• 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

Grant said:
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.
Click to expand...

And the vast majority believe that this benefit is the SGLI. They believe, as do many servicemembers, that the military will take care of all the arrangements and transportation for the funeral and their family members. No one really even knew about this extra death benefit, particularly not the amount, til now when it came up, unless they were a recipient of that death benefit, which for the overall population, is a very small percentage of the people.

And why is it that the Congressmen did not know about the death benefits and realize that it would not be covered by the bill they wrote? Do all those in Congress not have the proper experience to be there either?
 
roguenuke said:
And the vast majority believe that this benefit is the SGLI. They believe, as do many servicemembers, that the military will take care of all the arrangements and transportation for the funeral and their family members. No one really even knew about this extra death benefit, particularly not the amount, til now when it came up, unless they were a recipient of that death benefit, which for the overall population, is a very small percentage of the people.

And why is it that the Congressmen did not know about the death benefits and realize that it would not be covered by the bill they wrote? Do all those in Congress not have the proper experience to be there either?
Click to expand...

No one knew of these death benefits? Those 'very small percentage of the people' you refer to are those who died fighting and dying for their country, under the direction of their Commander In Cheif, Barrack Obama, and their surviving family members.

Barrack Obama keeps screwing up and screwing up, over and over again, and yet the blame is always cast elsewhere. Has the country gone completely bonkers?
 
roguenuke said:
Which would still be after the fact.
Click to expand...

Not really. The Pentagon warned the administration that this would happen in late September.

And no matter what people think, we should not be funding this government one bill at a time
Click to expand...

On the contrary - that is precisely how we should be funding this government. In that manner we can actually look at and debate each major spending priority, giving it the focus it deserves and needs, rather than having a single must-pass piece of legislation upon which any congresscritter can attach any piece of pork they like without being noticed or commented upon.

The GOP is using the troops to get what they want.
Click to expand...

Yeah? Tell me more about how the GOP is threatening people's social security, Medicare, etc, instead of passing bills precisely to fund the troops - including death benefits - only to watch them get delayed or dismissed by Democrats?

This is the administrations' approach:

...On October 8, Obama was asked by Mark Knoller of CBS if he was “tempted” to sign the numerous funding bills passed by the GOP-controlled House that would greatly alleviate the pain of the shutdown. Republicans have voted to reopen parks, fund cancer trials for children at the NIH, and to keep FEMA and the FDA going through this partial shutdown. But Obama has threatened to veto any such efforts, effectively keeping the Senate from considering the legislation.

“Of course I’m tempted” to sign those bills, Obama explained. “But here’s the problem. What you’ve seen are bills that come up wherever Republicans are feeling political pressure, they put a bill forward. And if there’s no political heat, if there’s no television story on it, then nothing happens.”

Obama’s answer dragged on, as all of Obama’s answers do. But the point was made. For the first time in American history, a president confessed to deliberately hurting his country to score points against his enemies....​

Take the places where the GOP is trying to take care of people in general and the troops in particula and cank them, so that those people will get hurt, get put on television, and make Republicans look bad by implication.
 
Grant said:
No one knew of these death benefits? Those 'very small percentage of the people' you refer to are those who died fighting and dying for their country, under the direction of their Commander In Cheif, Barrack Obama, and their surviving family members.

Barrack Obama keeps screwing up and screwing up, over and over again, and yet the blame is always cast elsewhere. Has the country gone completely bonkers?
Click to expand...

My husband and I have both been entitled to these benefits and both still are (me if I get called up for duty), although neither of us is likely to need this. But I had no idea that this was the actual benefit til this came up. Neither did many people, just look at all those on here who thought it was the SGLI that was being withheld. I knew that our family got more than just SGLI, but I always thought it was paid out a lot further down the line, like most things in the military. I didn't know they gave the money, particularly that much, to work out funeral arrangements and such. That is a lot for funeral arrangements, even with air fairs and the such.

