Republican Senate Kills Military Veteran Job bill - Page 2

Register Today!
  1. Sep 20, '12 by
    Quote from herring_RN
    If you know about something added to the bill please post it.
    I know nothing. First time I even heard of this bill was at the start of this thread. Been waaaay out of the loop for weeks.

    But often a bill has other junk attached to it, and if so, maybe that is why is was voted down....that's all I was saying.

    And IF other bills are not producing desired results, why should we trust that this one will?
    HM-8404 and Medic2RN like this.
  2. Sep 20, '12 by
    Quote from tntrn
    And IF other bills are not producing desired results, why should we trust that this one will?
    What other bills?

    As a fiscal moderate person myself, I agree throwing money at a situation where other jobs bills aren't working during a fiscal crises isn't a good idea, but there haven't been many jobs bills passed lately.
    Last edit by Tweety on Sep 20, '12
    aknottedyarn, herring_RN, and tewdles like this.
  3. Sep 20, '12 by
    Can't edit for some reason on this computer. I will add that there are already Veterans job assistance programs in place, failing miserably, but that could be the reality of the economy. How is this one different and does it justify a $1 billion dollar price tag? Does it actually put people to work and not just "assist" in the process.
    nursefrances likes this.
  4. Sep 20, '12 by
    Quote from Tweety
    Can't edit for some reason on this computer. I will add that there are already Veterans job assistance programs in place, failing miserably, but that could be the reality of the economy. How is this one different and does it justify a $1 billion dollar price tag? Does it actually put people to work and not just "assist" in the process.


    Other programs, that's what I meant. And since there are others "failing miserably" why throw good money after bad? Get rid of the old, bad ones, but replace it with ones that have accountability written in, not just a funding source.
  5. Sep 20, '12 by
    Quote from tntrn
    Other programs, that's what I meant. And since there are others "failing miserably" why throw good money after bad? Get rid of the old, bad ones, but replace it with ones that have accountability written in, not just a funding source.
    I can agree with that but the Senate doesn't because one of their issues is that it creates a new program.

    But why are they failing...why are 1:4 veterans unemployed. Is it the bad economy? Is it PTSD? Are they untrained for civilian life? Is it the age group, since young people already have a high rate of unemployment. Do they deserve a special program? Are they lazy and wanting government handouts?

    My take on it is this. The government wasted no time approving a 600 BILLION dollar military budget. Take a billion out of that and fund this program. If Lochheed (sp?) and all the other companies get that money for defense, can't they spare a billion for the vets? Can't the republicans whom claim they want to reduce the deficit take a billion from here?
    Not_A_Hat_Person, wooh, tewdles, and 4 others like this.
  6. Sep 20, '12 by
    I think everyone's thinking WAYYY too deeply into the reason for this move by Republicans. Big time.

    My take on this? That this bill, crafted by the Democrats, would look very GOOD for Democrats once passed--particularly so close to Election Day. Therefore, the Republicans MUST stomp on it.

    I think it has zero to do with the bill being "bad" in the voting Republicans' eyes and everything to do with it making the "other guy" look good.

    What's best for the people be d@mned.
    CrufflerJJ, wooh, and mediajunkie650 like this.
  7. Sep 20, '12 by
    Quote from RNsRWe
    I think everyone's thinking WAYYY too deeply into the reason for this move by Republicans. Big time.

    My take on this? That this bill, crafted by the Democrats, would look very GOOD for Democrats once passed--particularly so close to Election Day. Therefore, the Republicans MUST stomp on it.

    I think it has zero to do with the bill being "bad" in the voting Republicans' eyes and everything to do with it making the "other guy" look good.

    What's best for the people be d@mned.
    Well, I did kind of suggest that idea. But it's kind of a win win for them.....if passed they would have taken credit and looked good...rejected by Republicans which was predictable...they still look good.
    herring_RN likes this.
  8. Sep 20, '12 by
    After repeatedly blocking the Zadroga Act, screwing over veterans is mere child's play.
    CrufflerJJ, Wet Noodle, tewdles, and 4 others like this.
  9. Sep 23, '12 by
    Quote from tntrn
    I know nothing. First time I even heard of this bill was at the start of this thread. Been waaaay out of the loop for weeks.

    But often a bill has other junk attached to it, and if so, maybe that is why is was voted down....that's all I was saying.

    And IF other bills are not producing desired results, why should we trust that this one will?
    "Americans don't trust us," said Sen.Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee. "And why should Americans trust us when we keep using gimmicks and budget sleight of hand to hide more spending and drive the country further into debt."
    Democrats sought to waive budget rules, but the proposal failed 58-40, with most Republicans voting against it. Sixty votes were needed to overcome the procedural hurdle and push the bill toward final passage. Five Republicans - Sens. Scott Brown (Mass.), Susan Collins (Maine), Dean Heller(Nev.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Olympia Snowe (Maine) - voted with all 53 members of the Democratic Conference to sidestep the procedural roadblock.
    Republicans also said that job-creating provisions in measure - including establishing a veterans jobs corps to employ veterans in conservation, recreation, and resource management projects on public lands; and as firefighters and police officers - are untested.
    tewdles likes this.
  10. Guide
    Sep 23, '12 by
    Quote from HM-8404
    .
    Republicans also said that job-creating provisions in measure - including establishing a veterans jobs corps to employ veterans in conservation, recreation, and resource management projects on public lands; and as firefighters and police officers - are untested.
    What is failed to be mentioned is that the people who presented this bill decided politics trumped their beliefs and voted against it.

    That quote of something new not tested never stopped a GOPer from passing military expenditures for faster killing machines. We can maim faster but any program that might assist the maimed is too risky?

    Oh, I remember now- These service people become part of the 47% and are worthy of nothing that might help as well as the rest of the country.
    Last edit by aknottedyarn on Sep 23, '12
    tewdles, CrufflerJJ, Wet Noodle, and 1 other like this.