Pentagon Spends Nearly $1B a Year on Unemployment......

WASHINGTON — Even as it faces budget cuts and forced employee furloughs, the Pentagon is spending nearly a $1 billion a year on a program that sends unemployment checks to former troops who left the military voluntarily.

Unemployment Compensation for Ex-Servicemembers, a Labor Department program, is a spinoff of the federal-state unemployment insurance program. The Labor Department says the overall program is meant to help "eligible workers who are unemployed through no fault of their own" such as during layoffs.

But eligibility for the military compensation requires only that a person served in uniform and was honorably discharged. In other words, anyone who joins the military and serves for several years, then decides not to re-enlist, is potentially eligible for what could amount to more than 90 weeks of unemployment checks.

The program's cost rose from $300 million in 2003 to $928 million last year

The program for former military members started under a 1958 law aimed partly at helping troops transition from life in uniform to the private sector. Unlike the larger U.S. unemployment insurance program, there is no paycheck deduction from troops to fund the military one. In the private sector, employers pay a tax to fund compensation checks; in the military program, the service branches are the employer.....snip~

Pentagon spends nearly $1B a year on unemployment - U.S. - Stripes
The Associated Press Published: March 15, 2013<<<<< More here!

One factor was due to the reserve and guard units going active and then getting deactivated. Which added more to the rolls. Thoughts?

I don't see anything wrong with this. This payment REALLY isn't given out randomly. It's given out to people that the military has screwed. If you sign a contract saying you'll be a 95Z for 4 years, and they deactivated the 95Z MOS, they contractually owe you payment for the remainder of the time.

The contract works both ways. If you decided you didn't want to be a 95Z, you would owe the military for breaking the contract.

Trust me, the military doesn't want to give you a penny they don't absolutely have to. They're cheap bastards.

RabidAlpaca said:

I don't see anything wrong with this. This payment REALLY isn't given out randomly. It's given out to people that the military has screwed. If you sign a contract saying you'll be a 95Z for 4 years, and they deactivated the 95Z MOS, they contractually owe you payment for the remainder of the time.

The contract works both ways. If you decided you didn't want to be a 95Z, you would owe the military for breaking the contract.

Trust me, the military doesn't want to give you a penny they don't absolutely have to. They're cheap bastards.

Click to expand...

yeah, small problem with your story. the sites for the DOL and military both list 2 requirements for receiving benefits.

You were on active duty with a branch of the U.S. military. You may be entitled to benefits based on that service.
You must have been separated under honorable conditions.

Click to expand...

OSD Military Compensation (militarypay.defense.gov)Unemployment Compensation for Ex-servicemembers, Employment & Training Administration (ETA) - U.S. Department of Labor

So do you have something like some evidence to back up your claim, or are we supposed to doubt a US military reporter, the department of labor, and the military's own website because you said so?

RabidAlpaca said:

I don't see anything wrong with this. This payment REALLY isn't given out randomly. It's given out to people that the military has screwed. If you sign a contract saying you'll be a 95Z for 4 years, and they deactivated the 95Z MOS, they contractually owe you payment for the remainder of the time.

The contract works both ways. If you decided you didn't want to be a 95Z, you would owe the military for breaking the contract.

Trust me, the military doesn't want to give you a penny they don't absolutely have to. They're cheap bastards.

Click to expand...

At SEPS/TAPS they tell every servicemember they rate unemployment - that's part of why "unemployed veteran" numbers are always higher than standard populace. :shrug: it is unfortunate, it's not like everyone doesn't know their EAS date.

tererun said:

yeah, small problem with your story. the sites for the DOL and military both list 2 requirements for receiving benefits.



OSD Military Compensation (militarypay.defense.gov)Unemployment Compensation for Ex-servicemembers, Employment & Training Administration (ETA) - U.S. Department of Labor

So do you have something like some evidence to back up your claim, or are we supposed to doubt a US military reporter, the department of labor, and the military's own website because you said so?

Click to expand...

