossed and an angry look on your face?

Nah, just got done rubbing one off to a pic of Ann Romney or as Mitt calls her #3

Comrade Crapski
09-24-2012, 11:32 PM
Moonbats care.

They care alot.

Moonbats care so much, they will confiscate your money and give it to a washington dc beauracrat who will piss it away or steal it under the noble pretense that they are helping veterans, or the children™, or minorities.

It makes them feel.

Feel sanctimonious.

They never bother to look at their track record though.

patteeu
09-25-2012, 07:07 AM
I don't know if the VA has refused I think they are not well funded and the military in general for the longest time didn't even think PTSD existed or denied its existence. That is just one example

We all have read the stories of the conditions in some of the VA hospitals like Walter Reed...deplorable conditions

Walter Reed doesn't exist.

J Diddy
09-25-2012, 07:35 AM
Walter Reed doesn't exist.

I would think a more proper way to say it is that it no longer exists.

BigRedChief
09-29-2012, 08:00 AM
GEEEZZZZ WTF are you doing Republicans. how far off the deep end are you willing to go? well now we know.

Republicans blocks routine COL bill to the widows and orphans of our fallen heroes. Wouldn't even allow it to come to a vote. Was put on hold secretly.

Blocking funding for widows and orphans of our honored dead? :facepalm:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/gop-blocked-cost-of-living-adjustment-for-veterans-sen-murray-says/2012/09/27/2f250c98-08d4-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_story.html

J Diddy
09-29-2012, 09:53 AM
GEEEZZZZ WTF are you doing Republicans. how far off the deep end are you willing to go? well now we know.

Republicans blocks routine COL bill to the widows and orphans of our fallen heroes. Wouldn't even allow it to come to a vote. Was put on hold secretly.

Blocking funding for widows and orphans of our honored dead? :facepalm:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/gop-blocked-cost-of-living-adjustment-for-veterans-sen-murray-says/2012/09/27/2f250c98-08d4-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_story.html

The government does enough/GOP or We don't have the money especially if Romney wins and cuts taxes on the wealthy/GOP