• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP blocks veterans jobs bill with budget vote

You have to admire the conservative responses on this thread. The turd polish is first rate. The myth that republicans support veterans is getting exposed again. Just like it did when McCain pretended to give a rip. His voting record proved otherwise.

Talk is cheap. Voting records don't lie.
 
Top Cat said:
You have to admire the conservative responses on this thread. The turd polish is first rate. The myth that republicans support veterans is getting exposed again. Just like it did when McCain pretended to give a rip. His voting record proved otherwise.

Talk is cheap. Voting records don't lie.
Click to expand...

Really? Do you have any data to back up that claim? Perhaps references to the legislation you are referring to? Just like the bill under discussion here, did the others have undesirable attachments to them?

Deuce,

Sure they could. But is there any indication that the same type of amendments won't be attached once it reaches the Senate? The problem with a bill like this is that it is desirable, it would be publicly supported and thus, both sides are going to try to attach as much of their agendas to it as possible. It is just too good of a bill for them not to try to take advantage of it. While it is being blamed on the Republicans, do you really think it was a Republican that threw in the S.3457
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to provide for a 100% continuous levy upon the property and rights of Medicare (title XVIII of the Social Security Act) providers and suppliers neglecting or refusing to pay taxes.
Repeals provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 providing for a program for the research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of technologies for ultra-deepwater and unconventional natural gas and other petroleum resource exploration and production.

Permits the Secretary of State to deny, revoke, or limit a passport to any individual upon receiving certification from the Secretary of the Treasury that such individual has a delinquent tax debt in an amount in excess of $50,000.

section of the amendments? If House doesn't, from either party, it is because they know it will be used as a rider for other things and stands no chance of getting through on it's own without riders attached.
 
DVSentinel said:
Really? Do you have any data to back up that claim? Perhaps references to the legislation you are referring to? Just like the bill under discussion here, did the others have undesirable attachments to them?

.
Click to expand...

Bill ALWAYS have undesirable attachments. That's a cheap red herring. As I mentioned, check the voting records.
 
Top Cat said:
Bill ALWAYS have undesirable attachments. That's a cheap red herring. As I mentioned, check the voting records.
Click to expand...

I didn't make the assertion, you did. Are you going to prove it, or are you just another hack spouting partisan rhetoric.
 
DVSentinel said:
Really? Do you have any data to back up that claim? Perhaps references to the legislation you are referring to? Just like the bill under discussion here, did the others have undesirable attachments to them?

Deuce,

Sure they could. But is there any indication that the same type of amendments won't be attached once it reaches the Senate? The problem with a bill like this is that it is desirable, it would be publicly supported and thus, both sides are going to try to attach as much of their agendas to it as possible. It is just too good of a bill for them not to try to take advantage of it. While it is being blamed on the Republicans, do you really think it was a Republican that threw in the S.3457
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to provide for a 100% continuous levy upon the property and rights of Medicare (title XVIII of the Social Security Act) providers and suppliers neglecting or refusing to pay taxes.
Repeals provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 providing for a program for the research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of technologies for ultra-deepwater and unconventional natural gas and other petroleum resource exploration and production.

Permits the Secretary of State to deny, revoke, or limit a passport to any individual upon receiving certification from the Secretary of the Treasury that such individual has a delinquent tax debt in an amount in excess of $50,000.

section of the amendments? If House doesn't, from either party, it is because they know it will be used as a rider for other things and stands no chance of getting through on it's own without riders attached.
Click to expand...

There are procedural methods that can prevent amendments from being attached. I know this because Republicans used it as their excuse to vote down health benefits for 9/11 first responders. Because they couldn't attach their riders to it, they decided to filibuster health benefits for 9/11 first responders.
 
Top Cat said:
You have to admire the conservative responses on this thread. The turd polish is first rate. The myth that republicans support veterans is getting exposed again. Just like it did when McCain pretended to give a rip. His voting record proved otherwise.

Talk is cheap. Voting records don't lie.
Click to expand...

Nice post! I love when someone doesn't bother to hide that they are being incredibly partisan and is willing to blatantly ignore any information that easily contradicts their "point".

I'll look forward to the follow up showing your assertion has even the slightest basis in reality. For me, though, please leave in the data that is incredibly relevant, like the 60 amendments and whether the name of the bill has anything at all to do with the content.
 
danarhea said:
Yes, the point of order could have been waved, had enough Senators come out in favor of doing business unconstitutionally.
Click to expand...

the bad news is... 58 of them were in favor of doing unconstitutional business.


the worse news... i'm not surprised by this.
 
Top Cat said:
You have to admire the conservative responses on this thread. The turd polish is first rate. The myth that republicans support veterans is getting exposed again. Just like it did when McCain pretended to give a rip. His voting record proved otherwise.

Talk is cheap. Voting records don't lie.
Click to expand...

I don't really think you understand what you are arguing here...or maybe you don't like the Constitution and do understand after all.... not sure which.
 