There's more than one type of unemployment benefit. I was more referring to soldiers being involuntarily separated and having their contract violated. This is obviously another type of benefit.

Are we really even discussing 1 billion dollars for unemployed veterans? That's about 66% what we give to Egypt annually in foreign aid. Not to mention, if they didn't get unemployment from the military, they'd just go on regular federal welfare. How is that any better? It's all the same pool of cash.

So what is your beef with it?

RabidAlpaca said:

There's more than one type of unemployment benefit. I was more referring to soldiers being involuntarily separated and having their contract violated. This is obviously another type of benefit.

Click to expand...

So in order to debunk the actual point you raised a completely unrelated benfit and pretended that it was what the original article was talking about? That doesn't sound like a good plan to me, but to each their own. I prefer talking about the actual point of the article myself.

RabidAlpaca said:

Are we really even discussing 1 billion dollars for unemployed veterans? That's about 66% what we give to Egypt annually in foreign aid. Not to mention, if they didn't get unemployment from the military, they'd just go on regular federal welfare. How is that any better? It's all the same pool of cash.

Click to expand...

OK, so you are going to keep going with the unrelated points. First it makes sense to start saving money in the bloated pentagon budget somewhere, though i do agree we should stop financing countries who hate us. Buying friends should include the provision that they be your friend, though i would have to wonder why anyone would join the US buy a friend program when one of the benefits seems to be sending drones into their country to launch missiles that kill their civilian population. That is still not related to the original point. Also, i would have to imagine that welfare would be a little bit less than a full salary for a military person, so we would be saving some money if none of the honorably discharged soldiers got jobs. Not to mention TANF doesn't do much for you if you don't have children, and SNAp is only 200 dollars a month. I do hope we are paying our armed forces a little more than 200 dollars a month.

RabidAlpaca said:

So what is your beef with it?

Click to expand...

We need to cut the bloated pentagon budget and perhaps it would be a great idea if we stopped paying full pay to the people who leave sort of like how real unemployment works. Or even perhaps denying benefits for people who chose to leave their employed position for nothing, sort of like how our unemployment system works for everyone else. I am actually somewhat fine for people who are laid off from the service, or fired getting some unemployment like everyone else. Let us just make it equal and see how much money that saves.

tererun said:

OK, so you are going to keep going with the unrelated points. First it makes sense to start saving money in the bloated pentagon budget somewhere, though i do agree we should stop financing countries who hate us. Buying friends should include the provision that they be your friend, though i would have to wonder why anyone would join the US buy a friend program when one of the benefits seems to be sending drones into their country to launch missiles that kill their civilian population. That is still not related to the original point. Also, i would have to imagine that welfare would be a little bit less than a full salary for a military person, so we would be saving some money if none of the honorably discharged soldiers got jobs. Not to mention TANF doesn't do much for you if you don't have children, and SNAp is only 200 dollars a month. I do hope we are paying our armed forces a little more than 200 dollars a month.

We need to cut the bloated pentagon budget and perhaps it would be a great idea if we stopped paying full pay to the people who leave sort of like how real unemployment works. Or even perhaps denying benefits for people who chose to leave their employed position for nothing, sort of like how our unemployment system works for everyone else. I am actually somewhat fine for people who are laid off from the service, or fired getting some unemployment like everyone else. Let us just make it equal and see how much money that saves.

Click to expand...

It's not an unrelated point. Your point is to try to draw attention to how much money it is, my point is that if we're really interested in cutting spending, which we should be, there are literally a million better places to start than veteran benefits. How about the trillions we're spending on these dumbass wars that scar veterans bad enough psychologically that they end up on the street after they get out in the first place?

I had never even heard of this program until now, and I was in the Army for 7 years. I definitely had never heard of anyone actually using it. It's really not very common. Even still, you can subtract a large portion of that 1 billion from what it would cost for normal welfare.

A billion dollars to take care of our veterans, who our country has ****ed so god damn hard over the past decade, isn't anything. We give more to Kenya than that. How ****ed up are our priorities?

