Taxes to increase on everyone so says CBO

[carlfense]

The only political party who would cut the benefits are the democrats, and it would be political suicide to cut anything like that.

*cough*

 

A massive veterans legislative package that would have expanded a host of post-military benefits was sidelined Thursday after Senate Democratic backers failed to find enough support among their Republican colleagues.

http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140227/NEWS05/302270033/Senate-blocks-huge-vets-benefits-bill

[Junior]

 

The only political party who would cut the benefits are the democrats, and it would be political suicide to cut anything like that.

*cough*

 

A massive veterans legislative package that would have expanded a host of post-military benefits was sidelined Thursday after Senate Democratic backers failed to find enough support among their Republican colleagues.

http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140227/NEWS05/302270033/Senate-blocks-huge-vets-benefits-bill

 

 

But they support the troops! They wear the little yellow ribbon pins that prove it.

[carlfense]

But they support the troops! They wear the little yellow ribbon pins that prove it.

Right! And they send them off to die by the thousands for lies.

 

Love the troops. Love them.

[Junior]

 

But they support the troops! They wear the little yellow ribbon pins that prove it.

Right! And they send them off to die by the thousands for lies.

 

Love the troops. Love them.

 

 

Well yea... if they didn't do that, there wouldn't be any troops to love.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

 

The only political party who would cut the benefits are the democrats, and it would be political suicide to cut anything like that.

*cough*

 

A massive veterans legislative package that would have expanded a host of post-military benefits was sidelined Thursday after Senate Democratic backers failed to find enough support among their Republican colleagues.

http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140227/NEWS05/302270033/Senate-blocks-huge-vets-benefits-bill

 

A bill that failed to expand military benefits isn't the same as cutting current benefits.

 

But I understand your point, interesting to see Republicans not rallying around a cause that they almost always do.

[VectorVictor]

 

 

The only political party who would cut the benefits are the democrats, and it would be political suicide to cut anything like that.

*cough*

 

A massive veterans legislative package that would have expanded a host of post-military benefits was sidelined Thursday after Senate Democratic backers failed to find enough support among their Republican colleagues.

http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140227/NEWS05/302270033/Senate-blocks-huge-vets-benefits-bill

 

A bill that failed to expand military benefits isn't the same as cutting current benefits.

 

But I understand your point, interesting to see Republicans not rallying around a cause that they almost always do.

 

 

You're talking about what happened in 2013 with the budget standoff, right, where the GOP cut the cost of living increases for retired veterans to save ~$6 billion, right?

 

Or were you referring to the 2014 antics when the GOP voted down a bill to store the 2013 cuts and expand VA services and health care coverage this past February when it was known there were significant gaps in service and coverage?

 

Or, were you referring to 2012, when the GOP voted down the following bills all pertaining to Veterans benefits, health, and human services:

 

H.R. 466/2875 – Wounded Veteran Job Security Act (466 became 2875)

H.R. 1168 -- Veterans Retraining Act

H.R. 1171 – Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program Reauthorization

H.R. 1172 -- Requiring List on VA Website of Organizations Providing Scholarships for Veterans

H.R. 1293 -- Disabled Veterans Home Improvement and Structural Alteration Grant Increase Act of 2009

H.R. 2352 – Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act

 

Sorry, I'm just trying to clarify your statements here, as you indicated that Republicans almost always rally around their (Veterans) cause. I don't see a history of this support in the past three years, so I'm trying to understand where you're coming from with your statement.

[carlfense]

 

 

The only political party who would cut the benefits are the democrats, and it would be political suicide to cut anything like that.

*cough*

 

A massive veterans legislative package that would have expanded a host of post-military benefits was sidelined Thursday after Senate Democratic backers failed to find enough support among their Republican colleagues.

http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140227/NEWS05/302270033/Senate-blocks-huge-vets-benefits-bill

 

A bill that failed to expand military benefits isn't the same as cutting current benefits.

 

But I understand your point, interesting to see Republicans not rallying around a cause that they almost always do.

 

But it seems a bit incoherent to argue that the political party seeking to expand benefits is the only one who would cut the benefits.

 

Isn't it more likely that the party seeking to block expanded benefits would be the party to cut benefits? Sure looks like it to me.

[carlfense]

 

 

 

The only political party who would cut the benefits are the democrats, and it would be political suicide to cut anything like that.

*cough*

 

A massive veterans legislative package that would have expanded a host of post-military benefits was sidelined Thursday after Senate Democratic backers failed to find enough support among their Republican colleagues.

http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140227/NEWS05/302270033/Senate-blocks-huge-vets-benefits-bill

 

A bill that failed to expand military benefits isn't the same as cutting current benefits.

 

But I understand your point, interesting to see Republicans not rallying around a cause that they almost always do.

 

 

You're talking about what happened in 2013 with the budget standoff, right, where the GOP cut the cost of living increases for retired veterans to save ~$6 billion, right?

 

Or were you referring to the 2014 antics when the GOP voted down a bill to store the 2013 cuts and expand VA services and health care coverage this past February when it was known there were significant gaps in service and coverage?

