- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 10, 2008 at 11:46 pm #618822
walfredoMemberTonya- it is not a lousy bill. If it was a lousy bill over half of the republicans in the senate wouldn’t be pissing in the face of the president, and the GOP’s candidate by supporting this bill…
It is not a perfect bill, as obviously to get that type of coalition and bipartisan support you need to make compromises.
That said, it is a brilliant bill that provides immediate benefits to Veterans, our heroes, serving now for the 7th straight year during wartime, it is non-partisan and universally supported.
McCain’s argument is putrid and pathetic… Supporting our troops by giving them the benefits they deserve in regards to an access to education is a bad idea.
Staying in Iraq for 100 years is okay. Putting our troops in harms way to occupy nations and spread democracy is okay. Putting our troops in harms way to start pre-emptive wars based on lies is okay.
But offering an education to those that serve a full tour and put there life on the line during wartime for the wars he started is wrong.
That about sums up the neo-con Bush movement. At least now they found a mouthpiece that isn’t a Chickenhawk to deliver it- like Bush, Rove, Cheney, Ashcroft, Kristol, Limbaugh…
June 11, 2008 at 12:27 am #618823
beachdrivegirlParticipantTonya the pentagon does not support the bill because they are worried about retention. Yet we are not able to meet our recruiting standards and numbers since 2004. Have you ever stopped to think that maybe if a high school graduate or even a young man/woman that wanted to go to college but could not afford it might be more motivated to actually enter the military if they were to have their college tuition paid for? Do you think it is okay for our government to pay for McCains education when he was a war hero, but it is not okay for our governemnt to pay for our Veterans edcuation? Do you also realize that the Pentagon opposed a pay raise to our troops yet support over $8.5 billion being spent to outside contractors over in the war zones. And I have searched and searched for your “pork” inforamtion and found none. I personally would be open to hear about it if you were able to tell me about it because yes I do like to be educated on all sides of the issues.
JanS, no I was not in the military. My grandparents were, and I have friends from high school that are in the military, I have had friends from high school that have died fighting for our country. I did not enter the military because it scares the crap out of me to think that I would possible have to go to a war zone. If my child really wanted to go I would support urge them to go to college or a trade school first and thing about the choice they were going to make.
June 11, 2008 at 3:07 am #618824
JanSParticipantBDG…good answer. I was a Vietnam War era vet…72 to 75…I had been to college and had worked in the public sector before I joined ( I always say it was a moment of madness – lol). I received limited GI Bill bennies…travel agent school..and look at me now..not traveling nor urging others to. The military experience for me wasn’t real life..not anything like real life. I was almost 28 when I got out…but I had met my husband there, and ended up in WS for the last 33 years…so something good actually did come of it :)
I think getting the college education, etc. first is a good idea…even working for a while…and then see if the military fits. I’ve known more than one late teen who joined up because they thought it akin to a video game, and then found out that it was very much otherwise…you gotta go in with your eyes wide open, for sure…
June 11, 2008 at 4:03 am #618825
TrickParticipantTonya,
You are right, there is pork in this bill. However, how can you specifically point out the pork in this and say it’s not a worthy bill for the sacrifice these kids have made?
I don’t hear the grumbling about the $90 bill for a small bag of a soldiers laundry Haliburton charges us for cleaning it. I don’t hear about the salaries of contract workers driving water trucks making 3-4 times what the troops are making protecting them.
I’m all for more benefits for longer staying soldiers. I’m also for great benefits for the current soldiers who return home and are in dire need of counseling and medical services that should be at the highest standards.
You speak of retention problems? Maybe choosing going to war based on false premises might be a good start to solving that problem.
It’s the hyprocrisy of this Administration that questioned our patriotism for this whole mess to sit there and not support the REAL men who are over there and need a foundation to begin assimilating into our communities.
June 11, 2008 at 5:01 am #618826
AnonymousInactiveAlso, it’s misleading to say the GI bill is loaded with pork. It is not a stand alone bill. It is attached to Presidents Bush’s request for more money for the war. Bush is threatening to veto because in his mind, the GI bill is in itself, pork, added to his request. The inclusion is standard operating procedure in passing bills.
Jim Webb has said, if it doesn’t pass for some reason, he will push it through as a stand alone bill. It would be then, that you can complain about whatever pork, is added.
June 11, 2008 at 5:28 am #618827
TrickParticipantAfter reading a few sources about the extra spending. The funding for wildfires and extensions for unemployment I don’t consider it pork really.
It would be if they were building a bridge in Alaska to nowhere….wait, they already did that.
June 11, 2008 at 3:01 pm #618828
KenParticipantOf course it’s not pork. However remember that anything designated for the “common good” is considered pork to republicans, while anything meant to enrich cronies is considered “investing in infrastructure”.
I understand how you could be confused though…
:)
June 11, 2008 at 4:11 pm #618829
Tonya42MemberYou are misguided at best Ken, and I find it oddly curious that none of you are sqwalking about the “overseas war operations”..chunck of chnage
Ken you have a very mypoic vision of what a Republican is I fear.
If I lump all dems into moonbat catagory, how fair an asessment would that be? It wouldn’t AND it would tell everyone that I purposely limit my own knowledge base or I refuse to learn.
This is pork. Anything not directly releated to the purpose and intention of the bill is pork.
June 11, 2008 at 4:22 pm #618830
Tonya42MemberI can’t recall who said they were curious to find out who was discussing this that is actually a vet, why would this matter?
Is this a military blog?
I think you try to throw in your 3 three year stint to add credence to your argument while at the same time implying that if you haven’t served your position is not credible. That is what most people call a strawman. Please don’t do this, I hate wasting time having to point it out.
I wish you all could open your minds up and take off the partisan blinders and see this bill for what it is. Don’t worhisp it simply b/c it came from a Democrat, because that says more about your ignorance than it does about the validity of my argument and the bill itself.
If this was a fair bill I would support it, even if a Communist or Marxist thought of it, I wouldn’t care as long as it was a good bill meant to help the whole soldier, that includes consideration for their family.
June 11, 2008 at 4:50 pm #618831
JoBParticipantTonya42…
you say if this was a fair bill, you would support it…
can you explain what in this bill is actually unfair?
how does this bill not help the whole soldier?
Do you think it unfair because the benefits don’t roll onto their spouse and/or dependents if they are killed in action?
do you think it unfair because the coverage is not the same for our national guard troops who are now treated as regular military as for our regular troops but treated far differently when it comes to benefits for service?
do you think it unfair because this bill does not contain additional provisions for length of service.. in addition to those which our military already provides?
I really want to know what is unfair about giving those who serve in our military the opportunity to become self supporting citizens when they return…
June 11, 2008 at 4:50 pm #618832
charlabobParticipantIt’s ironic that veterans’ organizations universally support the bill, don’t you think? Is that because they want pork? The “family” consideration is a huge red herring–the fact is that the people who anticipate our being in an endless war, want to be sure to have fodder — ‘er, retention. Create an economy in which most of the blue collar jobs move overseas, lie to people about what they’ll get if they join, and then don’t let them leave when you said they did. And make sure they get practically nothing when/if they do escape. Yup, sounds like troop-loving to me.
As far as the “chunck”(sic) of change that goes for war, since it’s been hidden in the supplementary budget since the Bush machine took over, and since we’ve allowed the Pentagon to get away with inaccurate accounting for at least 40 years, it’s a little harder to specify.
You know very well no one lumped all Republicans into the moonbat category. I, however, am quite willing to lump all republicans into a special category of people who don’t have a close relationship with facts.
June 11, 2008 at 4:57 pm #618833
WSMomParticipantYeaa, JoB you’re back….you go girl!!
June 11, 2008 at 5:18 pm #618834
KenParticipantThe “overseas war operations” issue will have to wait until the nationwide referendum on Nov 4th since Pelosi/Hoyer have decided that the President and Vice president should not be impeached for violations of the National Security Act of 1947, Section 503(f)
(f) No covert action may be conducted which is intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media.
we will have to await the decontamination of the Dept of Justice before treason charges may be brought against them both after they leave office.
I know several Moderate Republicans quite well, I also know some serious wingnuts and am related to a couple dozen. I can tell the difference fairly easily.
Anything not directly releated to the purpose and intention of the bill is pork.
Do you really want to go there? Are you that naive?
Google finds a quick example.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13686.html
And attaching things to bills is called “amendments” and is pretty much the core of what congress does everyday.
I would like to see some “clean” bills go through as well but that is not the way a representative democratic republic works.
The bill is in committee to work out the differences between the House and Senate versions. We have not even seen the final bill. There might be some changes made (like transferability) which is what the pentagon seems to want spelled out even though the original version left rule making on that particular issue up to each service to decide internally. The Feinstein-Craig amendment is already stripped out I think.
The core issue is whether we want to update the original GI Bill as a reward for service in the armed forces, or the McCain version which seeks to create a new retention tool.
The money involved is negligible compared to the amount spent every month on contractors and mercenaries in Iraq.
McCain and the hand picked compliant brass at the Pentagon oppose it.
The bill is endorsed by:
Organizations:
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA)
The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW)
The American Legion
The Military Officers’ Association of America (MOAA)
Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA)
AMVETS
The Air Force Sergeants Association (AFSA)
The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States (EANGUS)
The Student Veterans of America (SVA)
The American Association of Community Colleges (AACC)
The National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC)
The Partnership for Veterans’ Education
The American Council on Education (ACE)
Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU)
Disabled American Veterans (DAV)
(list continues at http://www.gibill2008.org/about.html
)
I also have a nephew going back for his 4th tour in Iraq next month. It is his fifth including one in Afganistan. His education was paid for with ROTC service but he wants to go to law school when his required 4 year period is up. He may then re join as a JAG lawyer but the current JAG scholarship program seems to be limited to the Air Force. The amount included in this program would be a drop in the bucket of the cost at a top law school but it may enable him to go to one of the second tier.
June 11, 2008 at 8:00 pm #618835
AnonymousInactiveI don’t think Tonya understands how bills are passed . Or that it’s already been said that that the GI Bill is not a stand alone bill. I don’t know what pork she is talking about being added. But, whatever she does think it is, is actually being added to Bush’s spending bill.
June 14, 2008 at 9:58 pm #618836
walfredoMemberhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnb2IrsU1Cg&eurl=http://www.obamaiswinning.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyBwMy27Aoc&eurl=http://www.obamaiswinning.com/
John McCain debates himself on George W. Bush, and then takes himself on over social security.
Money quote from Obama on the issue:
“You know, John McCain has proposed a series of debates, and I’m looking forward to having them. But when it comes to Social Security, he might want to finish the debate with himself first.â€
June 16, 2008 at 6:48 am #618837
JanSParticipantmost people on here know that I don’t particularly care for John McCain…but I found this article in today’s NYT interesting…so..remaining neutral for the moment…here you are…some insight into the man…
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/us/politics/15pows.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th
June 16, 2008 at 7:16 am #618838
JanSParticipantand then….back to my old self :)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/opinion/15rich.html?th&emc=th
June 20, 2008 at 8:27 pm #618839
beachdrivegirlParticipanthttp://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/19/mccain-tax-plan-for-rich/
Wow, just something to ponder…. hmm I wonder where McCains true heart is on this issue….
June 20, 2008 at 9:02 pm #618840
JanSParticipantBDG…thanks for the read…yeah, I’d like to know the answer to that one, too…
June 20, 2008 at 9:13 pm #618841
AnonymousInactiveI highly doubt a Presidential candidate is looking out solely for himself when proposing plans.
To buy into that thinking is naive.
At least McCain hasn’t pledged to do something and then gone back on his word.
June 20, 2008 at 9:42 pm #618842
JanSParticipantNR…we will see how that all plays out..the gen. election season is still young – lol. So never say never.
My mind boggles when they start talking about their fifnacial plans for this country..when it gets into the trillions of dollars, and who it will help and who it will hurt. I have a hard time grasping the concept, period. Guess that’s why I work with my hands instead – lol..
Now…this Obama thing…about rejecting public funds…don’t read too much into it yet…it could very well be a good thing that he’s done. I, for one, have no problems with it. And…a presidential candidate who has never gone back on something that he’s said? oh, please…I can guarantee that they’ve all done it…yeah, I know..now you’re gonna ask for an example – lol…and I will be stumped. But…Mr. McCain has flip flopped on a few things over the last few years…abortion rights, being one of them, I believe (damn, don’t quote me – lol)…so as I said, never say never…
June 20, 2008 at 10:09 pm #618843
walfredoMemberJan- McCain flip-flops on pretty much every issue. 100 years in Iraq, and we’ll be out by 2013. Tax break for the richest 1 percent during wartime “offends his conscience” and now he is in favor of it. Against drilling in ANWAR, now for it. “Supports George W. Bush on all substantive issues”, “is not running for a Bush 3rd term”. Is a maverick who breaks from his party. Who, over the last 4 years has voter with George Bush 96% of the time, and 98% of the time the last 2 years. He champions veteran rights, but consistently votes against bills that would support veterans. Was pro-immagration and worked bi-partisanly for an amnesty program, now is completely against it…
It’s literally an endless list. Federal matching funds would be great if 527’s didn’t exist… They do- Obama can and will defend himself, and his 1.5 million + supporters will make sure he can fire at will…
June 21, 2008 at 3:05 am #618844
JanSParticipantwalfredo…couldn’t agree more…
June 21, 2008 at 3:13 am #618845
JoBParticipanti think Obama is trying to make a point that unfortunately most people won’t get…
both parties have made a joke of our election financing laws…
it’s time they were rewritten… at least then it would take them a while to figure out how to get around them.
i like that.. new rules every 4 years.. jsut to keep them on their toes;-)
June 21, 2008 at 3:21 am #618846
AnonymousInactiveIf Obama wants to make a “point”, maybe he shouldn’t have made a pledge first.
Just something to think about….
And I don’t think that you can accurately compare a broken promise, deal, pledge to being “flippy-floppy”.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.