We just spent 6 TRILLION dollars in the middle east chasing ghosts. 1 billion ain't nothin'.

MMC said:

WASHINGTON — Even as it faces budget cuts and forced employee furloughs, the Pentagon is spending nearly a $1 billion a year on a program that sends unemployment checks to former troops who left the military voluntarily.

Unemployment Compensation for Ex-Servicemembers, a Labor Department program, is a spinoff of the federal-state unemployment insurance program. The Labor Department says the overall program is meant to help "eligible workers who are unemployed through no fault of their own" such as during layoffs.

But eligibility for the military compensation requires only that a person served in uniform and was honorably discharged. In other words, anyone who joins the military and serves for several years, then decides not to re-enlist, is potentially eligible for what could amount to more than 90 weeks of unemployment checks.

The program's cost rose from $300 million in 2003 to $928 million last year

The program for former military members started under a 1958 law aimed partly at helping troops transition from life in uniform to the private sector. Unlike the larger U.S. unemployment insurance program, there is no paycheck deduction from troops to fund the military one. In the private sector, employers pay a tax to fund compensation checks; in the military program, the service branches are the employer.....snip~

Pentagon spends nearly $1B a year on unemployment - U.S. - Stripes
The Associated Press Published: March 15, 2013<<<<< More here!

One factor was due to the reserve and guard units going active and then getting deactivated. Which added more to the rolls. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

The increase in payments is the increase in people in the military. But with THAT increase, it has to be for private contractors, too. I think it works. Unless republicans are willing to create federal jobs as they did under Bush, and stop raising unemployment, why not pay those who served in their wars for oil and the rich if they can't find good work?

Muddy Creek said:

The increase in payments is the increase in people in the military. But with THAT increase, it has to be for private contractors, too. I think it works. Unless republicans are willing to create federal jobs as they did under Bush, and stop raising unemployment, why not pay those who served in their wars for oil and the rich if they can't find good work?

Click to expand...

Maybe they could do that if Democrats weren't killing off small Business, killing job creation and expansion thru regulations while increasing the ranks of the Unemployed and those on food stamps and making things so miserable that 1/3rd of the country wont even look for a job. All the while partying and living off the misery of others and all others money as well.

Course if they just quit trying to think for everybody else. Something might get accomplished.

MMC said:

Maybe they could do that if Democrats weren't killing off small Business, killing job creation and expansion thru regulations while increasing the ranks of the Unemployed and those on food stamps and making things so miserable that 1/3rd of the country wont even look for a job. All the while partying and living off the misery of others and all others money as well.

Course if they just quit trying to think for everybody else. Something might get accomplished.

Click to expand...

Show me the fact that regulations stopping cancer causing pollution and requiring workers to have affordable health care are really stopping the small businesses from growing. See, because this mimicked right wing talking point of yours that has gone on for decades and makes us one of the most polluted countries in the technological countries is a lie. Small businesses are closing because Republicans REFUSE to pass the bill and resolution the democrats have presented three times which would TAX American corporations from taking jobs overseas at a HIGHER rate and give tax BREAKS to American corporations to keep jobs here. AND if republican tea party governors would QUIT slashing government jobs that supported the middle class, then maybe the private sector would have enough customers so that they wouldn't fold and go under.

Muddy Creek said:

Show me the fact that regulations stopping cancer causing pollution and requiring workers to have affordable health care are really stopping the small businesses from growing. See, because this mimicked right wing talking point of yours that has gone on for decades and makes us one of the most polluted countries in the technological countries is a lie. Small businesses are closing because Republicans REFUSE to pass the bill and resolution the democrats have presented three times which would TAX American corporations from taking jobs overseas at a HIGHER rate and give tax BREAKS to American corporations to keep jobs here. AND if republican tea party governors would QUIT slashing government jobs that supported the middle class, then maybe the private sector would have enough customers so that they wouldn't fold and go under.

Click to expand...

