The Promise to Address Comprehenisive Toxics Act had bipartisan support, an earlier vote passed the Senate, 86-12. But then a revote was necessary and 42 Republicans blocked the bill.
Trillions for waging war have been authorized by the Congress since this moronic war on terror was begun, but when it comes to helping those who are dealing with lasting injuries from the war, Republicans say: "Fuck those guys, nobody said that they had to enlist."
If it costs too much to care for the people that we send into harm's way, then we shouldn't be sending them. War results in costs that will be paid out for over a century. If we can't stomach that, then let's bring everyone home and discharge them.
Mitch "Bejing's Bitch, married to a Communist Chinee Princess" McConnell got his little fee-fees hurt when Joe Manchin turned out to be nobody's bitch, is throwing a little bitch-fit and fucking all the rest of y'all over. Apparently doesn't handle it well at all when it's turned back into his face.
ReplyDelete[whistling Scott Joplin's The Entertainer, theme from the movie The Sting ...]
The very nice RA Councelor lady at the VA (PDX) says that I still do not handle anger well.
ReplyDeleteSo, I'll let Jon Stewart express 1.29 % of what I feel at the moment:
“Ain’t this a bitch, America’s heroes who fought in our wars, outside sweating their asses off, with oxygen, battling all kinds of ailments, while these motherfuckers sit in the air conditioning, walled off from any of it.”
“These are men and women, mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers we just let stand outside in the heat when they can’t breathe,”
“Boy, they haven’t met a war they won’t sign up for, and they haven’t met a veteran they won’t screw over. What the fuck are we?”
Now, I'm third gen USAF (well okay, some Army Air Corp in there) and my daughter, flying out of Incirlik AB (Turkey) is the forth.
Her outbusrt this P.M. (11 hour difference) make me look like a woos...
r/s,
GLBTS
And they wonder why they have recruitment shortfalls.
ReplyDelete-Doug in Sugar Pine
"Support the Troops', 'Back the Blue' and 'Right to Life" are just phrases to spout to rally their supporters with no actual believing of their buzz words. But what could you expect since the words freedom,liberty, patriot and family are used by them a lot yet they don't seem to believe those words in practice either. It's kinda funny that they would do this in an election year except maybe they think their seats are so locked in that they are invulnerable or people will forget by their next election in two to four years.
ReplyDeleteA thought from someone else's Tweet was, How many of these Senators were openly irate over an athlete kneeling during the national anthem to protest the treatment of people of color by saying that they were 'disrespecting the veterans'?
ReplyDeleteAmen, sister.
ReplyDeleteBut which social program are you gonna cut to give the deserving veterans their due? Which undeserving group are you gonna defund to pay for the veterans care? Heathcare for illegals? Free food for the folks who won't work? Obamaphones?
I'm all for giving the vets all they need (and then some), but how are ya gonna pay for it?
It's a serious question, not snark.
That's a false equivalence. If we can afford to fight wars, we can afford to pay the long-term costs/consequences of it.
ReplyDeleteWe don't have to cut anything. Maybe raise taxes a little on the upper 0.1%. Tax capital gains like wages, for one thing. If you're worried about screwing homeowners, then exempt the increase on primary residences under a million.
We never cut anything for the war budget. It gets funded first and foremost. Medical and psychological care should without question be part of the war budget. If we can send our people in harm's way, we can damn sure take care of them afterward.
ReplyDeleteWhat is this rob peter to pay paul attitude? These are our people and we owe them everything for putting their lives on the line. Their care should never need a reduction in something else. That disgusts me.
w3ski
Someone should avoid laxatives, otherwise they may disappear ('cause they're full of it).
ReplyDeleteNo social programs need to be cut. It can come out of the current military budget. A couple of $60 million FA-18s, or an F-35 could be a good start to the funding. Or even one aircraft carrier could sustain the program for a couple of years.
Eisenhower warned us about the military/industrial economy back in the 50"s.
Dale
Why do we never cut Social Programs....I mean the Giveaways. Liberals always fall back to "Raise the taxes on the Rich". Why not cut something? My question was not a false equivalence.
ReplyDeleteBut I do agree that there needs to be some help for Veterans. We have that in common, at least.
b,
ReplyDeleteIt was snark as there are ways to present an argument
rather than invective or scatorical comment.
You continue to use logical fallacies to injure your
arguments.
The implication that if A happens we have to cancel B
to do it.
Its false, ends there. Invalid conclusion by was of
the fallacy of false equivocation.
If you argued we need a greater revenue stream to fund a
program then that is a presented argument. Its not
emotional and is at least on face factual.
THe response to that we is as a government have the
ability to tax and fund programs to support commitments
made.
The further argument is there are multiple resources
to fund that that do not put further burdens on people
most affected.
In the end you could have left out a lot of your words
and simply said:
Vets deserve care, how do we fund it?
Doing that presents a bone to chew on.
Eck!
Well, *, a good place to start would be the military ...
ReplyDeleteWhy do we never cut Social Programs
ReplyDeleteB, are you seriously claiming that? Welfare benefits have been cut, repeatedly.
Seriously? You think we spend less (as a percentage of GDP or in dollars) than we did even 4 years ago? Total Social Engineering/"Safety Net" Social program money is much greater.
ReplyDeleteYou are delusional if you think there have been cuts. Not in total spending.
Oh, horseshit, B. You said “ Why do we never cut Social Programs..”. I pointed out that there have been cuts in social programs in the past. So now, you change the timeframe from “never” to “4 years” and, after you get done moving the goalposts, you accuse me of being delusional?
ReplyDeleteYou, sir, are a real piece of work.
We’re done, here.