Thrilla said:
I don't really think you understand what you are arguing here...or maybe you don't like the Constitution and do understand after all.... not sure which.
Click to expand...

actually, you described yourself

what we really have is the republican contingent - excepting Sens. Scott Brown (Mass.), Susan Collins (Maine), Dean Heller (Nev.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Olympia Snowe (Maine) - making sure a veterans job program does not move forward

that's it. the republicans are willing to play politics with veterans' jobs
 
Muddy Creek said:
However, the point of order could have been waived to get this bill through. A couple republicans voted for the bill

This is just clearly the republicans not wanting to help workers in the US. What else could it be?
Click to expand...
LOL. It could be bait for the gullible.

Do you believe that jobs training creates jobs? I suppose it does, for the trainers.

Before the Democrats did everything "for the children." I suppose that one is not working anymore. So now the despicable democrats who despise the military are not doing it "for the veterans." For anyone willing to see this one is transparent.
 
justabubba said:
actually, you described yourself

what we really have is the republican contingent - excepting Sens. Scott Brown (Mass.), Susan Collins (Maine), Dean Heller (Nev.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Olympia Snowe (Maine) - making sure a veterans job program does not move forward

that's it. the republicans are willing to play politics with veterans' jobs
Click to expand...
So every one who supported this bill is a Republican in name only.

That argument convinces me. If Snow and Murkowski are for it the best way to bet is to be against it (assuming you love your country).
 
justabubba said:
actually, you described yourself

what we really have is the republican contingent - excepting Sens. Scott Brown (Mass.), Susan Collins (Maine), Dean Heller (Nev.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Olympia Snowe (Maine) - making sure a veterans job program does not move forward

that's it. the republicans are willing to play politics with veterans' jobs
Click to expand...

I don't care what the bill is about or who it benefits... the Constitution, and it's limits, exist... i'm sorry that offends you Democrats, but they are still bound to operate under it's constraints.


I haven't even commented on the bill itself.... because it doesn't matter... the Constitution comes before any agenda or bill anyone has.
hell, this could be the worlds greatest bill... it doesn't matter if you don't follow the Constitution.

by all means, the vote should have been 100-nays to 0-ayes... but 58 voted to waive Constitutional requirements... no amendment, no convention... just a simple routine vote and the Senate nearly took the Peoples House right out of the ballgame. ( that's your house, if you didn't know)

so yeah, tell me more fables about you supporting the Constitution while you condone this ****.


this isn't hard stuff here... it's civics 101.
 
Misterveritis said:
So every one who supported this bill is a Republican in name only.

That argument convinces me. If Snow and Murkowski are for it the best way to bet is to be against it (assuming you love your country).
Click to expand...

well, those whom voted to waive are certainly on my **** list....Republican and Democrat alike

those whom voted against it have strong backing... it's called the " Law of the Land"
 
Deuce said:
There are procedural methods that can prevent amendments from being attached. I know this because Republicans used it as their excuse to vote down health benefits for 9/11 first responders. Because they couldn't attach their riders to it, they decided to filibuster health benefits for 9/11 first responders.
Click to expand...

Do you have a reference number for that bill? Or at least the actual title of the bill to which you are referring? What other riders were already on it?
 
justabubba said:
actually, you described yourself

what we really have is the republican contingent - excepting Sens. Scott Brown (Mass.), Susan Collins (Maine), Dean Heller (Nev.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Olympia Snowe (Maine) - making sure a veterans job program does not move forward

that's it. the republicans are willing to play politics with veterans' jobs
Click to expand...

Did you miss the post of some of the riders and attachments. If it was only a veterans job program, it probably would of passed.

It was an attempt to bypass the "power of the purse" which the Constitution clearly lays in the hands of the House of Representatives.

It also contained riders that after seeing them, I would agree that they were too egregious to allow to pass.

While I could support the veterans jobs portion of the bill and would like to see it re-introduced, I cannot disagree with the killing of the bill as it ended up after amendments.
 
DVSentinel said:
Did you miss the post of some of the riders and attachments. If it was only a veterans job program, it probably would of passed.

It was an attempt to bypass the "power of the purse" which the Constitution clearly lays in the hands of the House of Representatives.

It also contained riders that after seeing them, I would agree that they were too egregious to allow to pass.

While I could support the veterans jobs portion of the bill and would like to see it re-introduced, I cannot disagree with the killing of the bill as it ended up after amendments.
Click to expand...

it was a jobs bill for American veterans
the guys who have been fighting two misbegotten wars on our nation's behalf; and this is significant: wars begun by republicans
and how do we find those same republicans repaying the veterans for a job well done
the GOP has said "**** you" to the GIs who are returning home to a nation with few prospects for employment
 
justabubba said:
it was a jobs bill for American veterans
the guys who have been fighting two misbegotten wars on our nation's behalf; and this is significant: wars begun by republicans
and how do we find those same republicans repaying the veterans for a job well done
the GOP has said "**** you" to the GIs who are returning home to a nation with few prospects for employment
Click to expand...

As one of those Veterans, I would rather see the egregious attachments killed off than to see them passed just to get something for myself.

Attachments like, Repeals provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 providing for a program for the research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of technologies for ultra-deepwater and unconventional natural gas and other petroleum resource exploration and production.

Shall we ask the other veterans if they are willing to sacrifice the nations future energy production for a few jobs?

My opinion is that is time for us, the people to start paying attention to what gets attached to some of the bills we support. And we the people need to tell and make it clear to our representatives, stop it or get out office. Call your congressman and senators, or email them, and let them know you want the jobs bill, but not the crap attached.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom