Despite veterans opposition, Senate Dems vow to pass budget deal

[BP]

Here's where we'll differ. If they don't pay for it out of pocket, it is a handout. Period. Now, I've got less of a problem paying for things like that, than paying for methheads and hoodrats spitting out kids like a fucking slot machine. But if you aren't paying for it, it is a handout, and that's a fact.

It's absolutely not a handout. When you enlist you sign a contract and the benefits are agreed upon as part of your total compensation package. The difference is that most people enlisting don't understand the paperwork and sure as heck don't read it and if there is a problem they definitely can't afford an attorney powerful enough to fight it.

[Forever_frost]

You're stretching, and you know it.


Sucks that you were homeless, but that is your problem, not mine. You want to preach personal reaponsibility from the rooftops, but you think you're exempt. I get it, you served. You still have responsibilities, PTSD be damned.

No, it's not stretching and you know it.

"The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive veterans of early wars were treated and appreciated by our nation."

- George Washington

I preach personal responsibility which is why I pulled myself up and took that time to get my feet under me. Instead of blowing my brains out, I tried repeatedly to find work and handled no medication for a few years. I'm far from exempt and despite my injury, I did go on to get a degree afterwards, establish a home, fight for vet's rights on the floor of the House and Senate, take it to the White House and serve on the Governor's Council on Disability.

Tell me more about my lack of responsibility.

[ELVIS]

word.

sent from my free obamaphone!!!!!!

god bless.

[Couver]

It's absolutely not a handout. When you enlist you sign a contract and the benefits are agreed upon as part of your total compensation package. The difference is that most people enlisting don't understand the paperwork and sure as heck don't read it and if there is a problem they definitely can't afford an attorney powerful enough to fight it.

This times a billion!! The military is not a 9 to 5 job. I can understand if they change the terms for people just joining. They will know what they are going to get compensated going in and good on them.

To break the faith with those who did their time under the governments terms then get shit on says it all.

Me personally I steer people away from the military as a career. If they want to join great but bail after your 4 and go to college.

[Forever_frost]

This times a billion!! The military is not a 9 to 5 job. I can understand if they change the terms for people just joining. They will know what they are going to get compensated going in and good on them.

To break the faith with those who did their time under the governments terms then get shit on says it all.

Me personally I steer people away from the military as a career. If they want to join great but bail after your 4 and go to college.

Despite everything, I still encourage people to join. Be aware of things, research it, but join if you have a drive to serve your Republic. I'll certainly explain the ups and downs to my sons when it comes time.

[juiceweezl]

This times a billion!! The military is not a 9 to 5 job. I can understand if they change the terms for people just joining. They will know what they are going to get compensated going in and good on them.

To break the faith with those who did their time under the governments terms then get shit on says it all.

Me personally I steer people away from the military as a career. If they want to join great but bail after your 4 and go to college.

I'm not picking a side in this fight because I have my own personal beliefs, but those aside, look at it this way.

I'm not sure what 'terms' are agreed to or what is promised for benefits, but armed services is a choice of a career. From that perspective, it's no different than a fast food cook, a retail sales person, a plant manager, a sales manager, etc. -- it's a job that someone applied for, was offered, and then took with a compensation plan that may or may not have included benefits. Over the 'employed' time, that plan can change. You can get a pay raise or a pay cut. Your benefits can change as well -- I think we all know that recently. To counter your argument, just because it's armed service shouldn't necessarily make their pay/benefits exempt from changes -- they're like every other employee in that respect.

Flame on, and remember, I'm just making debate -- not my personal belief.

[Couver]

I'm not picking a side in this fight because I have my own personal beliefs, but those aside, look at it this way.

I'm not sure what 'terms' are agreed to or what is promised for benefits, but armed services is a choice of a career. From that perspective, it's no different than a fast food cook, a retail sales person, a plant manager, a sales manager, etc. -- it's a job that someone applied for, was offered, and then took with a compensation plan that may or may not have included benefits. Over the 'employed' time, that plan can change. You can get a pay raise or a pay cut. Your benefits can change as well -- I think we all know that recently. To counter your argument, just because it's armed service shouldn't necessarily make their pay/benefits exempt from changes -- they're like every other employee in that respect.

Flame on, and remember, I'm just making debate -- not my personal belief.

No flames here but how many fry cooks or toys salemen go in harms way? They are allowed to go home everyday.

When you join you are at the will of the military. I remember at sea one time listening to people bitch about 12 on 12 off... I would have killed to work that spending 14-18 hours a day on the roof. Being gone for months on end with no limit on the hours you work adds up after a decade or two. That's where the compensation comes from. Pilots are a huge cost to train but those little enlisted doggies aren't cheap either once you get them up to speed. I know I spent over a year in school before I touched my first airplane.

[ceyko]

Flame on, and remember, I'm just making debate -- not my personal belief.

Generally speaking, I think the heartache comes from a few different areas...

1. Why take away from those who served and not those who leech, especially when you KNOW there is a ton of welfare abuse out there.

2. Why does the government not make any cuts to their benefit? (see #1 as well)

3. MOSTLY at the federal level, nothing changes. Their junk is written in stone basically.

I think if using a magical 10% number - if 10% was cut everywhere - there would be less griping. it's when it appears that only veterans (Mind you, not all veterans are eligible for shit - in fact a lot do their time and get discharged with no benefits. Other than like a VA loan which gets repaid with interest)

Personally, I too would much rather see welfare be buckled down on than veteran's benefits. Especially those who were wounded in a war we sent them to. Whether it be a busted toe or a bullet in the head.

[juiceweezl]

No flames here but how many fry cooks or toys salemen go in harms way? They are allowed to go home everyday.

When you join you are at the will of the military. I remember at sea one time listening to people bitch about 12 on 12 off... I would have killed to work that spending 14-18 hours a day on the roof. Being gone for months on end with no limit on the hours you work adds up after a decade or two. That's where the compensation comes from. Pilots are a huge cost to train but those little enlisted doggies aren't cheap either once you get them up to speed. I know I spent over a year in school before I touched my first airplane.

Again, for the purpose of debate...last I was aware, we haven't had a draft since 1973. That means a career in the armed services is a choice of employment...just like a fry cook. This isn't a case of which is more valuable to society. It was a discussion about handouts. I made the point that compensation and benefits for military shouldn't be any different than others from that perspective. They should be limited to the terms of a contract and subject to changes outside the terms of the contract.

[ceyko]

Again, for the purpose of debate...last I was aware, we haven't had a draft since 1973. That means a career in the armed services is a choice of employment...just like a fry cook. This isn't a case of which is more valuable to society. It was a discussion about handouts. I made the point that compensation and benefits for military shouldn't be any different than others from that perspective. They should be limited to the terms of a contract and subject to changes outside the terms of the contract.

I'll have to look up my old contract, but there are to be no changes to it. However, I'm not 100% sure any VA benefits are listed in it and how it's listed.

I joined because I wanted to, not because of old man benefits. Ignorance is bliss.

[juiceweezl]

Personally, I too would much rather see welfare be buckled down on than veteran's benefits. Especially those who were wounded in a war we sent them to. Whether it be a busted toe or a bullet in the head.

I think you're beginning to touch on the real point. Welfare was created to be an assistance program. Assistance is an aid to prop you up and help you become self-sufficient. We all need help at times; however, that should be what family, friends, church, and charity are for -- not our tax dollars. We should use some of that money, funds that are probably in the current military budget but wasted elsewhere, to have a better exit strategy in place for our soldiers to help them get a solid footing back in the country they defended and to help them cope with the effects of war. That I would never argue, and I think would help immensely. It's like the old adage about a man and a fish...

[ceyko]

Yeah, but that man has to WANT and be willing to fish. Society it seems is not willing to let people who are lazy/criminals just fade away.

[juiceweezl]

Yeah, but that man has to WANT and be willing to fish. Society it seems is not willing to let people who are lazy/criminals just fade away.

My point exactly -- that's the people we should aid.

[Couver]

My point exactly -- that's the people we should aid.

I think we are almost on the same page..

My point is the benefits you get from a military retirement is not a "hand out" it was earned and for the government to piss backwards on what was promised is shitty at best.

I don't disagree with you but I hate the view it's a "hand out"

[Forever_frost]

A top Republican senator is trying to undo cuts to military retiree benefits in the House-passed budget deal ahead of a crucial vote Tuesday morning in the Senate.

Alabama GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions filed an amendment late Monday to restore money that was cut from veteran and military retiree pension benefits by closing a loophole that allowed illegal immigrants to qualify for child tax credits.

His move comes after several GOP senators voiced complaints about the budget package, which sailed out of the House last week on a strong bipartisan vote.

Now it appears America's veterans and military retirees could be a determining factor in whether the deal makes it through the Senate.

Republicans say the plan unfairly forces veterans to pick up the cost of new spending. The provision generating heated opposition from Veterans of Foreign Wars and allied lawmakers would cut retirement benefits for military retirees by $6 billion over 10 years.

"It's unacceptable to single out our men and women in uniform in this way," said Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H.

In sharp contrast to the confident statements issued by House leaders ahead of their vote last week, Senate leaders indicated they were still corralling support.

"The struggle is still on in the United States Senate," Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said in an interview on Sunday.

Democrats need to hold most of their caucus of 55 senators together and pick up a handful of GOP senators in order to reach the 60-vote threshold to advance the bill on Tuesday.

The Republican "no" votes were piling up over the weekend. Unlike in the House side, where Speaker John Boehner aggressively battled conservative groups trying to kill the bill, GOP leaders in the Senate are signaling opposition, or at least resistance, to the package.

One member of the leadership team, Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, announced Friday that he opposes the deal because it breaches spending caps put in place by a 2011 budget deal "and doesn't include meaningful spending reforms that address our debt and deficit."

Ayotte, Sessions and other senators focused largely on the cuts to veterans and military retirees.

Sessions’ amendment would restore the funding by requiring applicants for a particular child tax credit to submit their Social Security numbers. Federal law bars illegal immigrants from collecting tax benefits but that particular tax credit is often claimed by undocumented residents, according to recent watchdog reports.

Congress faces a Jan. 15 deadline to pass a budget bill or risk another partial government shutdown. The debt-ceiling deadline is expected to hit sometime in February.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/16/sen-tries-to-undo-cuts-to-military-retiree-benefits-ahead-senate-budget-vote/