 

Or, were you referring to 2012, when the GOP voted down the following bills all pertaining to Veterans benefits, health, and human services:

 

H.R. 466/2875 – Wounded Veteran Job Security Act (466 became 2875)

H.R. 1168 -- Veterans Retraining Act

H.R. 1171 – Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program Reauthorization

H.R. 1172 -- Requiring List on VA Website of Organizations Providing Scholarships for Veterans

H.R. 1293 -- Disabled Veterans Home Improvement and Structural Alteration Grant Increase Act of 2009

H.R. 2352 – Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act

 

Sorry, I'm just trying to clarify your statements here, as you indicated that Republicans almost always rally around their (Veterans) cause. I don't see a history of this support in the past three years, so I'm trying to understand where you're coming from with your statement.

 

But matthew_m_g, the GOP loves the troops and the DNC hates them. You're making this more complicated than it needs to be.

[Dr. Strangelove]

 

 

 

The only political party who would cut the benefits are the democrats, and it would be political suicide to cut anything like that.

*cough*

 

A massive veterans legislative package that would have expanded a host of post-military benefits was sidelined Thursday after Senate Democratic backers failed to find enough support among their Republican colleagues.

http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140227/NEWS05/302270033/Senate-blocks-huge-vets-benefits-bill

 

A bill that failed to expand military benefits isn't the same as cutting current benefits.

 

But I understand your point, interesting to see Republicans not rallying around a cause that they almost always do.

 

 

You're talking about what happened in 2013 with the budget standoff, right, where the GOP cut the cost of living increases for retired veterans to save ~$6 billion, right?

 

Or were you referring to the 2014 antics when the GOP voted down a bill to store the 2013 cuts and expand VA services and health care coverage this past February when it was known there were significant gaps in service and coverage?

 

Or, were you referring to 2012, when the GOP voted down the following bills all pertaining to Veterans benefits, health, and human services:

 

H.R. 466/2875 – Wounded Veteran Job Security Act (466 became 2875)

H.R. 1168 -- Veterans Retraining Act

H.R. 1171 – Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program Reauthorization

H.R. 1172 -- Requiring List on VA Website of Organizations Providing Scholarships for Veterans

H.R. 1293 -- Disabled Veterans Home Improvement and Structural Alteration Grant Increase Act of 2009

H.R. 2352 – Job Creation Through Entrepreneurship Act

 

Sorry, I'm just trying to clarify your statements here, as you indicated that Republicans almost always rally around their (Veterans) cause. I don't see a history of this support in the past three years, so I'm trying to understand where you're coming from with your statement.

 

Historically speaking, Republicans are a lot more averse than Democrats are about cutting military spending. The last 2 years are a bit of an anomaly due to the Tea Party.

 

My overall point is more about what is possible to cut from the military that would actually lower defense spending significantly from what is now approx 500 billion each year. There aren't enough weapons programs to cut, and now they can only cut military benefits.

[carlfense]

There aren't enough weapons programs to cut, and now they can only cut military benefits.

Are you seriously trying to argue that those are the only two things that are in the military budget? Sheesh.

[LukeinNE]

I wouldn't mind seeing us essentially pull our military out of Europe. NATO has atrophied under our protective umbrella and to what end? So we can pile up debts while Europeans smugly tell us how much better they are at organizing society? There's no reason to subsidize them.

[carlfense]

I wouldn't mind seeing us essentially pull our military out of Europe. NATO has atrophied under our protective umbrella and to what end? So we can pile up debts while Europeans smugly tell us how much better they are at organizing society? There's no reason to subsidize them.

And so many of their restrooms are filthy.

 

Looking at you France and Italy.

[Dr. Strangelove]

 

There aren't enough weapons programs to cut, and now they can only cut military benefits.

Are you seriously trying to argue that those are the only two things that are in the military budget? Sheesh.

 

Haha, of course not. There are a lot of things you can cut, but those are the two things that lead to meaningful cuts.

 

It's one thing to cut 6 billion here and 12 billion there. I'm referring to cutting the budget significantly, say 100-150 billion.

[carlfense]

 

 

There aren't enough weapons programs to cut, and now they can only cut military benefits.

Are you seriously trying to argue that those are the only two things that are in the military budget? Sheesh.

 

Haha, of course not. There are a lot of things you can cut, but those are the two things that lead to meaningful cuts.

 

It's one thing to cut 6 billion here and 12 billion there. I'm referring to cutting the budget significantly, say 100-150 billion.

 

Would you agree that $1.7 trillion would be a meaningful cut?

[Dr. Strangelove]

 

 

 

There aren't enough weapons programs to cut, and now they can only cut military benefits.

Are you seriously trying to argue that those are the only two things that are in the military budget? Sheesh.

 

Haha, of course not. There are a lot of things you can cut, but those are the two things that lead to meaningful cuts.

 

It's one thing to cut 6 billion here and 12 billion there. I'm referring to cutting the budget significantly, say 100-150 billion.

 

Would you agree that $1.7 trillion would be a meaningful cut?

 

1.7 trillion over the next 10 years? Or is this just a slight reduction in slowing increasing spending? Often when these numbers are figured they say 'instead of increasing the military budget by 50 billion, we'll pass a law that increases spending by 25 billion' and then a 'cut' of 25 billion is claimed. Makes it easier to digest.