But I do know that the military will help anyone make arrangements. Or at least the commands are supposed to. They are called a "Casualty Assistance Officer" or "Casualty Assistance Call Officer". They are assigned to the family for an infinite period of time.

http://www.militaryonesource.mil/mcfp-web/newsletter.jsp?url=http://www.militaryonesource.mil/MOS/f?p=MOS2:pRINT:0::::pCOHE,PEKMT:266629,36.15.30.
 
cpwill said:
Not really. The Pentagon warned the administration that this would happen in late September.



On the contrary - that is precisely how we should be funding this government. In that manner we can actually look at and debate each major spending priority, giving it the focus it deserves and needs, rather than having a single must-pass piece of legislation upon which any congresscritter can attach any piece of pork they like without being noticed or commented upon.



Yeah? Tell me more about how the GOP is threatening people's social security, Medicare, etc, instead of passing bills precisely to fund the troops - including death benefits - only to watch them get delayed or dismissed by Democrats?

This is the administrations' approach:

...On October 8, Obama was asked by Mark Knoller of CBS if he was “tempted” to sign the numerous funding bills passed by the GOP-controlled House that would greatly alleviate the pain of the shutdown. Republicans have voted to reopen parks, fund cancer trials for children at the NIH, and to keep FEMA and the FDA going through this partial shutdown. But Obama has threatened to veto any such efforts, effectively keeping the Senate from considering the legislation.

“Of course I’m tempted” to sign those bills, Obama explained. “But here’s the problem. What you’ve seen are bills that come up wherever Republicans are feeling political pressure, they put a bill forward. And if there’s no political heat, if there’s no television story on it, then nothing happens.”

Obama’s answer dragged on, as all of Obama’s answers do. But the point was made. For the first time in American history, a president confessed to deliberately hurting his country to score points against his enemies....​

Take the places where the GOP is trying to take care of people in general and the troops in particula and cank them, so that those people will get hurt, get put on television, and make Republicans look bad by implication.
Click to expand...

Funding one bill at a time will lead to the side with the majority in the House to simply refuse to fund or even hear a bill to fund anything they do not want to fund. There would be nothing either the Senate or the President could do. This would give them a lot of power, a lot more than any other part of our government.
 
roguenuke said:
My husband and I have both been entitled to these benefits and both still are (me if I get called up for duty), although neither of us is likely to need this. But I had no idea that this was the actual benefit til this came up. Neither did many people, just look at all those on here who thought it was the SGLI that was being withheld. I knew that our family got more than just SGLI, but I always thought it was paid out a lot further down the line, like most things in the military. I didn't know they gave the money, particularly that much, to work out funeral arrangements and such. That is a lot for funeral arrangements, even with air fairs and the such.

But I do know that the military will help anyone make arrangements. Or at least the commands are supposed to. They are called a "Casualty Assistance Officer" or "Casualty Assistance Call Officer". They are assigned to the family for an infinite period of time.

http://www.militaryonesource.mil/mcfp-web/newsletter.jsp?url=http://www.militaryonesource.mil/MOS/f?p=MOS2:pRINT:0::::pCOHE,PEKMT:266629,36.15.30.
Click to expand...

You didn't know the benefits because you didn't have to. It wasn't your responsibility.

But as CPWill has pointed out, Obama and his Administration did this for the publicity it would receive and thought people would point their fingers at his political enemies, just as many have. The same happened with the National Parks when they trapped international tourists and wouldn't let them look at the scenery or even use the bathrooms.. But can you, in all fair-mindedness, attack Republicans for the policies the Obama Administration initiated?
 
roguenuke said:
Funding one bill at a time will lead to the side with the majority in the House to simply refuse to fund or even hear a bill to fund anything they do not want to fund. There would be nothing either the Senate or the President could do. This would give them a lot of power, a lot more than any other part of our government.
Click to expand...

It would also allow the people to see just how their money is being spent and how much of the budget is pork.
 
Grant said:
You didn't know the benefits because you didn't have to. It wasn't your responsibility.

But as CPWill has pointed out, Obama and his Administration did this for the publicity it would receive and thought people would point their fingers at his political enemies, just as many have. The same happened with the National Parks when they trapped international tourists and wouldn't let them look at the scenery or even use the bathrooms.. But can you, in all fair-mindedness, attack Republicans for the policies the Obama Administration initiated?
Click to expand...

