Senate GOP Blocks Vets’ Benefits Bill Over Diplomacy-Killing Iran Sanctions

[tytlyf]

Senate GOP Blocks Vets’ Benefits Bill Over Diplomacy-Killing Iran Sanctions

This isn't the first time republicans have shown they don't care about Veterans. Why would a veteran support the republican party given their track record?

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America also called on senators to take irrelevant issues like Iran out of the vets bill debate, and on Thursday called the GOP’s obstruction “shameful.”
“Veterans don’t have time for this nonsense and veterans are tired of being used as political chew toys,” said IAVA founder and CEO Paul Rieckhoff, according to the Washington Post.
Sanders’ bill paid for the benefits by using some funds that would have otherwise been earmarked for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Senate Republicans like Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), who had no objections using those funds to pay for the wars, called it a “bogus gimmick.”
“How can we afford $100 billion in tax breaks for the wealthiest three-tenths of Americans, but we can’t pay for veterans benefits?” Sanders tweeted.

“Republicans say they want to help veterans. They have a strange way of showing it. We introduced a bill that would do just that. Republicans immediately inject partisan politics into the mix, insisting on amendments that have nothing to do with helping veterans,” Reid said on Wednesday.

Senate GOP Blocks Vets' Benefits Bill Over Diplomacy-Killing Iran Sanctions | ThinkProgress

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Standard GOP mindset: only worry about their agendas, and don't care about anyone else. Unfortunately, I'm no longer shocked by anything they do anymore.

 

[Falvlun]

What really needs to happen is an overhaul of how bills are written, and what amendments are allowable. Amendments that have nothing to do with the main purpose of the bill-- like Iran sanctions on a Veteran's benefit bill, or student loan changes on a healthcare bill-- should be made illegal.

That way, each item can pass or fail on its own merit, rather than on the question of some minor part added in.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the interest of balance, the Democrats hate not only veterans, but also those on active duty.
Al Gore fought hard to have overseas servicemen's votes excluded from the 2000 election.
We may only conclude that both parties hate the military, eh?
Or perhaps some individuals in each party are even worse examples than the rest.

 

[tytlyf]

In the interest of balance, the Democrats hate not only veterans, but also those on active duty.
Al Gore fought hard to have overseas servicemen's votes excluded from the 2000 election.
We may only conclude that both parties hate the military, eh?

False balance. Feel free to post links if you like. You didn't answer my question. Why would veterans support the current day republican party given their continual obstructionism of anything that helps veterans?

 

[Revoltingest]

False balance. Feel free to post links if you like. You didn't answer my question. Why would veterans support the current day republican party given their continual obstructionism of anything that helps veterans?

Oh, you big silly....you really don't remember?
http://www.servicemembers-lawcenter.org/LAW_REVIEW_109.html
Anyway, of all the veterans I know, they despise the Dems even more than the Pubs.
So perhaps they might support Pubs as the lesser of 2 evils.
But I urge them to vote Libertarian.

 

[tytlyf]

Oh, you big silly....you really don't remember?
http://www.servicemembers-lawcenter.org/LAW_REVIEW_109.html
Anyway, of all the veterans I know, they despise the Dems even more than the Pubs.
So perhaps they might support Pubs as the lesser of 2 evils.
But I urge them to vote Libertarian.

Link doesn't work. Just answer the question. We can look at the republican voting record the last 5 years concerning veterans. It's probably something most here have never seen given their media preferences.
The only reason people despise the democrats (liberals) so much is due to propaganda. That's it.

 

[Revoltingest]

LAW REVIEW 109
This one works better.
Check my edit for your answer.

 

[Falvlun]

Well, there's this poll:

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) gave out 154 D and F grades. 142 of those went to Republicans and 12 to Democrats — meaning that 92 percent of the D and F grades went to members of the GOP.

From HERE

 

[tytlyf]

LAW REVIEW 109
This one works better.
Check my edit for your answer.

And? Al Gore doesn't speak for democrats. Unlike congress. You're just trying to deflect and change the topic at this point.

 

[Revoltingest]

And? Al Gore doesn't speak for democrats.

But they did offer tacit approval with their silence on his tactics.

You're just trying to deflect and change the topic at this point.

This is true.
You're leading another anti-Republican cheer, so it inspired me to deflate some of your sanctimony.
You'll just have to slap me when I get this way!

 

[4consideration]

What really needs to happen is an overhaul of how bills are written, and what amendments are allowable. Amendments that have nothing to do with the main purpose of the bill-- like Iran sanctions on a Veteran's benefit bill, or student loan changes on a healthcare bill-- should be made illegal.

That way, each item can pass or fail on its own merit, rather than on the question of some minor part added in.

I could not agree more.

It just drives me crazy to see this kind of B.S. in our system, where unrelated matters are packaged together -- so it seems there's always something unwanted in something wanted.

It's a game by our lawmakers that I wish Americans would somehow put a stop to.

I think voting on single issues would clearly reveal to us just what it is our representatives are supporting. I guess none, or most of them, would (edit: omit this "not") like that much.

edit: Although it does make for handy political ammunition to have both a pro and a con in each bill -- our side voted for the "good" part, their side voted for the "bad" part.

 

[Revoltingest]

I could not agree more.
It just drives me crazy to see this kind of B.S. in our system, where unrelated matters are packaged together -- so it seems there's always something unwanted in something wanted.
It's a game by our lawmakers that I wish Americans would somehow put a stop to.
I think voting on single issues would clearly reveal to us just what it is our representatives are supporting. I guess none, or most of them, would not like that much.

It's like the Farm Bill wrangling....tis more about welfare than farming.

 

[Falvlun]

I could not agree more.

It just drives me crazy to see this kind of B.S. in our system, where unrelated matters are packaged together -- so it seems there's always something unwanted in something wanted.

It's a game by our lawmakers that I wish Americans would somehow put a stop to.

I think voting on single issues would clearly reveal to us just what it is our representatives are supporting. I guess none, or most of them, would not like that much.

edit: Although it does make for handy political ammunition to have both a pro and a con in each bill -- our side voted for the "good" part, their side voted for the "bad" part.

How do we introduce this issue into American politics? It's one that I've never heard talked about on a public stage.

In addition to the benefits you've covered, I think it would also reduce pork spending, as these projects aimed at buying votes would often not be able to be included, as they have nothing to do with the bill.

I think the main drawback is that it could be abused, as in, one side could claim that an amendment is irrelevant, and the other could claim relevance.

 

[YmirGF]

But, but, but... the Dems have a majority in the Senate, so the only way the Pubs could "block" anything is if some evil Dems sided with them. Why isn't anyone talking about these evil Dems who refuse to play ball with those taking the moral high ground?

 

[Falvlun]

But, but, but... the Dems have a majority in the Senate, so the only way the Pubs could "block" anything is if some evil Dems sided with them. Why isn't anyone talking about these evil Dems who refuse to play ball with those taking the moral high ground?

You could also say that it's the Dem's fault because they refused to let a vote on the amendment for Iran sanctions to occur. I think that's actually the more reasonable route if you'd like to shift the blame, since after all, there's always going to be a handful of people who will vote differently than the rest of their party. (Well, unless they are Republicans... and then they run the risk of being taken out back and shot.)

 

[4consideration]

How do we introduce this issue into American politics? It's one that I've never heard talked about on a public stage.

In addition to the benefits you've covered, I think it would also reduce pork spending, as these projects aimed at buying votes would often not be able to be included, as they have nothing to do with the bill.

I think the main drawback is that it could be abused, as in, one side could claim that an amendment is irrelevant, and the other could claim relevance.

My guess is that we could simply make a public outcry.

It's been such an often used political tool by each sides of the aisle, that I really would not expect the media in general to focus on that issue. It's so convenient to be able to choose which part of a bill to focus on when discussing an issue, and make "our side" out to be the "good guys".

I think the American people would really have to shame the politicians for it to such an extent that the media would need to jump on the bandwagon, in order to present themselves as carrying the torch in an issue that has already gained momentum.

 

[Revoltingest]

My guess is that we could simply make a public outcry.
It's been such an often used political tool by each sides of the aisle, that I really would not expect the media in general to focus on that issue. It's so convenient to be able to choose which part of a bill to focus on when discussing an issue, and make "our side" out to be the "good guys".
I think the American people would really have to shame the politicians for it to such an extent that the media would need to jump on the bandwagon, in order to present themselves as carrying the torch in an issue that has already gained momentum.

The bill amendment process is too technical an issue to get a significant number of people riled.
Add to this the fact that many would even side with it because they believe it useful to their side.
I wager that we're doomed to live with it.

 

[YmirGF]

You could also say that it's the Dem's fault because they refused to let a vote on the amendment for Iran sanctions to occur. I think that's actually the more reasonable route if you'd like to shift the blame, since after all, there's always going to be a handful of people who will vote differently than the rest of their party. (Well, unless they are Republicans... and then they run the risk of being taken out back and shot.)

So because Democrats cannot convince their own members of the proper route to go it's the Republicans fault. I get it now.

 

[4consideration]

The bill amendment process is too technical an issue to get a significant number of people riled.
Add to this the fact that many would even side with it because they believe it useful to their side.
I wager that we're doomed to live with it.

Possibly.

But...I think it's also possible for it to get enough public attention that some lawmakers might actually take it up as a mission -- even if only for political clout.

It would not have to actually become technically illegal in order for it to be effective.

It could just become so politically unpopular, as to be considered unscrupulous and deceptive (which I think it really is,) so as to be considered political suicide to engage in it.

IMO, it would require that a lot of Americans actually care about the process and voice their opinion, rather than just caring one particular point of specific bills they hear about -- and then choosing to support or oppose based on that one fragment.