Nah.....their closing, can't hire and cant expand because of Obamacare.

Moreover perhaps you should look up all those new regulations. U can't just blame Republicans course when you do. I am going to bring you all that the Democrats do.

Which none of this has to do with the Topic.

MMC said:

Nah.....their closing, can't hire and cant expand because of Obamacare.

Moreover perhaps you should look up all those new regulations. U can't just blame Republicans course when you do. I am going to bring you all that the Democrats do.

Which none of this has to do with the Topic.

Click to expand...

No. It has nothing to do with health insurance. There are plans out there employers can afford for their workers. It has to do with sabotaging a Black President and nothing more.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/health/employers-must-offer-family-health-care-affordable-or-not-administration-says.html?_r=0

The requirement for employers to provide health benefits to employees is a cornerstone of the new law, but the new rules proposed by the Internal Revenue Service said that employers’ obligation was to provide affordable insurance to cover their full-time employees. The rules offer no guarantee of affordable insurance for a worker’s children or spouse. To avoid a possible tax penalty, the government said, employers with 50 or more full-time employees must offer affordable coverage to those employees. But, it said, the meaning of “affordable” depends entirely on the cost of individual coverage for the employee, what the worker would pay for “self-only coverage.”

The new rules, to be published in the Federal Register, create a strong incentive for employers to put money into insurance for their employees rather than dependents. It is unclear whether the spouse and children of an employee will be able to obtain federal subsidies to help them buy coverage — separate from the employee — through insurance exchanges being established in every state. The administration explicitly reserved judgment on that question, which could affect millions of people in families with low and moderate incomes.

Many employers provide family coverage to full-time employees, but many do not. Family coverage is much more expensive, and the employee’s share of the premium is typically much larger.

In 2012, according to an annual survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance averaged $5,615 a year for single coverage and $15,745 for family coverage. The employee’s share of the premium averaged $951 for individual coverage and more than four times as much, $4,316, for family coverage.

Starting in 2014, most Americans will be required to have health insurance. Low- and middle-income people can get tax credits to help pay their premiums, unless they have access to affordable coverage from an employer.

Click to expand...

All those republican pundits just lied to you. To get you to bash the Affordable Health Care Act and keep health care insurance premiums higher.

i'm pretty cool with giving veterans almost anything they want.

what i'm not cool with is a perpetual state of war which creates an endless amount of veterans and which requires more money than the rest of the world spends combined.

Helix said:

i'm pretty cool with giving veterans almost anything they want.

what i'm not cool with is a perpetual state of war which creates an endless amount of veterans and which requires more money than the rest of the world spends combined.

Click to expand...

Especially war fought to make the rich richer.

Muddy Creek said:

No. It has nothing to do with health insurance. There are plans out there employers can afford for their workers. It has to do with sabotaging a Black President and nothing more.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/health/employers-must-offer-family-health-care-affordable-or-not-administration-says.html?_r=0




All those republican pundits just lied to you. To get you to bash the Affordable Health Care Act and keep health care insurance premiums higher.

Click to expand...

Right.....try looking over Chicago Politics and then get back to me over Obama and being a Black thing. :roll:

Moreover you should talk to your Man Obama about helping those Insurance Companies out and their Higher premiums. He has a few of them On that 15 man panel of his.

Naturally Republicans would point out those falsehoods by Democrats and Obama.....why would you even be surprised. :roll:

RabidAlpaca said:

It's not an unrelated point. Your point is to try to draw attention to how much money it is, my point is that if we're really interested in cutting spending, which we should be, there are literally a million better places to start than veteran benefits.

Click to expand...

A bad excuse. if you look back at the single page post trail you will see what actually happened. You claimed it did not actually happen that way and i pointed out that the military and unemployment sites both confirmed what the story said. There was no claim in the original about how much money was being cut or better places to do so, even by you. you tried to say it did not happen and were caught up in it because you brought up what you called a completely different thing to prove that what they said happened never actually did. Now you are changing the argument because you cannot admit you were wrong.