I can say that Congress should have caught it. They wrote the bill. They should have known about this flaw in it. I am not just blaming Republicans. There are plenty of Dems on those two committees as well. I am blaming Congress. They determine the budget allocation for the military, not the President. Congress caused the shutdown.
 
Grant said:
It would also allow the people to see just how their money is being spent and how much of the budget is pork.
Click to expand...

At the expense of hurting a lot of people, depending on who has control of the House. It would not be worth it.
 
roguenuke said:
I can say that Congress should have caught it. They wrote the bill. They should have known about this flaw in it. I am not just blaming Republicans. There are plenty of Dems on those two committees as well. I am blaming Congress. They determine the budget allocation for the military, not the President. Congress caused the shutdown.
Click to expand...

Why Congress?? Why not the people in charge???

And why is it a flaw?
 
Grant said:
Why Congress?? Why not the people in charge???

And why is it a flaw?
Click to expand...

Because Congress is in charge of budgeting the military. They in fact each have a committee specifically for our Armed Forces, and the House's committee is responsible for funding it. Congress is responsible for thinking about these consequences. They are responsible for paying for our government.

Not including money to at least cover some funeral arrangements for families is a mistake, even if it wouldn't have been the entire $100K for each.
 
roguenuke said:
I can say that Congress should have caught it. They wrote the bill. They should have known about this flaw in it. I am not just blaming Republicans. There are plenty of Dems on those two committees as well. I am blaming Congress. They determine the budget allocation for the military, not the President. Congress caused the shutdown.
Click to expand...

Congress may well have written the Bill but that does not mean they maintain the responsibility of maintaining it. Once it leaves their hands it falls to other departments, and why there is a bureaucracy in place with various leaders intended to oversee these bureaucracies, and to be sure they are run responsibly.

In this case it was the Commander in Chief, Barrack Obama, and his appointee Chuck Hagel, who should have been on top of it. Hagel should certainly be fired but we know there is little now that can be done about Barrack Obama.
 
roguenuke said:
The money for the death benefit comes from DOD funding, not any sort of insurance plan. So yes, the shutdown would affect the ability to pay for death benefits when it isn't technically money to operate the military. (Which they are working on fixing now anyway.)
Click to expand...
"SEC. 2. CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) In General- There are hereby appropriated for fiscal year 2014, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for any period during which interim or full-year appropriations for fiscal year 2014 are not in effect--

(1) such sums as are necessary to provide pay and allowances to members of the Armed Forces (as defined in section 101(a)(4) of title 10, United States Code), including reserve components thereof, who perform active service during such period;"

This was passed by both chambers of the Congress and the President signed it into law. When I was on active duty in the death benefit was explained to me as part of my pay and allowances. Did something change?

Why would Obama's henchmen choose a strict interpretation that would deny caring for the families of men and women who died while serving their country? I believe I know the reason.

Is this country doomed? Are we heading for the ash heap of history? Have liberty and freedom been extinguished before our very eyes?
 
Misterveritis said:
"SEC. 2. CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) In General- There are hereby appropriated for fiscal year 2014, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for any period during which interim or full-year appropriations for fiscal year 2014 are not in effect--

(1) such sums as are necessary to provide pay and allowances to members of the Armed Forces (as defined in section 101(a)(4) of title 10, United States Code), including reserve components thereof, who perform active service during such period;"

This was passed by both chambers of the Congress and the President signed it into law. When I was on active duty in the death benefit was explained to me as part of my pay and allowances. Did something change?

Why would Obama's henchmen choose a strict interpretation that would deny caring for the families of men and women who died while serving their country? I believe I know the reason.

Is this country doomed? Are we heading for the ash heap of history? Have liberty and freedom been extinguished before our very eyes?
Click to expand...

Death benefits are not part of normal pay and allowances for the budget. They are part of our benefits. But they also set them at a certain amount for pretty much everyone, apparently, $100K. That is more than a year's worth of pay and bah for the vast majority of junior sailors, those most likely to die.
 
Grant said:
Congress may well have written the Bill but that does not mean they maintain the responsibility of maintaining it. Once it leaves their hands it falls to other departments, and why there is a bureaucracy in place with various leaders intended to oversee these bureaucracies, and to be sure they are run responsibly.

In this case it was the Commander in Chief, Barrack Obama, and his appointee Chuck Hagel, who should have been on top of it. Hagel should certainly be fired but we know there is little now that can be done about Barrack Obama.
Click to expand...

They were informed that the bill did not cover the death benefits, and that this would be a result of the shutdown.
 
Bronson said:
:applaud

Obama's golf course is open but he can't pay for funerals of military KIA

He's an evil scumbag and so are his supporters
Click to expand...

The GOP is no different. The ideal situation is for both the golf course and military to be disbanded.

Wasting taxpayer money on foreign invasions/interventions is not the proper role of govt. in a free society.
 
Grant said:
No one knew of these death benefits? Those 'very small percentage of the people' you refer to are those who died fighting and dying for their country,
Click to expand...

WRONG. In the modern world, no one in the US military fights for his country. They fight for their govt.
 
roguenuke said:
Death benefits are not part of normal pay and allowances for the budget. They are part of our benefits. But they also set them at a certain amount for pretty much everyone, apparently, $100K. That is more than a year's worth of pay and bah for the vast majority of junior sailors, those most likely to die.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. They were in the past. What, in your opinion, changed? During the struggle to keep people like me on active duty they were included as a part of the discussion on the portions of my pay and allowances I might not be familiar with. Was I being lied to then? Or am I being lied to now?
 
solletica said:
WRONG. In the modern world, no one in the US military fights for his country. They fight for their govt.
Click to expand...
This is why I believe the people currently on active duty will fire on Americans when they are told to do so.
All we need now is for the officers to swear allegiance to Obama.
 
roguenuke said:
Because Congress is in charge of budgeting the military. They in fact each have a committee specifically for our Armed Forces, and the House's committee is responsible for funding it. Congress is responsible for thinking about these consequences. They are responsible for paying for our government.

Not including money to at least cover some funeral arrangements for families is a mistake, even if it wouldn't have been the entire $100K for each.
Click to expand...

Please read this. It's something I certainly never knew about and doubt you did either. I'd be interested in your opinion, Thanks.

The Play's The Thing | National Review Online
 
solletica said:
WRONG. In the modern world, no one in the US military fights for his country. They fight for their govt.
Click to expand...

In fact that may be too simplistic as well.

Perhaps people fight for their culture, a way of life they understand and don't want changed.
 
Misterveritis said:
This is why I believe the people currently on active duty will fire on Americans when they are told to do so.
All we need now is for the officers to swear allegiance to Obama.
Click to expand...

That's certainly happened in other places, East Germany for one. They pick those who ask no questions but stick squarely to the orders given. It can happen anywhere and any time.
 
Grant said:
Please read this. It's something I certainly never knew about and doubt you did either. I'd be interested in your opinion, Thanks.

The Play's The Thing | National Review Online
Click to expand...
That's not surprising at all and I suspected as much when the military didn't want flag drapped "coffins" being in the newspaper. It's because with enough eyes on it someone might have noticed something suspicious.

But hey we can never cut military spending. What I find remarkable though is that despite all the claims about waste in Medicare or S.S. we rarely if ever get reports of widespread abuse and waste. In the military we get some new story at least once a month, but often much more frequently.
 
roguenuke said:
Funding one bill at a time will lead to the side with the majority in the House to simply refuse to fund or even hear a bill to fund anything they do not want to fund. There would be nothing either the Senate or the President could do. This would give them a lot of power, a lot more than any other part of our government.
Click to expand...

Well that's an interesting claim. Is that what we saw in the 200-odd years that we funded government in that fashion?

Funding government one bill at a time is not only the way we were set up to do things - it's also good governance. I'm not saying that Republicans are doing it because it's good governance, but by accident they appear to have ended up there. Giant must-pass last-minute omnibus bills that anyone can hang anything on is a process of crises governance, and crises governance is typically bad governance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom