Senate Republicans kill veterans' jobs bill

[boutons_deux]

Repugs want to deny any success or progress, even screwing vets.

"Veterans won't be getting a new, billion-dollar jobs program, not from this Senate. Republicans on Wednesday afternoon blocked a vote on the Veterans Job Corps Bill after Jeff Sessions of Alabama raised a point of order -- he said the bill violated a cap on spending agreed to by Congress last year.

The bill's sponsor, Patty Murray of Washington, said that shouldn't matter, since the bill's cost was fully offset by new revenues. She said Mr. Sessions and his party colleagues had been furiously generating excuses to oppose the bill, and were now exploiting a technicality to deny thousands of veterans a shot at getting hired as police officers, firefighters and parks workers, among other things.

The final tally was 58 to 40, and all 40 opponents of the proposal were Republicans."


http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/09/19/13966931-senate-republicans-kill-veterans-jobs-bill?lite

Repugs 100% pure garbage slimebags.

[mavs>spurs]

maybe obama should donate 4 mil to a good cause like helping veterans find work like what mitt did with his charities.

[ploto]

Four of the Republicans who co-wrote the bill worked to keep it from passing.

[Wild Cobra]

Four of the Republicans who co-wrote the bill worked to keep it from passing.
Sounds like the democrats added amendment that they didn't like then.

[ploto]

Sounds like the democrats added amendment that they didn't like then.

No.

[Wild Cobra]

No.

9/12/2012:
S.AMDT.2789 Amendment SA 2789 proposed by Senator Reid for Senator Murray. (consideration: CR S6259)
In the nature of a substitute.
9/12/2012:
S.AMDT.2808 Amendment SA 2808 proposed by Senator Reid to Amendment SA 2789. (consideration: CR S6259; text: CR S6259)
To change the enactment date.
9/12/2012:
S.AMDT.2809 Amendment SA 2809 proposed by Senator Reid to Amendment SA 2808. (consideration: CR S6259; text: CR S6259)
Of a perfecting nature.
9/12/2012:
Cloture motion on amendment SA 2789 presented in Senate. (consideration: CR S6259; text: CR S6259)
9/12/2012:
S.AMDT.2810 Amendment SA 2810 proposed by Senator Reid to language proposed to be stricken by amendment no. SA 2789. (consideration: CR S6259; text: CR S6259)
To change the enactment date.
9/12/2012:
S.AMDT.2811 Amendment SA 2811 proposed by Senator Reid to Amendment SA 2810. (consideration: CR S6259; text: CR S6259)
Of a perfecting nature.
9/12/2012:
Motion by Senator Reid to commit to Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs with instructions to report back forthwith with amendment SA 2812 made in Senate. (consideration: CR S6259)
9/12/2012:
S.AMDT.2812 Amendment SA 2812 proposed by Senator Reid. (consideration: CR S6259; text: CR S6259)
To change the enactment date.
9/12/2012:
S.AMDT.2813 Amendment SA 2813 proposed by Senator Reid to Amendment SA 2812 (the instructions of the motion to commit). (consideration: CR S6259; text: CR S6259)
Of a perfecting nature.
9/12/2012:
S.AMDT.2814 Amendment SA 2814 proposed by Senator Reid to Amendment SA 2813. (consideration: CR S6259-6260; text: CR S6260)
Of a perfecting nature.
9/12/2012:

[Wild Cobra]

Before all the amendments added by the democrats, all republicans voting except 1 voted yes.

[Jacob1983]

So Republicans want these guys to go overseas and do nation building for them and expand America's empire but they can't help out veterans? Pathetic and unpatriotic . They should be ashamed of themselves. If they won't help veterans, then they should stock up on some guns and ammo and go fight in Afghanistan and see how they like it.

[Wild Cobra]

So Republicans want these guys to go overseas and do nation building for them and expand America's empire but they can't help out veterans? Pathetic and unpatriotic . They should be ashamed of themselves. If they won't help veterans, then they should stock up on some guns and ammo and go fight in Afghanistan and see how they like it.
Don't you think you should read the bill and amendments before you simply parrot what the Mad Cow tells you to say?

Besides. There are already veteran's placement programs out there.

[mavs>spurs]

^the post office being one

[Jacob1983]

Maybe so but the government and politicians shouldn't shit on veterans. I'm sorry if you disagree with that. They deserve better than being shat on.

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe so but the government and politicians shouldn't shit on veterans. I'm sorry if you disagree with that. They deserve better than being shat on.
What's funny is so many employers already prefer to hire veterans. No extra help is needed beyond what is already available.

Just how many veteran's programs does the government need to pay for? Aren't the dozen or so out there enough yet?

[Jacob1983]

Not sure, I mean the government should help them out but private charity groups should help them out too.

[Wild Cobra]

Not sure, I mean the government should help them out but private charity groups should help them out too.
I'm all for charity. I am one that advocates like minded people get together and form their charity groups for a common cause.

Do you think we need another tax payer funded veterans group? Don't we have enough already? Just when does it end?

People need to stop believing what the pundits say about a bill, and read the text for themselves.

[Jacob1983]

Outstanding.


I do think that America needs to change the way of thinking on government spending and be a little more open minded and tolerant about charity groups and not discount them. A lot of charity groups do great work. Sure, there are corrupt ones but the good ones outnumber the bad ones.

[boutons_deux]

what horrible, repulsive Dem amendment(s) so enraged every single, lock-stepping Repug that they voted unanimously to OBSTRUCT this bill?

or was it just bloody-minded, blind, reflexive Repug obstructionism to grid-lock any possible progress by Congress?

btw

"The unemployment rate for veterans who served on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces at any time since September 2001--a group referred to as Gulf War-era II veterans--was 12.1 percent in 2011, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.

The jobless rate for all veterans was 8.3 percent.

Twenty-six percent of Gulf War-era II veterans reported having a service-connected disability in August 2011, compared with about 14 percent of all veterans."

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/vet.nr0.htm

So what has America (oilcos?) gained in the wars in the past 11 years that justifies these fucked up, disabled vets, and of course the astronomical suicide rate that surpassing combat deaths? I assume a lot of vets are fucked up mentally, are too manly to seek help and often are ignored/denied by military docs, and are undercounted.

[boutons_deux]

Senate Republicans Shaft the Vets

http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/article_imgs7/7844-veterans-jobs-senate-091912.jpg

Is it because unemployed veterans are part of Mitt Romney's scorned 47 percent? Unemployed, they pay no taxes. They may feel they are "entitled" to the health care benefits they are guaranteed. Many take advantage of training and education benefits. Perhaps Republican senators simply didn't want to help these "victims" feel entitled to a job in addition.

Or is it because Senate Republicans remain committed to block any action that will produce jobs in their monomaniacal effort to defeat Barack Obama? In the midst of the worst recession in generations, Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell famously announced at the beginning of the term that "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Republicans then launched a scorched-earth policy of obstruction, using the filibuster to block everything they could. They worked overtime to weaken the president's initial recovery act, cutting its size and larding it with ineffective tax cuts. Once Republicans took the House, they joined in blocking additional jobs measures, including most recently the president's American Jobs Act, while forcing cuts in spending that cost jobs. And then, of course, they denounce the president for failing to fix the economy.

Or perhaps Senate Republicans are simply fools, not knaves. Conservative Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma explained his vote against putting unemployed veterans to work by arguing that making progress on the nation's debt was the best way to help them in the long-term. "We ought to do nothing now that makes the problem worse for our kids and grandkids," he said. In the long-term, as John Maynard Keynes once said, we are all dead – a comment that gains grim import as the Defense Department reports that veterans are killing themselves at the rate of one every 80 minutes

These same Republicans squandered over $3 trillion on the unfunded "war of choice" in Iraq. And now spending a billion on veterans imposes too big a burden on our grandchildren. This is disgraceful politics.

Naturally, the two Republican senators in close re-election races - Scott Brown in Massachusetts and Dean Heller of Nevada - were given permission to vote for the bill. :lol

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/13587-senate-republicans-shaft-the-vets

[DMX7]

maybe obama should donate 4 mil to a good cause like helping veterans find work like what mitt did with his charities.

His church shouldn't count as a charity. It doubles as a anti-gay political action committee.

Besides, that's chump change to Romney. Obama's net worth is about $6M and Romney's is $250M+.

[boutons_deux]

he'll make it rain Ts if he wants

If he could spend about $2T on a Keynsian stimulus, he should and maybe would, but he can't due to Repugs in Congress preferring a cratered economy and extended economic pain for the 99%.

[Th'Pusher]

9/12/2012:
S.AMDT.2789 Amendment SA 2789 proposed by Senator Reid for Senator Murray. (consideration: CR S6259)
In the nature of a substitute.
9/12/2012:
S.AMDT.2808 Amendment SA 2808 proposed by Senator Reid to Amendment SA 2789. (consideration: CR S6259; text: CR S6259)
To change the enactment date.
9/12/2012:
S.AMDT.2809 Amendment SA 2809 proposed by Senator Reid to Amendment SA 2808. (consideration: CR S6259; text: CR S6259)
Of a perfecting nature.
9/12/2012:
Cloture motion on amendment SA 2789 presented in Senate. (consideration: CR S6259; text: CR S6259)
9/12/2012:
S.AMDT.2810 Amendment SA 2810 proposed by Senator Reid to language proposed to be stricken by amendment no. SA 2789. (consideration: CR S6259; text: CR S6259)
To change the enactment date.
9/12/2012:
S.AMDT.2811 Amendment SA 2811 proposed by Senator Reid to Amendment SA 2810. (consideration: CR S6259; text: CR S6259)
Of a perfecting nature.
9/12/2012:
Motion by Senator Reid to commit to Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs with instructions to report back forthwith with amendment SA 2812 made in Senate. (consideration: CR S6259)
9/12/2012:
S.AMDT.2812 Amendment SA 2812 proposed by Senator Reid. (consideration: CR S6259; text: CR S6259)
To change the enactment date.
9/12/2012:
S.AMDT.2813 Amendment SA 2813 proposed by Senator Reid to Amendment SA 2812 (the instructions of the motion to commit). (consideration: CR S6259; text: CR S6259)
Of a perfecting nature.
9/12/2012:
S.AMDT.2814 Amendment SA 2814 proposed by Senator Reid to Amendment SA 2813. (consideration: CR S6259-6260; text: CR S6260)
Of a perfecting nature.
9/12/2012:

:lol What specific amendment did the republican senators take issue with?

[Latarian Milton]

most jobs in the market are too feminine for them vets. jobs requiring male characteristics (strength, hardiness, intellect, creativity etc...) have shrunk alot while others where scrutiny and patience are needed more have been growing, and that's why for the first time in human's history we have more working women than men in the workforce. it's not the government's fault not to create jobs for them vets when their services are not at all needed in the society today.

[boutons_deux]

"we have more working women than men in the workforce"

yep, as the US economy converts non-stop to service economy, Real Men can be left out.

And men are too damn expensive. Women get paid at least 20% less than men for the same job.

And most of these vets, grunts enlisted because they couldn't find a job, have nothing but a high school diploma, often nothing but a piece of paper hiding the grad's illiteracy and innumeracy, and certainly not a guarantee of any job, even $12/hour jobs.

And Repugs refuse to help the vets, and also cut unemployment insurance to make sure the vets, and other lazy, dependent moochers, are really screwed in the Banksters Great (jobs) Depression.

[DMC]

Anyone who's never served with some of those ass clowns can easily be duped into thinking every veteran deserves a job after service, but a large portion of these guys are on virtual welfare now by working in REMF positions and doing basically not a goddamn thing except learning how to get disability after their 4 year stint is up, or after some 10 year road sgt gets released for being useless.

The door kickers and those who actually did something, sure, send them my way I will help. The rest can pound sand (literally).

[Wild Cobra]

Anyone who's never served with some of those ass clowns can easily be duped into thinking every veteran deserves a job after service, but a large portion of these guys are on virtual welfare now by working in REMF positions and doing basically not a goddamn thing except learning how to get disability after their 4 year stint is up, or after some 10 year road sgt gets released for being useless.

The door kickers and those who actually did something, sure, send them my way I will help. The rest can pound sand (literally).

And the depth or your ignorance is reveled once again.

I think we can all agree not all veterans are equal. Still, there is far more than the simplistic statement you made.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol What specific amendment did the republican senators take issue with?
I don't know. I read the bill, I didn't read the amendments. Apparently you didn't follow the conversation and are looking for a different angle. If you are concerned, then you read the amendments.

Consider this.

1) Initially all republicans who were there to vote, voted YES except Paul.

2) The democrats load it up with multiple amendments.

3) Almost all republicans voting, then vote NO.

Isn't this chain of events obvious as to the reason?

[Drachen]

I don't want to do research when I can just make assumptions, but you guys already knew that.

[Th'Pusher]

I don't know. I read the bill, I didn't read the amendments. Apparently you didn't follow the conversation and are looking for a different angle. If you are concerned, then you read the amendments.

Consider this.

1) Initially all republicans who were there to vote, voted YES except Paul.

2) The democrats load it up with multiple amendments.

3) Almost all republicans voting, then vote NO.

Isn't this chain of events obvious as to the reason?

So you have no idea why the republicans voted against the bill.

[Wild Cobra]

So you have no idea why the republicans voted against the bill.
My understanding is the given reason was the way the democrats wanted to finance the $1 billion. That may or may not be the reason.

[boutons_deux]

According to the bill's sponsor, Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), the National Park Service alone has deferred maintenance totaling over $11 billion. The Veterans Jobs Corps would also increase employment among our returning service members as police, firefighters and first responders. Experts say the $1 billion bill would have paid for itself in ten years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jackie-ostfeld/gop-blocks-passage-of-vet_b_1898082.html

"It makes sense for the 99 percent of Americans to find new ways to pay their debt to the 1 percent who serve in uniform. To most people, Senator Murray's bill would seem like one decent way to do that. But not if you're one of those Republicans in Washington who thinks it's more important in an election year to deny Democrats a success or accomplishment of any kind."

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/09/19/13966931-senate-republicans-kill-veterans-jobs-bill?lite

very weird, I can't find anything on FoxNews.com about "veterans jobs" except stuff from weeks ago. nothing about Repugs killing the bill. How could they miss this story? I flummoxed! :lol

[Wild Cobra]

No shit boutons.

Thing is, that is money to keep rather than spend. Money to reduce the deficit rather than just move elsewhere. There is no need to move such a bill forward under our financial situation.

[boutons_deux]

WC the vet says fuck the vets. Perfect!

[Wild Cobra]

WC the vet says fuck the vets. Perfect!
Do you selectively not read some things people write?

Don't we already have enough programs for veterans?