RabidAlpaca said:

How about the trillions we're spending on these dumbass wars that scar veterans bad enough psychologically that they end up on the street after they get out in the first place?

Click to expand...

Again, that argument is also a failure as you have to start somewhere. I agree they should continue on, but that doesn't mean they should not do any cuts because you happen to not like one of the places they started. really, if you wanted to make that argument in the first place you probably should have. Then i would not have pointed out you were incorrect claiming it doesn't happen.

RabidAlpaca said:

I had never even heard of this program until now, and I was in the Army for 7 years. I definitely had never heard of anyone actually using it. It's really not very common. Even still, you can subtract a large portion of that 1 billion from what it would cost for normal welfare.

Click to expand...

OK, and that would seem to be why you made the initial mistake. But you see changing the argument and pretending i was making a point you wanted me to was a bad move. Also, i was easily able to confirm the program by simply cutting and pasting the program name into the search bar common to most internet browsers. You might have wanted to do that. Oh, and finally many people are poorly informed as to how unemployment works, but that does not mean others don't find out about these programs and use them. It seems the military is probably much like most employers in that they don't advertise easy ways to get money off of unemployment. I know many people who are quite surprised to find out that you can get unemployment even after being fired for cause.

RabidAlpaca said:

A billion dollars to take care of our veterans, who our country has ****ed so god damn hard over the past decade, isn't anything. We give more to Kenya than that. How ****ed up are our priorities?

Click to expand...

Had you made such an argument i would have agreed we should be getting rid of many of our foreign aid programs along with full benefits, but that was not the argument you made. Still, I could agree to partial benefits for people in this program, just like regular unemployment. It covers them, saves money, and encourages job seeking by making things less convenient for the recipient. So really my only argument with you wa your mistake in saying the original article was wrong simply because you have not heard of it.

tererun said:

A bad excuse. if you look back at the single page post trail you will see what actually happened. You claimed it did not actually happen that way and i pointed out that the military and unemployment sites both confirmed what the story said. There was no claim in the original about how much money was being cut or better places to do so, even by you. you tried to say it did not happen and were caught up in it because you brought up what you called a completely different thing to prove that what they said happened never actually did. Now you are changing the argument because you cannot admit you were wrong.


Again, that argument is also a failure as you have to start somewhere. I agree they should continue on, but that doesn't mean they should not do any cuts because you happen to not like one of the places they started. really, if you wanted to make that argument in the first place you probably should have. Then i would not have pointed out you were incorrect claiming it doesn't happen.


OK, and that would seem to be why you made the initial mistake. But you see changing the argument and pretending i was making a point you wanted me to was a bad move. Also, i was easily able to confirm the program by simply cutting and pasting the program name into the search bar common to most internet browsers. You might have wanted to do that. Oh, and finally many people are poorly informed as to how unemployment works, but that does not mean others don't find out about these programs and use them. It seems the military is probably much like most employers in that they don't advertise easy ways to get money off of unemployment. I know many people who are quite surprised to find out that you can get unemployment even after being fired for cause.


Had you made such an argument i would have agreed we should be getting rid of many of our foreign aid programs along with full benefits, but that was not the argument you made. Still, I could agree to partial benefits for people in this program, just like regular unemployment. It covers them, saves money, and encourages job seeking by making things less convenient for the recipient. So really my only argument with you wa your mistake in saying the original article was wrong simply because you have not heard of it.

Click to expand...

I'm going to ignore this wall of straw because almost all of it is based on a false premise. I never said the article was wrong, not once. I did however say that the program was well deserved. When I found out that I was talking about a different program, I immediately adjusted but had the same exact view point: it is more than well deserved, and we have about a million better places to make cuts than with the very veterans we've boned for the past decade.

When you're ready to address what I actually did say, and not want you want me to say, I'll be here.

RabidAlpaca said:

I'm going to ignore this wall of straw because almost all of it is based on a false premise. I never said the article was wrong, not once. I did however say that the program was well deserved. When I found out that I was talking about a different program, I immediately adjusted but had the same exact view point: it is more than well deserved, and we have about a million better places to make cuts than with the very veterans we've boned for the past decade.

When you're ready to address what I actually did say, and not want you want me to say, I'll be here.

Click to expand...

See, now you are making a completely different argument. Still, it begs the question of why shouldn't we apply standard unemployment type rules and save some money? I am talking about doing things like not paying full salary like what happens when people go on regular unemployment, and limiting it for people who actually lose their jobs instead of people who simply resign? Unemployment is not supposed to be a full paycheck. You can allow people to pay their bill;s and keep on surviving in the safety net while saving some money, just like they do with everyone else. plus, where is the drive to get a new job when we are paying for people like they are in a full time job? Also, why the hell should we pay for people who simply resign? Those people had a job that paid for them, so why open the door for them to sit on their butts and do nothing? Again, your argument we could start elsewhere is nice, but we need to start somewhere. I will agree they shoul not stop there, but it makes no sense to continue to pay out money when we could be saving.

i know you like soldiers or something like that, but your personal preferences are just a bias in this argument. i also understand that the argument may seem a bit cold because of your admiration of these people, but perhaps this gives you some insight into the realities faced by most people who get fired from their job because some rich guy wants to save a few bucks on the bottom line while making millions of dollars. This is how we never get cuts to socia entitlement program like this. there are always people it is going to hurt. Just because you don't admire those people as much does not mean their lives are not effected. it is always about cutting that guys entitlements, but leave the ones i agree with alone. this is why the bickering and the blame game gets started because no one really wants to make the sacrifice themselves. it is always make that guy over there suffer before you make me suffer. if I am to believe the conservatives we have to ignore that attitude and make everyone suffer. not that they actually want to do that, but that is the ideology they are pushing. Like any entity with an overspending and debt problem it eventually will be time to pay the bills. So we either make entitlement cuts now, push the economy downward by limiting spending further by the people who are on these programs, and go through the actual paying pains of our credit with everyone losing, or we up some taxes and close some loopholes so the rich can pay their fair share and see if that helps us pay our bills. Personally, I think both approaches would be the best idea. that way everyone hurts a little bit, and everyone shares the burden of our excess. It also leaves the demand base intact, aka the mass of consumers who would not be spending without help from the government due social safety net programs, and the rich who can afford to pay more without losing their stuff also get to pay for the upkeep of the country which allows them their success.

It still has to start somewhere, and you are never going to find a painless place to cut. It is the definition of cutting that it hurts.

tererun said:

See, now you are making a completely different argument.

Click to expand...

My argument hasn't changed from the beginning. The veterans deserve the benefits they have, and there are a million better places to start making cuts than veteran benefits. If you'd like to provide some quotes where I've changed arguments or positions, go for it. Otherwise, stop saying it in every post, it's getting ridiculous.

tererun said:

Still, it begs the question of why shouldn't we apply standard unemployment type rules and save some money? I am talking about doing things like not paying full salary like what happens when people go on regular unemployment, and limiting it for people who actually lose their jobs instead of people who simply resign? Unemployment is not supposed to be a full paycheck. You can allow people to pay their bill;s and keep on surviving in the safety net while saving some money, just like they do with everyone else. plus, where is the drive to get a new job when we are paying for people like they are in a full time job? Also, why the hell should we pay for people who simply resign? Those people had a job that paid for them, so why open the door for them to sit on their butts and do nothing? Again, your argument we could start elsewhere is nice, but we need to start somewhere. I will agree they shoul not stop there, but it makes no sense to continue to pay out money when we could be saving.

i know you like soldiers or something like that, but your personal preferences are just a bias in this argument. i also understand that the argument may seem a bit cold because of your admiration of these people, but perhaps this gives you some insight into the realities faced by most people who get fired from their job because some rich guy wants to save a few bucks on the bottom line while making millions of dollars. This is how we never get cuts to socia entitlement program like this. there are always people it is going to hurt. Just because you don't admire those people as much does not mean their lives are not effected. it is always about cutting that guys entitlements, but leave the ones i agree with alone. this is why the bickering and the blame game gets started because no one really wants to make the sacrifice themselves. it is always make that guy over there suffer before you make me suffer. if I am to believe the conservatives we have to ignore that attitude and make everyone suffer. not that they actually want to do that, but that is the ideology they are pushing. Like any entity with an overspending and debt problem it eventually will be time to pay the bills. So we either make entitlement cuts now, push the economy downward by limiting spending further by the people who are on these programs, and go through the actual paying pains of our credit with everyone losing, or we up some taxes and close some loopholes so the rich can pay their fair share and see if that helps us pay our bills. Personally, I think both approaches would be the best idea. that way everyone hurts a little bit, and everyone shares the burden of our excess. It also leaves the demand base intact, aka the mass of consumers who would not be spending without help from the government due social safety net programs, and the rich who can afford to pay more without losing their stuff also get to pay for the upkeep of the country which allows them their success.

It still has to start somewhere, and you are never going to find a painless place to cut. It is the definition of cutting that it hurts.

Click to expand...

Your entire argument is that cuts are supposed to hurt, and that all programs should be viewed equal. 71 billion in foreign aid should be considered equal to veteran's benefits. If everything's equal, and it's supposed to hurt, why don't we cut food stamps while leaving 92 billion in corporate welfare intact? Everything's equal and we should cut indiscriminatively right?

So let's cut:
- Food stamps
- Social security
- Medicare
- Veterans benefits

And leave in place:
- 71 billion in foreign aid
- 92 billion in corporate welfare (non-Tarp)
- 25 billion annually in rennovating and maintaining vacant and unused federal properties. [1]
- 295 billion in defense weapons projects overruns [2]
- 3 billion resanding beaches [3]
- 2.5 billion for broadband internet research (that actually didn't even get used)[4]

But no, you're right, let's start with veteran's benefits. After all, they're cuts and they should hurt right?

Why not downsize the military (like we're doing) so that fewer potential veterans will need benefits, instead of trying to bone the current vets? How is that not more rational of a move?

RabidAlpaca said:

My argument hasn't changed from the beginning. The veterans deserve the benefits they have, and there are a million better places to start making cuts than veteran benefits. If you'd like to provide some quotes where I've changed arguments or positions, go for it. Otherwise, stop saying it in every post, it's getting ridiculous.



Your entire argument is that cuts are supposed to hurt, and that all programs should be viewed equal. 71 billion in foreign aid should be considered equal to veteran's benefits. If everything's equal, and it's supposed to hurt, why don't we cut food stamps while leaving 92 billion in corporate welfare intact? Everything's equal and we should cut indiscriminatively right?

So let's cut:
- Food stamps
- Social security
- Medicare
- Veterans benefits

And leave in place:
- 71 billion in foreign aid
- 92 billion in corporate welfare (non-Tarp)
- 25 billion annually in rennovating and maintaining vacant and unused federal properties. [1]
- 295 billion in defense weapons projects overruns [2]
- 3 billion resanding beaches [3]
- 2.5 billion for broadband internet research (that actually didn't even get used)[4]

But no, you're right, let's start with veteran's benefits. After all, they're cuts and they should hurt right?

Why not downsize the military (like we're doing) so that fewer potential veterans will need benefits, instead of trying to bone the current vets? How is that not more rational of a move?

Click to expand...

Again, you are making up an argument i did not make. I have pretty much maintained that those other cuts should be made also. You seem to want to avoid the cuts you don't like while demanding the cuts you do. I think it would be great to get all the cuts in gear, but i see no reason to stop some if we cannot get all. it is just the typical reason why the sequester was needed because they are never going to agree on programs to cut because they all actually want the benefit programs in place. Even the original argument doesn't actually do much but suggest that this is a place to be cut and you are reacting as if it is going to happen. This idea that people should not suggest cuts you don't like in lieu of ones you do is one of the major reasons we don't get any real discussion on how o fix any of our debt problems. Your argument is typical emotional argumentation also. They are veterans so they must get this pay even though they don't do anything for us anymore. yes, i get it you love the veterans but that does not make a good argument. The cuts should be made because we need to save money, but like I have been saying we should only cut some benefits and make it like regular unemployment. I think it would be best to cut these benefits and the others you mentioned, but I am looking at it from a realistic standpoint that you are never going to find a place that you can cut and everyone is going to feel great about it. There will always be someone with an emotional attachment who is going to get hurt. perhaps that is why we should not have run an imperialistic war on terror to begin with? Especially without getting the benefits of the resources from the lands we took. The reason why imperialism worked so well for place like england was they got stuff from the countries they took. they did not spend resources invading only to give the profits to private business that didn't pay tax on it.

So feel free to make up another imaginary argument you want me to make because it is easier to deal with the things you wish i had said instead of those i have said. Just don't expect me to pretend i actually did your absurd claims. It is time to pay the bills, and that means paying people to sit around the full salary of a soldier is in need of ending. you can play the blame game and try to distract from that necessity by pointing to other places that should be cut, but that is just the same old finger pointing and distraction used whenever someone sees cuts they don't like. It is why nothing gets done and we continue along with the same old problems. I don't think the article is wrong for suggesting that something be done about pissing money away. The more places we can make efficient the better off we will be.

tererun said:

Again, you are making up an argument i did not make. I have pretty much maintained that those other cuts should be made also. You seem to want to avoid the cuts you don't like while demanding the cuts you do. I think it would be great to get all the cuts in gear, but i see no reason to stop some if we cannot get all. it is just the typical reason why the sequester was needed because they are never going to agree on programs to cut because they all actually want the benefit programs in place. Even the original argument doesn't actually do much but suggest that this is a place to be cut and you are reacting as if it is going to happen. This idea that people should not suggest cuts you don't like in lieu of ones you do is one of the major reasons we don't get any real discussion on how o fix any of our debt problems. Your argument is typical emotional argumentation also. They are veterans so they must get this pay even though they don't do anything for us anymore. yes, i get it you love the veterans but that does not make a good argument. The cuts should be made because we need to save money, but like I have been saying we should only cut some benefits and make it like regular unemployment. I think it would be best to cut these benefits and the others you mentioned, but I am looking at it from a realistic standpoint that you are never going to find a place that you can cut and everyone is going to feel great about it. There will always be someone with an emotional attachment who is going to get hurt. perhaps that is why we should not have run an imperialistic war on terror to begin with? Especially without getting the benefits of the resources from the lands we took. The reason why imperialism worked so well for place like england was they got stuff from the countries they took. they did not spend resources invading only to give the profits to private business that didn't pay tax on it.

So feel free to make up another imaginary argument you want me to make because it is easier to deal with the things you wish i had said instead of those i have said. Just don't expect me to pretend i actually did your absurd claims. It is time to pay the bills, and that means paying people to sit around the full salary of a soldier is in need of ending. you can play the blame game and try to distract from that necessity by pointing to other places that should be cut, but that is just the same old finger pointing and distraction used whenever someone sees cuts they don't like. It is why nothing gets done and we continue along with the same old problems. I don't think the article is wrong for suggesting that something be done about pissing money away. The more places we can make efficient the better off we will be.

Click to expand...

So let me get this straight. You're trying to attack me saying I want to "cut things I want to cut, while not cutting things I don't."? Are you not doing that? Are you saying you're for cutting 100% of everything in the government? Food stamps, medicare, all of it? Or do you think there are things we should keep, and things we should cut, just like I'm doing?

Stop acting like you're arguing from a morally or intellectually superior position. You simply want to bone veterans because you don't see them as a priority. Most Americans do see them as a priority, which is why we're not going to be making massive cuts to veterans benefits.