|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
So if this plan is to provide additional benefits and aid to help veterans find jobs... then why not.
So you speculate on what you think it might be for... then blast the republicans for not passing it and not being thankful and blahblahblah... when in fact you don't really know what it is for or why the republicans voted against it... again you just speculated at that.... all you know for sure is that Obama is right and the republicans are wrong in this... regardless of what it says or why they voted against it.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,560
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,560 |
Quote:
Quote:
I think everybody that isn't a idiot know how the Dems feel about all things military.
They're historically in favor of increasing it's size, scope and funding?
Dems however have been more in favor of helping veterans, while Repubicans for the most part have been going after programs for vets.
Active Military gets more love from Republicans. Republicans have been in favor of big military (until Bush and Rumsfeld decided to fight 2 wars and at the same time going with a slimmer trimmer military force) but that is for a different debate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
Quote:
Quote:
So if this plan is to provide additional benefits and aid to help veterans find jobs... then why not.
So you speculate on what you think it might be for... then blast the republicans for not passing it and not being thankful and blahblahblah... when in fact you don't really know what it is for or why the republicans voted against it... again you just speculated at that.... all you know for sure is that Obama is right and the republicans are wrong in this... regardless of what it says or why they voted against it.
You make no sense. The bill is called "Veterans Jobs bill." I'm sure its not for circus performers n vegas strippers looking for help. And I'm pretty sure not one of us on this thread commenting, knows all the contents of the bill, yet all of you comment.
Side note: Why does everything that the dems try and pass has to be 60-40 vote? Oh yeah.. cuz the republicans will whine, cry, n filibuster if they dont get their way. I liked our old gov't, where the majority vote counted.
Last edited by Referee2; 09/23/12 10:34 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,147
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,147 |
Quote:
Quote:
As Americans, it is our responsibility to return a helping hand to those who served the United States of America...NO MATTER THE COST !
I think every American feels that way.
The R's & D's need to work together to craft legislation that meets the parameters they BOTH agreed to regarding additional spending.
To pretend that one side "likes" vets more than the other is a joke.
NO willie, it's not "a joke"...
While I would like to think that all Americans believe it is their responsibility to return a helping hand to our veterans...the reality is, there's a group of Republican Senators who voted NOT to help our veterans...veterans who could use helping hand finding a job.
These GOP Senators and their RW supporters can spin it, make up all kinds of excuses for their NO vote...but in the end, it's our veterans who pay the price for the GOPs inaction...and our veterans deserve to be treated better than this...40 Republican Senators walking in lock step, turning their backs on our veterans.
Senate Republicans kill veterans' jobs bill
Wed Sep 19, 2012
With a major national election just seven weeks away, senators would have to be out of their minds to reject a jobs bill for U.S. military veterans, right?
Apparently not.
Veterans won't be getting a new, billion-dollar jobs program, not from this Senate. Republicans on Wednesday afternoon blocked a vote on the Veterans Job Corps Bill after Jeff Sessions of Alabama raised a point of order -- he said the bill violated a cap on spending agreed to by Congress last year.
The bill's sponsor, Patty Murray of Washington, said that shouldn't matter, since the bill's cost was fully offset by new revenues. She said Mr. Sessions and his party colleagues had been furiously generating excuses to oppose the bill, and were now exploiting a technicality to deny thousands of veterans a shot at getting hired as police officers, firefighters and parks workers, among other things.
The bill needed 60 votes to advance. The final tally was 58 to 40, and all 40 opponents of the proposal were Republicans.
As proposals go, this should have been a no-brainer. The Veterans Job Corps Act of 2012, sponsored by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), sought to lower unemployment among military veterans, giving grants to federal, state, and local agencies, which in turn would hire veterans -- giving priority to those who served on or after 9/11 -- to work as first-responders and in conservation jobs at national parks.
The bill was fully paid for, and entirely bipartisan -- Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) had his own set of ideas for the bill, and Murray incorporated all of them into her legislation.
