Senate rejects bill on veterans benefits

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
There was probably a lot of pork and other horseshit crammed into this massive bill. The fact that Bernie Sanders was the author is a dead giveaway. I'm glad they killed it.
I suspected something like this because it isn't like the right to undermine the military.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Pretty much exactly this. They put a name on the bill about veterans so that the Republicans looks like assholes when it doesn't get passed but there is far more to the bill then just helping veterans. It also has a lot to do with spending more money that we don't have. Which is kind of a Bernie Sanders go to.
I get that you're a conservative. And in general I get watching our dimes and nickels. But let me be clear, if you think the time to skimp is when you've already fucked up thousands of people, that's bullshit.
We don't get to default on our debts, these people got hurt with the promise of the VA taking care of them. Now the VA is running off of a shoe string budget with facilities that look like condemned penitentiaries. For those of you who live in the metroplex, take a trip to south Dallas and just try and find parking in that shithole VA.

That bill would have spent a lot of money because it's money the country owes all the military members it's fucked up, and I know that proper conservatives, particularly the libertarian wing were against the two foreign wars, but the Republicans weren't. In fact they're starting to get that boots on the ground mantra going again. And that is fucked up.

How can a party talk about a strong military but not support its veterans. God knows whatever war we get dragged into next will be sold as "support for the troops".

And fuck right off with this pork talk. The bill might have had pork, but it didn't get vetoed for pork, it got vetoed because it didn't have Republican pork.

Right now we spend more on interest for our war debts in Iraq and Afghanistan than every paycheck to every service member in uniform. Nearly twice as much in fact. Because when we want to send service members in harms way, no one is worried about the bottom line. Republicans will hand defense contractors trillions for shit that never even gets done. But yeah, that wicked ass Bernie Sanders is a crazy kook for trying to pass bills that help veterans instead of Halliburton.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
I get that you're a conservative. And in general I get watching our dimes and nickels. But let me be clear, if you think the time to skimp is when you've already fucked up thousands of people, that's bullshit.
We don't get to default on our debts, these people got hurt with the promise of the VA taking care of them. Now the VA is running off of a shoe string budget with facilities that look like condemned penitentiaries. For those of you who live in the metroplex, take a trip to south Dallas and just try and find parking in that shithole VA.

That bill would have spent a lot of money because it's money the country owes all the military members it's fucked up, and I know that proper conservatives, particularly the libertarian wing were against the two foreign wars, but the Republicans weren't. In fact they're starting to get that boots on the ground mantra going again. And that is fucked up.

How can a party talk about a strong military but not support its veterans. God knows whatever war we get dragged into next will be sold as "support for the troops".

And fuck right off with this pork talk. The bill might have had pork, but it didn't get vetoed for pork, it got vetoed because it didn't have Republican pork.

Right now we spend more on interest for our war debts in Iraq and Afghanistan than every paycheck to every service member in uniform. Nearly twice as much in fact. Because when we want to send service members in harms way, no one is worried about the bottom line. Republicans will hand defense contractors trillions for shit that never even gets done. But yeah, that wicked ass Bernie Sanders is a crazy kook for trying to pass bills that help veterans instead of Halliburton.
While your theoretical point is taken, I would only evaluate this position by the Republicians when I knew what was actually contained in the bill. It wouldn't be the first time a politician has put lipstick on a pig to get a lot of their own agenda passed. I confess I am ignorant of the bills contents so I don't have a position on why the Republicans rejected it.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,463
And fuck right off with this pork talk. The bill might have had pork, but it didn't get vetoed for pork, it got vetoed because it didn't have Republican
It's always a democrat verse republican thing for you. Believe it or not I don't care if you call it liberal pork or conservative pork, I don't want anything to pass with bullshit like that.

And yes, you have to stop the spending. I know the popular thing when it comes to veterans is to just write a blank check but it's a terrible idea. Just like it was a terrible idea to send many of them in the first place.

If you would stop getting caught up in all the name calling of the Republican verse Democrat bullshit maybe you'd able see the faults of most of these politicians.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,463
Out of curiosity, isn't this article over a year old? What exactly was the reasoning behind posting such old news?
 

