• 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!

Shutdown outrage: Military death benefits denied to families of fallen troops

Bronson said:
You just can't help yourself

It wasn't overlooked in the first bill. Only a dictator tyrant a%%hole would have interpreted it that way to where he didn't have to pay them

You're a shill for that dictator tyrant a%%hole

Nothing more needs to be said :2wave:
Click to expand...

It was overlooked because it is not normally a part of an base operational budget, but extra since it is more than most of those killed make in a year of service given to their families at one time. It is part of a normal yearly DOD total budget, but not their base operational budget, which is what was signed into law to ensure the military was paid.
 
roguenuke said:
It was overlooked because it is not normally a part of an base operational budget, but extra since it is more than most of those killed make in a year of service given to their families at one time. It is part of a normal yearly DOD total budget, but not their base operational budget, which is what was signed into law to ensure the military was paid.
Click to expand...

Yea sure it was

I'm sure if you were Commander in Chief and you were warned about it days in advance, you would have sat around and done nothing too

Obama ignores laws he doesn't like all the time, yet here you are pretending he was "only following the law" when the people who wrote the law NEVER intended military families not to be paid their benefits. It was Obama (because he is a scumbag with no soul and you support him) that deliberately interpreted the law that way so he wouldn't have to pay them. All for political theatre.

About as disgusting as it gets

Why do you support that?
 
Bronson said:
Yea sure it was

I'm sure if you were Commander in Chief and you were warned about it days in advance, you would have sat around and done nothing too

Obama ignores laws he doesn't like all the time, yet here you are pretending he was "only following the law" when the people who wrote the law NEVER intended the military families wouldn't be paid their benefits. It was Obama (because he is a scumbag with no soul and you support him) that deliberately interpreted the law that way so he wouldn't have to pay them. All for political theatre.

About as disgusting as it gets

Why do you support that?
Click to expand...

Your partisanship is well noted. You can't even see that the ones at fault are in fact those in Congress, not Obama. Those in Congress ignored it too, and there are many more of them to catch it.

Prove that Obama knew that this would be an issue before he read/signed the bill that paid the soldiers.
 
roguenuke said:
Your partisanship is well noted. You can't even see that the ones at fault are in fact those in Congress, not Obama. Those in Congress ignored it too, and there are many more of them to catch it.

Prove that Obama knew that this would be an issue before he read/signed the bill that paid the soldiers.
Click to expand...

Wrong

Congress offered several appropriations bills that would have funded this

Obama/Reid - "We won't negotiate"

Remember Reid also said "Why would I want to do that?" when asked why children's cancer treatment shouldn't be funded with an appropriations bill

And trust me, your Obama worship is WELL NOTED:lol:
 
Bronson said:
Wrong

Congress offered several appropriations bills that would have funded this

Obama/Reid - "We won't negotiate"

Remember Reid also said "Why would I want to do that?" when asked why children's cancer treatment shouldn't be funded with an appropriations bill

And trust me, your Obama worship is WELL NOTED:lol:
Click to expand...

well the house gop did this

The House GOP's Little Rule Change That Guaranteed A Shutdown

Here's what happened.

The House and Senate were at an impasse on the night of Sept. 30. The House's then-most-recent ploy for extracting Obamacare concessions from Senate Democrats and the White House -- by eliminating health insurance subsidies for Congress members and their staffs -- had been rejected by the Senate. The 'clean' Senate spending bill was back in the House's court.

With less than two hours to midnight and shutdown, Speaker John Boehner's latest plan emerged. House Republicans would "insist" on their latest spending bill, including the anti-Obamacare provision, and request a conference with the Senate to resolve the two chambers' differences.

Under normal House rules, according to House Democrats, once that bill had been rejected again by the Senate, then any member of the House could have made a motion to vote on the Senate's bill. Such a motion would have been what is called "privileged" and entitled to a vote of the full House. At that point, Democrats say, they could have joined with moderate Republicans in approving the motion and then in passing the clean Senate bill, averting a shutdown.

But previously, House Republicans had made a small but hugely consequential move to block them from doing it.

Here's the rule in question:

When the stage of disagreement has been reached on a bill or resolution with House or Senate amendments, a motion to dispose of any amendment shall be privileged.

In other words, if the House and Senate are gridlocked as they were on the eve of the shutdown, any motion from any member to end that gridlock should be allowed to proceed. Like, for example, a motion to vote on the Senate bill. That's how House Democrats read it.

But the House Rules Committee voted the night of Sept. 30 to change that rule for this specific bill. They added language dictating that any motion "may be offered only by the majority Leader or his designee."

So unless House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) wanted the Senate spending bill to come to the floor, it wasn't going to happen. And it didn't.
Click to expand...
 
Bronson said:
Wrong

Congress offered several appropriations bills that would have funded this

Obama/Reid - "We won't negotiate"

Remember Reid also said "Why would I want to do that?" when asked why children's cancer treatment shouldn't be funded with an appropriations bill

And trust me, your Obama worship is WELL NOTED:lol:
Click to expand...