And yet, all but five Senate Republicans voted to kill it anyway, 48 days before a national election. Even Burr sided with his party to defeat the bill, and it was filled with his provisions.
A New York Times editorial added the other day, "It makes sense for the 99 percent of Americans to find new ways to pay their debt to the 1 percent who serve in uniform. To most people, Senator Murray's bill would seem like one decent way to do that. But not if you're one of those Republicans in Washington who thinks it's more important in an election year to deny Democrats a success or accomplishment of any kind."
web page
.
GM strong...
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,147
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,147 |
Republicans vs. Veterans’ Jobs
September 16, 2012
If you made a list of things lawmakers of both parties profess to value at all times — like “jobs,” “opportunity,” “veterans,” “law enforcement,” “firefighters,” “safe streets,” “small business” — and plugged them into a Congressional bill-writing app, you would probably end up with something like the Veterans Job Corps Act of 2012.
The bill, sponsored by Senator Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat, would hire veterans as firefighters and police officers and for conservation jobs in national parks and on other public lands, through grants to federal departments and agencies and contracts with state and local governments and private organizations. It would give a lift to veteran entrepreneurs and contractors in various ways, like making it easier for veterans to use their military training to qualify for civilian professional licenses.
The bill gives priority to those who served on or after 9/11, with good reason: the jobless rate for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan hit 10.9 percent in August, compared with 8.1 percent nationally. This is a time of persistent homelessness and unemployment among veterans, and record suicides among veterans and active-duty service members, many of them stressed by the burdens of two long wars. It makes sense for the 99 percent of Americans to find new ways to pay their debt to the 1 percent who serve in uniform.
To most people, Senator Murray’s bill would seem like one decent way to do that. But not if you’re one of those Republicans in Washington who thinks it’s more important in an election year to deny Democrats a success or accomplishment of any kind.
This has led to some wacky maneuvers in the Senate. Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, perhaps forgetting where he worked, denounced the legislation as a “political exercise.” He also called it a waste of time, since the House wasn’t going to pass it anyway, and objected to the cost (estimated at $1 billion for the next five years, though Ms. Murray’s aides say the program will be paid for by recovering more money from tax-delinquent Medicare providers and forcing big tax deadbeats to pay up before receiving passports).
“Where is our honor? Where is our valor? Where is our sacrifice?” thundered Mr. Coburn, suggesting that giving jobs to veterans was an affront to American values. Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, went further, saying he would block the bill until Pakistan freed Shakil Afridi, the doctor who helped the United States find Osama bin Laden.
Ms. Murray has tried to make her bill as bipartisan as possible. When Senator Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican, proposed his own set of provisions, she folded them all into the bill, which is scheduled for a vote on Wednesday. We’ll know then whether good sense prevailed, or the wheels have come completely off the Congressional machine.
web page
GM strong...
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,045
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,045 |
OK, so here we go again with adding firemen and police officers that cities cannot afford long term.
We've done this before, and it never works long term. Cities add police using the federal funding for a few years, but when the funding runs out, so does the ability to keep those police officers. Same thing with fire fighters. Many cities refuse the funding because they know that there is no way for them to sustain the jobs.
How about making job training available to veterans for any profession they want to go in to? How about making federal grants available to private businesses to hire and train veterans? Why does it have to be only jobs with state and local governments?
Well ..... because it adds to union rolls, and it adds money to union coffers.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
You make no sense.
Funny, most other posters seem to understand me.. even though they may disagree.
Quote:
The bill is called "Veterans Jobs bill." I'm sure its not for circus performers n vegas strippers looking for help.
So does that mean they are creating jobs? Providing incentives to employers to hire vets? Providing job training for vets? Providing an employment type services to hook up vets with private sector jobs? I don't know.. and as of your last post, neither did you... that's my point.... yet you think people should vote for it and you don't even know what it says.
Quote:
And I'm pretty sure not one of us on this thread commenting, knows all the contents of the bill, yet all of you comment.
Yep, I commented. Go back and read my comments before you get too deep into the name calling. I confessed that I don't know what it says. I said that if the Rs are killing this to make a point they are wrong. I ran some numbers to see what they might be able to do with the money. I don't know what is in this bill and have not once said whether I think it's a good idea or not..... You know about as much as I do and have already decided that Obama is right and the evil republicans are wrong. Nice open mind.
Quote:
Side note: Why does everything that the dems try and pass has to be 60-40 vote? Oh yeah.. cuz the republicans will whine, cry, n filibuster if they dont get their way. I liked our old gov't, where the majority vote counted.
Me too. You won't find me agreeing outright with a whole lot that the recent batch of republicans has done.. Just because I think Obama is a moron, a horrible leader, and pushing us along the path toward implosion doesn't mean I'm a big fan of the Rs either... I know that simple minds like to keep things in well defined blocks so they can pass judgment on those people... sorry, I don't fit into your box.
Last edited by Referee2; 09/23/12 10:35 AM.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728 |
Quote:
$1 billion over five years to help veterans find work in their communities.
The measure, which would have potentially created jobs for up to 20,000 veterans
Do we know what those jobs are? And funny that they're targeting veterans. Using Occam's Razor it can only be assumed that the Democrats are conscripting a new army.
I mean these are highly trained veteran fighters who are of working age. The most sensible job for them would be mercenary.
But why conscript an army?
Maybe it's because if Obama is re-elected he doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected again and can push any agenda he so pleases.
And an army of 20,000 would be armed and ready to threaten or kill anyone who gets in his way.
He'll also have women, black people, illegal aliens, gay dudes, lesbians, and teachers in his back pocket.
Maybe these 20,000 veterans are going to train and arm his voting constituancy. And we're looking at Revloutionary War 2.
So do I blame Republicans for trying to block this scenario from occuring?
Not one bit. Not even one iota.
I'm with them 1000% on this one.
America, going through another Revolutionary War???
That's what you WANT TO HAPPEN???
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Heldawg/rgiii2.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
Quote:
I mean these are highly trained veteran fighters who are of working age. The most sensible job for them would be mercenary.
So easy to tell who has served their country and who hasn't!!!!
The rest of your rant... omg, really? I hope you were being sarcastic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,956
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,956 |
j/c
Has anyone read the bill? In the first post, I believe, there is a link. Click the link. Then click the link to the actual wording of the bill.
There are some good things in the actual bill, if people would read the actual bill and quit worrying about the name of the bill. (example: first section says "this bill can be called "veterans jobs bill")
There are some sections of the bill that make no sense, but DO give authority to different "secretaries" to dictate where money could be spent.
First "real" section says "hey, we can hire vet's to clean up cemataries and stuff."
Has anyone other than me read the bill?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456 |
ROFL reading that I was thinking if it was in purple it would be hard to read but better served.
If you need 3 years to be a winner you got here 2 years to early. Get it done Browns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Oh c'mon, you know you have to vote for it to read what's in it. sheesh! 
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728 |
I can tell who listens to Glen Beck and who doesn't too.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
Quote:
Quote:
You make no sense.
Funny, most other posters seem to understand me.. even though they may disagree.
Quote:
The bill is called "Veterans Jobs bill." I'm sure its not for circus performers n vegas strippers looking for help.
So does that mean they are creating jobs? Providing incentives to employers to hire vets? Providing job training for vets? Providing an employment type services to hook up vets with private sector jobs? I don't know.. and as of your last post, neither did you... that's my point.... yet you think people should vote for it and you don't even know what it says.
Quote:
And I'm pretty sure not one of us on this thread commenting, knows all the contents of the bill, yet all of you comment.
Yep, I commented. Go back and read my comments before you get too deep into the name calling. I confessed that I don't know what it says. I said that if the Rs are killing this to make a point they are wrong. I ran some numbers to see what they might be able to do with the money. I don't know what is in this bill and have not once said whether I think it's a good idea or not..... You know about as much as I do and have already decided that Obama is right and the evil republicans are wrong. Nice open mind.