shane

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
1,184
And fuck right off with this pork talk. The bill might have had pork, but it didn't get vetoed for pork, it got vetoed because it didn't have Republican pork.
You may be right, but they tend to put some extremely evil crap into military and veterans bills. For example, they hid indefinite detention for American citizens at the behest of the White House into the 2012 NDAA, which is the standard defense authorization bill. I usually consider any big spending bill coming out of Washington D.C. that dies a very positive development.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Out of curiosity, isn't this article over a year old? What exactly was the reasoning behind posting such old news?
A lot of my veteran friends have been sharing it in the wake of the newest round of VA failures. I don't know about you but it was the first I had seen of this vote, and is pretty much the reason I'll switch from centrist to democrat just to see these guys ousted from office.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
You may be right, but they tend to put some extremely evil crap into military and veterans bills. For example, they hid indefinite detention for American citizens at the behest of the White House into the 2012 NDAA, which is the standard defense authorization bill. I usually consider any big spending bill coming out of Washington D.C. that dies a very positive development.
Also as far as pork goes I've seen no such excuses from senators that voted against it, just that it would have cost too much. The bill was unanimously endorsed by every veterans organization that matters, and is one of eight that has been shot down at the detriment of vets.not to say there was no pork, but if something was in their the republicans really really hated, they should have mentioned that.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
It's always a democrat verse republican thing for you. Believe it or not I don't care if you call it liberal pork or conservative pork, I don't want anything to pass with bullshit like that.

And yes, you have to stop the spending.I know the popular thing when it comes to veterans is to just write a blank check but it's a terrible idea. Just like it was a terrible idea to send many of them in the first place.

If you would stop getting caught up in all the name calling of the Republican verse Democrat bullshit maybe you'd able see the faults of most of these politicians.

But is the plan to truly stop spending? You are right, the thesis of this post is "fuck republicans." (Speaking of the politicians not necessarily their voters who, for all they know, "support the troops")

Like LT said, the Republican cause has been calling for a military build up. That's not conservative money saving talk, that's "let's get back to the Middle East before the region destabilizes without our help." That's what frustrates me about republicans (not conservatives) they're like the parent that says they don't have money in the budget for food or medicine, and then goes out and buys an AR-15.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,463
GOP Slams Dems for Playing Politics With Veterans' Benefits


By Todd Beamon
Thursday, 27 Feb 2014 10:24 PM


Join the Newsmax Community
186 Comments
Senate Republicans on Thursday attacked Democrats for playing politics with a $21 billion bill that would have expanded benefits for veterans — leading them to block an effort by Majority Leader Harry Reid to move the legislation to a full floor vote.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky charged that the legislation "was not considered in committee, greatly expands spending without any realistic offset, and would vastly overwhelm the Veterans Administration healthcare system.

"It’s shameful that Senate Democrats would seek to score political points by rushing to the floor a bill the committee did not consider, and could have otherwise been handled in a bipartisan manner through regular order.

Urgent: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll

"Unfortunately, it’s become standard practice around here for the majority to pursue partisan legislation in a take-it-or-leave-it manner, so it’s unsurprising that nobody other than the majority leader and the committee chairman has been allowed the opportunity to amend this bill."

On a 56-41 vote, Democrats failed to muster the 60 votes needed to waive the procedural vote necessary to move the legislation to the full Senate for a vote. Two Republicans, Dean Heller of Nevada and Jerry Moran of Kansas, voted with the Democrats.

"We're not going to be intimidated on this," GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama said before the vote. "We're going to do the right things for the veterans of America."

Under the bill, more veterans would have become eligible for in-state college tuition, even improved dental care — and some wounded troops left unable to have children would have received fertility or adoption services.

In addition, the Veteran's Administration would have received more resources to ease its backlog of cases, and the bill would have bolstered programs for veterans who suffered sexual abuse.

The nation has more than 22 million veterans and their families.

McConnell charged that Reid, the Nevada Democrat, was playing election-year politics with the bill by refusing to allow votes on a GOP amendment that would have cut the bill's size and would have added penalties against Iran for its nuclear program.

The Iran sanctions measure was necessary because Reid would not allow the upper chamber to hold a separate vote, North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, the ranking GOP member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, told The Hill.

President Barack Obama opposes new penalties while international negotiations with Tehran proceed.

Republicans also accused Democrats of creating false hopes with the bill, by saying that its $21 billion cost would come from unspent money from the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and from the winding down of American military involvement in Afghanistan.

Those are not real savings, GOP senators said, because no one expected those dollars to be spent as those wars ended.

Republicans further objected to provisions that would make more veterans without service-connected injuries eligible for treatment at VA centers. That provision, they charged, would swamp an already overburdened system.

“I challenge any of our colleagues, Senate Democrats, to come to the floor and name one program they’re willing to terminate in order to help fund our veterans adequately," Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, said before the vote.

"Come down and let’s hear it.

"There’s a circling of the wagon in this administration."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Yep. There is always more to something than the partisan pandering that gets loosed.
 

BipolarFuk

Demoted
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
11,464
Absolutely nothing in that article other than "we don't want to pay for it" :lol

Just like Townsend has said all along. Can find the money for war that puts money into the military industrial complex, but fuck em when they come home broken.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Absolutely nothing in that article other than "we don't want to pay for it" :lol

Just like Townsend has said all along. Can find the money for war that puts money into the military industrial complex, but fuck em when they come home broken.
You missed the point that said it would be paid with unspent funds from the war. The congress is operating on a system currently that stipulates any new spending is to be funded by reducing budget items elsewhere. It is part of the budget reduction plan which has been previously agreed on by both parties to keep the targeted goal of reducing the deficient.
The war funds aren't part of the general budget.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,463
You missed the point that said it would be paid with unspent funds from the war. The congress is operating on a system currently that stipulates any new spending is to be funded by reducing budget items elsewhere. It is part of the budget reduction plan which has been previously agreed on by both parties to keep the targeted goal of reducing the deficient.
The war funds aren't part of the general budget.
Yeah there was a ton of unnecissary spending in the bill in my opinion. It wasn't just about fixing the VA healthcare system at all. Which does need help as Townsend mentioned.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
McConnell charged that Reid, the Nevada Democrat, was playing election-year politics with the bill by refusing to allow votes on a GOP amendment that would have cut the bill's size and would have added penalties against Iran for its nuclear program
so Republicans wanted to ad an unrelated amendment to the bill, and killed it when they could use Veteran care as leverage to force a change in foreign policy.

But yeah, Democrats are "playing politics"
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,463
so Republicans wanted to ad an unrelated amendment to the bill, and killed it when they could use Veteran care as leverage to force a change in foreign policy.

But yeah, Democrats are "playing politics"
So rushing a bill that the committee didn't get to consider and the democrats had no real plan to pay for made sense? Sounds to me like they rushed a bill that they knew wouldn't get passed because they thought it would make Republicans look bad.

Plus it sounds like the 21 billion in spending was aimed at far more then improving the VA Hospitals like you said.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
All of that banter between the parties is irrelevant. The main issue as far as I can see is that Reid tried to steamroller a bill through under the guise of helping veterans when the funding aspects of it was not correctly applied. The Republicians felt it was a move he made to simply portray their party as anti veteran help knowing all along it would be opposed because of the funding issue. Chalk it up to both playing their political games. It was one of Reid's last shots before he called it quits.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
I don't see the Republicans writing any veterans health bills of their own to replace it. Maybe they could "make Obama look bad" by making him veto it, but then he'd probably just sign it and that would help veterans. Fuck that noise.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Pretty much exactly this. They put a name on the bill about veterans so that the Republicans looks like assholes when it doesn't get passed but there is far more to the bill then just helping veterans. It also has a lot to do with spending more money that we don't have. Which is kind of a Bernie Sanders go to.
Where are you getting this from?

Or are you just making shit up because this is a "Democrats" bill?

I have seen nothing to back up this claim, the only thing Republicans say is that it's unfunded but that's even debateable.

And look at this.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/19/veterans-bill-voted-down-us-senate

Murray said the bill had been extensively rewritten to include amendments by Republicans – eight of the 12 provisions in the bill were Republican-originated ideas. She said that the bill had even incorporated most of the provisions of a competing Republican bill, but to no avail.
With Democrats pressing for passage this week, Senate Republicans, backed by their leader, Mitch McConnell, attempted to attach controversial legislation calling for possible new sanctions on Iran that President Barack Obama opposes.

"The issue of Iran sanctions ... has nothing to do with the needs of veterans," complained Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Bernard Sanders of Vermont, the main sponsor of the bill.

Republicans also raised budget concerns, forcing another key procedural vote that ended up killing the bill. By a vote of 56-41, the Senate failed to waive budget rules that would have allowed the bill to proceed. Sixty votes were needed and 41 of the chamber's 45 Republicans voted against the waiver


Read more at Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/27/us-usa-veterans-congress-idUSBREA1Q26O20140227#uHkXHdIliWlET4ew.99
So please show all of this "extra stuff" that was in the bill or admit you making shit up to rail against the liberal boogeyman once again.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
I suspected something like this because it isn't like the right to undermine the military.
So you are ready to agree with 1st thing that confirms what you want to believe even when you still have no facts on the matter.

Shane stated no facts and is completely wrong on there being pork in this bill and Republicans added 8 out of 12 changes to the bill.

Don't suspect just do some actual reading.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/27/us-usa-veterans-congress-idUSBREA1Q26O20140227#wVOrYZoIf5x1jPFY.97
 
Top Bottom