And they did so knowing that they were basically blackmailing the rest of Congress and the President into not funding Obamacare simply because they are looking for anything they can to get it gone.

I honestly don't think we should be federally funding cancer research to begin with. And if I got what I wanted, no children would have to worry about treatment because it would be paid for through an NHC. But Republicans don't want that. In fact, they would rather have mandatory health insurance than universal healthcare. They're mainly pissed because it included putting more people on Medicaid and put more regulation on the insurance industry to ensure everyone could get healthcare without costing extreme amounts. Oh, and that the Democrats could claim it rather than them.
 
roguenuke said:
Your partisanship is well noted. You can't even see that the ones at fault are in fact those in Congress, not Obama. Those in Congress ignored it too, and there are many more of them to catch it.

Prove that Obama knew that this would be an issue before he read/signed the bill that paid the soldiers.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to say that had no idea that there was a possibility that soldiers could be KIA?

Since you're using the stupidity defense of The One, your partisanship is noted.
 
apdst said:
Are you trying to say that had no idea that there was a possibility that soldiers could be KIA?

Since you're using the stupidity defense of The One, your partisanship is noted.
Click to expand...

They failed to realize that soldiers being killed meant additional money being paid out to them. Like most Americans, even many who have heavy military connections, the average Congressman probably didn't even realize that these servicemembers' families got paid an extra $100K beyond their $400K SGLIs. Even you did not realize the difference til I pointed it out earlier in the thread. In post #27, you claimed this was the SGLI rather than the actual death benefit.
 
roguenuke said:
They failed to realize that soldiers being killed meant additional money being paid out to them. Like most Americans, even many who have heavy military connections, the average Congressman probably didn't even realize that these servicemembers' families got paid an extra $100K beyond their $400K SGLIs. Even you did not realize the difference til I pointed it out earlier in the thread. In post #27, you claimed this was the SGLI rather than the actual death benefit.
Click to expand...

You mean the president and the SECDEF didn't know?!?
 
apdst said:
You mean the president and the SECDEF didn't know?!?
Click to expand...

Why would they know? Those are things handled by military internal funding. They don't really know where every bit of money the military asks for goes to. In fact, they probably don't know where the vast majority goes to, only vague ideas based on reports that say things like "personnel costs, maintenance/upkeep costs, research, supplies, new equipment, misc." and things like this.
 
I'd just like to go on record and say that while I'm no fan of Obama, the idea that he "hates" the country or veterans is about as pants-on-head stupid as it gets.
 
roguenuke said:
They failed to realize that soldiers being killed meant additional money being paid out to them. Like most Americans, even many who have heavy military connections, the average Congressman probably didn't even realize that these servicemembers' families got paid an extra $100K beyond their $400K SGLIs. Even you did not realize the difference til I pointed it out earlier in the thread. In post #27, you claimed this was the SGLI rather than the actual death benefit.
Click to expand...

The Commander in Chief and the Secretary of Defense are that stupid??? How did they ever get into positions of power??
 
roguenuke said:
Why would they know? Those are things handled by military internal funding. They don't really know where every bit of money the military asks for goes to. In fact, they probably don't know where the vast majority goes to, only vague ideas based on reports that say things like "personnel costs, maintenance/upkeep costs, research, supplies, new equipment, misc." and things like this.
Click to expand...

Who do you think might be expected to be aware of this funding if not the Commander in Chief and the Secretary of Defense? It might be time to 'name names'.

Do you think someone knowledgeable, whoever that might be, might have taken the time to remind Obama and Hagel that obligations are in place when members of the military are killed in action?
 
Kobie said:
I'd just like to go on record and say that while I'm no fan of Obama, the idea that he "hates" the country or veterans is about as pants-on-head stupid as it gets.
Click to expand...

You have evidence to support your argument?

Maybe 'hates' is too strong a word.

'Indifferent' might be more appropriate.
 
roguenuke said:
Why would they know?
Click to expand...

Well, I would imagine they would have found out at the very least when it became enough of an issue that the House passed a bill specifically directing its' funding. And the Senate stalled, and the White House denied that it had to or should sign it, and then both eventually buckled to public pressure, shame, or some mixture of the two.

Those are things handled by military internal funding. They don't really know where every bit of money the military asks for goes to. In fact, they probably don't know where the vast majority goes to, only vague ideas based on reports that say things like "personnel costs, maintenance/upkeep costs, research, supplies, new equipment, misc." and things like this.
Click to expand...

Also true. But politics extends well into the DoD. That is why, after, all, SECDEF is a political appointee, to ensure that it does.
 
Kobie said:
I'd just like to go on record and say that while I'm no fan of Obama, the idea that he "hates" the country or veterans is about as pants-on-head stupid as it gets.
Click to expand...

It is a hyperventilating exaggeration of a nugget of truth. He is, I think, uncomfortable with and around "veterans" as a group, and has distaste for the notion of the United States as "the indispensable nation" / Hegemon. Neither of those things is hatred for the subject matter itself, but can be confused for dislike or distrust, and then exaggerated for partisan effect into "hatred".
 
Grant said:
The Commander in Chief and the Secretary of Defense are that stupid??? How did they ever get into positions of power??
Click to expand...

No, it simply isn't their job to know exactly where every bit of money goes for the military nor what every single compensation is that military members get. They have the upper leadership of the military that is right below them to do that stuff. Most people in the military don't realize how the funeral pay works, so why should the President? Honestly, people are expecting way too much here. The Defense Committee of Congress should in fact be more informed about what pay and benefits, including funeral benefits, the military personnel get than the President should be.
 
cpwill said:
Well, I would imagine they would have found out at the very least when it became enough of an issue that the House passed a bill specifically directing its' funding. And the Senate stalled, and the White House denied that it had to or should sign it, and then both eventually buckled to public pressure, shame, or some mixture of the two.

Also true. But politics extends well into the DoD. That is why, after, all, SECDEF is a political appointee, to ensure that it does.
Click to expand...

Which would still be after the fact.

And no matter what people think, we should not be funding this government one bill at a time. Unfortunately that leaves one part of our government with all the power, the House of Representatives. Because this would mean that they could simply only choose to send forward bills for those things they want to fund and then use the media and public pressure to get them signed by the other two needed but not send anything else through. So everything they want gets funded because the people are too stupid to realize they are being tricked. The GOP is using the troops to get what they want.
 
I don't quite get all the partisanship. It was a mistake and was quickly addressed.

What I REALLY don't get are the people claiming that such a cut is reasonable... wow. How much does someone need to hate the military to sink to such a level.
 
Grant said:
Who do you think might be expected to be aware of this funding if not the Commander in Chief and the Secretary of Defense? It might be time to 'name names'.


Do you think someone knowledgeable, whoever that might be, might have taken the time to remind Obama and Hagel that obligations are in place when members of the military are killed in action?
Click to expand...

How about the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Committee on Armed Services?

United States House Committee on Armed Services - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"It is responsible for funding and oversight of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the United States armed forces,"

United States Senate Committee on Armed Services - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Committee on Armed Services is a committee of the United States Senate empowered with legislative oversight of the nation's military, including the Department of Defense, military research and development, nuclear energy (as pertaining to national security), benefits for members of the military, the Selective Service System and other matters related to defense policy. "

This is why I hold Congress, not the President, responsible for this oversight. They are the ones that should have known how military families make it to funerals. And since those bills start in the House, then the House is the one that should have ensured it was done right. That is where I would place the blame.

At the current time, Rep. Buck McKeon (R) is the chair for the House Committte, and Sen. Carl Levin (D) is the chair for the Senate Committee. 26 Senators and 62 Representatives. But their fellow Congressmen should have been the first people asking to ensure that they covered everything.
 
Deuce said:
I believe Congress has already resolved this issue. It wasn't politically driven. Compensation of various natures is simply not authorized right now.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the bill that covered this was parsed by the Administration to be gray on the subject of death benefits and it chose that the death benefits wouldn't be paid.

This is utter bullsh*t because this administration has shown exactly zero reservations in interpreting gray areas laws in their favor before... but here they could have authorized the benefits and NOBODY would complain and he chose to force the pain.

In other words, the President is a small sh*tty excuse for a human being.
 
roguenuke said:
No, it simply isn't their job to know exactly where every bit of money goes for the military nor what every single compensation is that military members get. They have the upper leadership of the military that is right below them to do that stuff. Most people in the military don't realize how the funeral pay works, so why should the President? Honestly, people are expecting way too much here. The Defense Committee of Congress should in fact be more informed about what pay and benefits, including funeral benefits, the military personnel get than the President should be.
Click to expand...

So their excuse is ignorance? Perhaps people are expecting too much from their government, which is why it's surprising they want more of it.

It's interesting to watch how people squirm in order to defend the indefensible.
 
Grant said:
So their excuse is ignorance? Perhaps people are expecting too much from their government, which is why it's surprising they want more of it.

It's interesting to watch how people squirm in order to defend the indefensible.
Click to expand...

People do have way too high of expectations for certain positions or people in government. The government is huge and there is a lot going on. No one person knows everything that is happening in every part of our government.
 
roguenuke said:
People do have way too high of expectations for certain positions or people in government. The government is huge and there is a lot going on. No one person knows everything that is happening in every part of our government.
Click to expand...

While that is true enough, there are certainly those higher up who should know that the families of those military members KIA are allowed certain benefits. Why should a fact like that be so difficult to know? It is n small deal.

In fact there were similar excuses after Benghazi, which is why only experienced people should be elected and appointed to higher office. Not too much should be expected from Community Organizers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom