Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29

Thread: Jobs bill for vets bogs down in Senate

  1. #1
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,521
    Post Thanks / Like

    Jobs bill for vets bogs down in Senate

    Jobs bill for vets bogs down in Senate

    By KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press 1 day ago

    WASHINGTON (AP) Senate Republicans blocked legislation Wednesday that would have established a $1 billion jobs program putting veterans back to work tending to the country's federal lands and bolstering local police and fire departments.
    Republicans said the spending authorized in the bill violated limits that Congress agreed to last year. Democrats fell two votes shy of the 60-vote majority needed to waive the objection, forcing the legislation back to committee.
    Supporters loosely modeled their proposal after the President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Civilian Conservation Corps used during the Great Depression to put people to work planting trees, building parks and constructing dams. They said the latest monthly jobs report, showing a nearly 11 percent unemployment rate for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, merited action from Congress.
    Democratic lawmakers turned to the legislation shortly before they'll adjourn for the finals weeks of this year's election campaigns. The bill had little chance of passing the House this Congress, but it still allowed senators to appeal to a key voting bloc.
    "(With) a need so great as unemployed veterans, this is not the time to draw a technical line on the budget," said Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, the bill's lead sponsor, who faces a competitive re-election battle.
    Republicans said the effort to help veterans was noble, but the bill was flawed nevertheless.
    Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma said the federal government already has six job-training programs for veterans and there is no way to know how well they are working. He argued that making progress on the country's debt was the best way to help veterans in the long-term.
    "We ought to do nothing now that makes the problem worse for our kids and grandkids," Coburn said.
    Democratic officials did not have an estimate for how many veterans would be hired as a result of the legislation. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said much would depend upon the number of applicants. She noted that more than 720,000 veterans are unemployed across the nation, including 220,000 veterans who have served since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. She said putting veterans back to work was the cost of war.
    "Instead of meeting us halfway, we have been met with resistance. Instead of saying yes to the nearly 1 million unemployed veterans, it seems some on the other side have spent the last week and a half seeking any way to say no," Murray said.
    The advocacy group Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America denounced the vote.
    "This bill was smart bipartisan policy that would put veterans back into service for their communities as policemen, firefighters and first responders," the group's founder and chief executive, Paul Rieckhoff, said in statement. "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."
    A handful of Republicans joined with Democrats in voting to waive the objection to the bill: Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Dean Heller of Nevada, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Maine's Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. Brown and Heller are also in tough re-election contests.
    Heller said he was proud to support the bill.
    "After everything our veterans have done for us, the least we can do is make sure they are afforded every opportunity to thrive here at home," Heller said.
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...4c7cb0e5cb3714

    Really?

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,553
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yes, really.

    Nothing more than a standard political maneuver.

    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"

    It's transparent and predictable, yet effective because the GOP is too stupid to properly frame it to the public, and the public is generally stupid enough to buy it from the left.

    Won't be too long until Dems introduce a trillion dollar bill to create a federal dog walking job program, and when conservatives shut it down, we'll be hearing about the "GOP's War on Puppies"

  3. #3
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    There has been a general effort by many companies to give preferential hiring to veterans.
    Job training? Most vets have better credentials than the "average" college grad just out of school. Plus a a general rulle, better character.
    Everybody does not need training. We need workers. Companies will train an individual for the specific task.
    Police and fire? They have academies for this. Give me a break with political BS.

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,395
    Post Thanks / Like

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,553
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetdawgg View Post
    Point proven. Thanks for putting my message about politics and the general public on display.

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,395
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    Point proven. Thanks for putting my message about politics and the general public on display.
    $1BB jobs bill vs $10BB a month in AG. Should have been a no brainer, even for the r's.

  7. #7
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,521
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    Yes, really.

    Nothing more than a standard political maneuver.

    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"

    It's transparent and predictable, yet effective because the GOP is too stupid to properly frame it to the public, and the public is generally stupid enough to buy it from the left.

    Won't be too long until Dems introduce a trillion dollar bill to create a federal dog walking job program, and when conservatives shut it down, we'll be hearing about the "GOP's War on Puppies"
    Surely some redistribution is a fundamental part of our society?

    And regardless of party affiliation, do you think the Senate rules need be reformed? That is one of the biggest takeaways from this article, no?

    58 Senators vote Yes, but it fails to pass.

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,553
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    Surely some redistribution is a fundamental part of our society?

    And regardless of party affiliation, do you think the Senate rules need be reformed? That is one of the biggest takeaways from this article, no?

    58 Senators vote Yes, but it fails to pass.
    A fundamental part of our society? What a sick, disturbing thought. No, it isn't a fundamental part, like liberty is. Some redistribution may be a part of our policy, but unlimited and unfettered redistribution interests no one that values our actual fundamentals.

    I love the Senate rules "point". Basically, children stomping their feet because they didn't get their way. These have been the rules for as long as this country has existed. Damn this pesky Constitutional process getting in the way of total and complete socialism

    I really do worry for this country if your mindset here is any reflection on any signifcant subset of the voting population. It displays either a profound lack of understanding protections in place for your freedom, a collective of taking it for granted or both, and a total ignorance of politics, economics and world history

  9. #9
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,730
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    A fundamental part of our society? What a sick, disturbing thought. No, it isn't a fundamental part, like liberty is.

    Some redistribution may be a part of our policy, but unlimited and unfettered redistribution interests no one that values our actual fundamentals.
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz
    Wealth redistribution. That's what government is based on. Redistribution is a fundamental necessity of democratic government.
    He disagrees with you.

    This is a core of much of the disagreement here. The role, rightiousness and responsabillity of/for redistribution within our society as directed by the State.

    It is my view the divide can never be bridged outside of unaccpetable compromise by both sides, as this point.

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,553
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    He disagrees with you.

    This is a core of much of the disagreement here. The role, rightiousness and responsabillity of/for redistribution within our society as directed by the State.

    It is my view the divide can never be bridged outside of unaccpetable compromise by both sides, as this point.
    It will never be bridged. Those who pay attention to world history know that we're nearing the end of a cycle, only to be reset once again by a future generation born into something that will require the recognition of this one's folly. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,266
    Post Thanks / Like
    libtards are like 15 yo girls at the mall with daddy's credit card. nuff said.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,553
    Post Thanks / Like
    Most laughable part of this outrage is the absolute silence on the fact that no budget was passed... for the 3rd year in a row

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,453
    Post Thanks / Like
    Republicans have no use for soldiers anymore. Using them as political props is so 2004.

    They could care less at this point.

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,395
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    Most laughable part of this outrage is the absolute silence on the fact that no budget was passed... for the 3rd year in a row


    Dumb a$$ CR King........

  15. #15
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,521
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post

    I love the Senate rules "point". Basically, children stomping their feet because they didn't get their way. These have been the rules for as long as this country has existed. Damn this pesky Constitutional process getting in the way of total and complete socialism
    Absolutely false.

    The Senate rules we have now are not the same rules that this country started out with. Read about it here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibus..._States_Senate

    and look at the consequences -



    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    A fundamental part of our society? What a sick, disturbing thought. No, it isn't a fundamental part, like liberty is. Some redistribution may be a part of our policy, but unlimited and unfettered redistribution interests no one that values our actual fundamentals.
    I said "some redistribution of wealth" is fundamental to our society and you then reply with "Some redistribution may be part of our policy, but unlimited and unfettered redistribution blah blah blah".

    When the f*** did I say "unlimited and unfettered"?

    What the hell is that, Jetpotato?

    That's the type of bullsh*t that's killing civil discourse. When you take "some" and replace it with "unlimited and unfettered", you change the entire meaning of my position.

    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    He disagrees with you.

    This is a core of much of the disagreement here. The role, rightiousness and responsabillity of/for redistribution within our society as directed by the State.

    It is my view the divide can never be bridged outside of unaccpetable compromise by both sides, as this point.
    Compromise cannot be had because there are those of you that seemingly refuse any and all wealth redistribution.

    There are no "degrees" with people of your position - libertarianism and nothing else.

  16. #16
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    Republicans have no use for soldiers anymore. Using them as political props is so 2004.

    They could care less at this point.


    An EX soldier is just that - EX. The government owes them NOTHING except if that person was injured and disabled. Then he MUST be assisted. And, of course, his GI Bill benefits.
    Millions of ex servicemen over the years separated and went about their lives. What is different now. They need to be treated with a delicate touch? Pretty damned insulting to the ex soldier. Like the government saying black people are incapable of handling their lives on their own.

  17. #17
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,730
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    Compromise cannot be had because there are those of you that seemingly refuse any and all wealth redistribution.

    There are no "degrees" with people of your position - libertarianism and nothing else.
    False.

    I speak only for me, but I am fine with some aid programs for the poor, disabled, and veterans. I've said as much perhaps a thousand times on this very site.

    Let me give you an example:

    1. State provided minimum healthcare for someone whose income places them below the poverty line, and can show proof they are working to get out of poverty? Yes, I support that.

    2. Free State Provided Birth Control Pills, Condoms and Abortion services to a Woman who makes $30,000 a year? No, I do not support that.

    We could do a few hundred other versions of the above, for example, food stamps:

    1. Free State provided food (not stamps, actual food) for someone whose income places them below the poverty line, and who can show proof they are working to get out of poverty? Yes, I support that.

    2. Free Food Stamps (i.e. free money) for someone who is an illegal immigrant, and uses a wad of their own cash to buy alcohol, cigarettes and steaks, then uses the food stamps to buy their groceries? No sir, I do not support that.

    I'm far from a totalitarian in my view on public support. I can see many places where the truly needy could and should get a hand from society.

    What I reject is the consequences-free, responsabillity-free, no-limits, no-ending handout culture for not just the poor that Democrat policy aims to achieve.

    Why I have doubts when it comes to your "oh, just compromise" and "you righties won;t compromise" attiture is that it's dishonest. Like everything in Government, a compromise today is simply a waystation for Democrats and policy. What you get today will never be enough.

    So say we compromise today, and give new entitlement X out today and it's less than what (D) wants. Do we stop there?

    Of course not.

    The very next day, (D) is proposing legislation to get the next step they want, the one they just "gave up" as the compromise, and again they're attacking (R) for being "unwilling to compromise" on this new step, and the cycle repeats itself over, and and over and over.

    Government, and entitlements , never go away and never get smaller. So every compromise on the "less" side is a loss that will never be regained, and is a stepping stone for the "more" side that will never be enough.

    So please, save the "you don't compromise" stuff. The responsabillity/small govt. side has compromised for 80 years and more, and the socialists/social welfareists have yet to compromise once, yet to actually CUT Government once permenetly, and yet to reduce what we hand out to the supposedly needy, a classification that grows with every passing day.

  18. #18
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,521
    Post Thanks / Like
    So we agree that some redistribution is fundamental to our society, but disagree on the degree?

    Good.

    Now we can move on to specific instances from here on out in our discussions, as you already did in your post.

    But before we do, I'd like to adress the second half of your post. It was the Democrats who proposed the debt deal, it fell through because Obama and Boehner were/are douchebags - and because of a Grover Norquist pledge.

    When we talk about compromise and fiscal responsibility, lets be clear about it - the Democrats are in agreement that cuts and raises of revenue are their position. The Republicans only want cuts, and their current Presidential nominee wants a 5 trillion dollar tax cut over ten years coupled with an increases in military spending.

    Whether or not you agree with the degree with which the Democrats are willing to cut and the degree to which they'd like to raise revenue, those were not the issue for congressional Republicans. They will not raise taxes, regardless.

    It doesn't matter that we spent the last ten years cutting taxes while fighting two wars in the middle east (on credit), nor does it matter to them that wealth inequality is at its highest degree since the early 1930's - the point being if we are to raise revenue, we must logically start with the rich, because they are the ones with it, and they are the ones who have benefitted most from the previous tax cuts.

    And this 1 billion dollars to help American war veterans get jobs is a smaller representation of the same problem. This wasn't just a "lets give a billion dollars to Vets, regardless of where that money comes from". It was to be paid for by "fees on Medicare providers and suppliers who are delinquent on their tax bills" which was written into the legislation.

    It wasn't just "entitlement without fiscal responsibility".
    Last edited by SafetyBlitz; 09-22-2012 at 10:56 AM.

  19. #19
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,521
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    An EX soldier is just that - EX. The government owes them NOTHING except if that person was injured and disabled. Then he MUST be assisted. And, of course, his GI Bill benefits.
    Millions of ex servicemen over the years separated and went about their lives. What is different now. They need to be treated with a delicate touch? Pretty damned insulting to the ex soldier. Like the government saying black people are incapable of handling their lives on their own.
    I know you've stated several times on this board that you served. My question is, did you serve during a time of war? And question two would be, do you have an issue with veterans of a war receiving more benefits than veterans during peace time?

    I'm not sure this bill was "veterans need to be treated with a delicate touch". I think one could safely say that it's more of a "1% of Americans were away fighting our wars of choice for us while we recked the economy back home... maybe we should help vets a bit more than we normally do in this instance."

  20. #20
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    So we agree that some redistribution is fundamental to our society, but disagree on the degree?

    Good.

    Now we can move on to specific instances from here on out in our discussions, as you already did in your post.

    But before we do, I'd like to adress the second half of your post. It was the Democrats who proposed the debt deal, it fell through because Obama and Boehner were/are douchebags - and because of a Grover Norquist pledge.

    When we talk about compromise and fiscal responsibility, lets be clear about it - the Democrats are in agreement that cuts and raises of revenue are their position. The Republicans only want cuts, and their current Presidential nominee wants a 5 trillion dollar tax cut over ten years coupled with an increases in military spending.

    Whether or not you agree with the degree with which the Democrats are willing to cut and the degree to which they'd like to raise revenue, those were not the issue for congressional Republicans. They will not raise taxes, regardless.

    It doesn't matter that we spent the last ten years cutting taxes while fighting two wars in the middle east (on credit), nor does it matter to them that wealth inequality is at its highest degree since the early 1930's - the point being if we are to raise revenue, we must logically start with the rich, because they are the ones with it, and they are the ones who have benefitted most from the previous tax cuts.

    And this 1 billion dollars to help American war veterans get jobs is a smaller representation of the same problem. This wasn't just a "lets give a billion dollars to Vets, regardless of where that money comes from". It was to be paid for by "fees on Medicare providers and suppliers who are delinquent on their tax bills" which was written into the legislation.

    It wasn't just "entitlement without fiscal responsibility".



    Like many liberals you DISTORT!!

    I reread warfish's reply to you twice but may have missed it though.
    NOWHERE does he say he is for REDISTRIBUTION.
    He indicated he is willing to provide aid for some and he outlined who he thinks may be eligible. In theory I agree with him. There can always be some discussion on what person(s) need assistance.
    THAT is not redistribution which is taking MINE and giving it to some (in most cases unworthy) other person.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us