Quote:
Side note: Why does everything that the dems try and pass has to be 60-40 vote? Oh yeah.. cuz the republicans will whine, cry, n filibuster if they dont get their way. I liked our old gov't, where the majority vote counted.
Me too. You won't find me agreeing outright with a whole lot that the recent batch of republicans has done.. Just because I think Obama is a moron, a horrible leader, and pushing us along the path toward implosion doesn't mean I'm a big fan of the Rs either... I know that simple minds like to keep things in well defined blocks so they can pass judgment on those people... sorry, I don't fit into your box.
1. When you make a valid point and not troll.
2. I believe the bill mentions jobs will be police, fireman, national parks, border patrol, post office, among others. Ironically enough veterans with disabilities already have preferential hiring for some of those spots followed by veterans, then everyone else. So I am ASSUME that this will be an extension of current hiring protocol combined with incentives for local/state/govt positions. Yah thats terrible.
3. You could say that on every political post... yet you come out from under the bridge to reply to my comment and throw a shot my direction.
4. And that wasnt intended nor directed towards you.
Last edited by Referee2; 09/23/12 10:50 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
Quote:
I can tell who listens to Glen Beck and who doesn't too.
Doesn't = College educated and can form own opinion.
Does = Somebody who has no ambition or desire to actual read the news/watch and formulate their own opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,045
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,045 |
Quote:
Quote:
I can tell who listens to Glen Beck and who doesn't too.
Doesn't = College educated and can form own opinion.
Does = Somebody who has no ambition or desire to actual read the news/watch and formulate their own opinions.
Generalize much?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I can tell who listens to Glen Beck and who doesn't too.
Doesn't = College educated and can form own opinion.
Does = Somebody who has no ambition or desire to actual read the news/watch and formulate their own opinions.
Generalize much?
Its not a generalization if accurate. He never was in military or he would never of made those outlandish comments. Reminded me of post viet nam era, babykiller nicknames for veterans. If thats all he thinks our military is made up of, then I truly feel sorry for him.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
No, it's a generalization, regardless of your personal views.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728 |
I'm just wondering why mac wants this revolutionary war as badly as he obviously does. He won't even answer my questions.
To me it's the dumbest decision since Holmgren scheduled the Eagles to open the season. Didn't he know the Eagles would be good this year?!?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Let me ask you, if your political opinions were formed by Huffpo and similar ilk, wouldn't you find it difficult to answer questions about those opinions?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
1. When you make a valid point and not troll.
2. I believe the bill mentions jobs will be police, fireman, national parks, border patrol, post office, among others. Ironically enough veterans with disabilities already have preferential hiring for some of those spots followed by veterans, then everyone else. So I am ASSUME that this will be an extension of current hiring protocol combined with incentives for local/state/govt positions. Yah thats terrible.
3. You could say that on every political post... yet you come out from under the bridge to reply to my comment and throw a shot my direction.
4. And that wasnt intended nor directed towards you.
I have tried to maintain a level of maturity in this.. obviously you aren't up to that. Congratulations on reading the bill and actually coming forward with a few facts. You and the democratic party are perfect for each other. 
Last edited by Referee2; 09/23/12 10:37 AM.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,147
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,147 |
Quote:
I'm just wondering why mac wants this revolutionary war as badly as he obviously does. He won't even answer my questions.
To me it's the dumbest decision since Holmgren scheduled the Eagles to open the season. Didn't he know the Eagles would be good this year?!?
held...I will ask you what others must be thinking after reading your posts in this thread...YOU DRUNK?
GM strong...
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,147
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,147 |
So, how is the GOP's decision to vote against this jobs bill for our veterans playing in small town, USA?
Here is the take on the GOPs inaction from a place called Lahontan Valley, Nevada.
Heller stands up when other Republican senators turn their backs Thursday, September 20, 2012 Nevada senator keeps promise to help veterans Senate Republicans — except for five — turned their backs on veterans two days ago. The Veterans Job Corps Act of 2012, a bill formulated with bi-partisan support, failed to gain the support of 60 senators to avoid filibuster. The bill would have provided the hiring of veterans as police officers and firefighters and for conservation jobs. Republican senators provided two thirds of the legislation that was included in the bill. Four Republican senators who labored intensively with the sponsor of the bill, Patty Murray of Washington, voted against it. Does this give a new meaning to the Benedict Arnold syndrome? Woven into the fabric of this legislation was also a way to pay for the $1 billion price tag. Nevada Sen. Dean Heller, one of the five Republican senators who voted with the majority party, had included legislation that would protect the small-business interests of military families. “Job creation is and continues to be my number one priority — especially for our veterans. The unemployment rate among those who have valiantly fought to protect America is too high,” Heller said after the vote fell short. “Our veterans are coming home from abroad to find their homes underwater and their jobs lost in this recession. The economic policies coming out of Washington have failed these brave men and women. We owe a debt of gratitude to these heroes and I am proud to support the Veterans Job Corps Bill.” Another Republican senator who voted for the bill was Scott Brown of Massachusetts, an Army National Guard colonel who, no doubt, has seen his state's veterans' unemployment rate rise above the national level just like Nevada's staggering statistic. For the senators who voted against the bill, you have slapped the faces of each and every veteran who struggles to find employment. Your reasons for not voting for this piece of legislation are astounding. While the national unemployment rate hovers at 8.1 percent, the jobless rate for veterans is nearing 11 percent. Nevada's unemployment rate is much higher than the national rate, and consequently, more than 12 percent of Nevada veterans are looking for work. Heller's vote comes as no surprise. During a rural conference earlier this year, I asked him about the veteran unemployment and what could be done to help the Silver State's returning men and women from Iraq and Afghanistan. The conversation I had with Nevada guardsmen in Afghanistan remained fresh since I had met with a group at Kandahar in mid-November. The anxiety and feelings of hopelessness prevailed with many soldiers who were serving with the 422nd Expeditionary Signal Battalion in southern Afghanistan. I discovered that about 35-40 percent were coming home to no jobs and that others were trying desperately to find another one-year tour to stay in Afghanistan and earn money to support their families back home. As a veteran who retired in 2009, their plight bothered me. While I was overseas with the 422nd, Heller stepped up. He co-sponsored a veterans' job bill which the Senate and House both passed. After we discussed the bill and my trip to Afghanistan at his January rural news conference, he vowed to help veterans. “These joint efforts are long overdue, but helping our nation's veterans is a good place to start,” Heller said at the time. “The men and women of our Armed Forces have made significant sacrifices on our behalf. Our country must do all that we can to make sure they find employment.” After Wednesday's vote, something refreshing occurred. Heller kept his word. My article on the Nevada Guard's unemployment became a national news story, further alerting state and Guard officials in Nevada that the jobless rate for their veterans was steadily increasing and would continue to spiral upward if help did not arrive. The Nevada Military Department and Brig. Gen. Bill Burks, the adjutant general, quickly moved to action to assist soldiers returning home from deployment next month. Caleb Cage, executive director of the Nevada Veterans Office, has made jobs for veterans a top priority. Our politicians in the District of Columbia send our men and women to war, but when it time comes for the Senate to help our veterans, 40 Republicans turn their backs. Isn't that the sign of cowardice? The founder of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America — Paul Rieckhoff — had some harsh words for the solons. “Once again, Congress let partisan bickering stand in the way of putting thousands of America's heroes back to work. Lowering veterans unemployment is something both parties should be able to agree on — even in an election year.” To the five Republican senators — kudos for standing up and doing the right thing for veterans. To the 40 Republican senators who cowered behind the guise of politics — shame on each and every one of you. To Minority Leader Mitch McConnell — RESIGN. Steve Ranson is editor of the Lahontan Valley News and an occasional pundit on Nevada News Makers. web page As was pointed out in this article, there was GOP support for the bill from those who were able to put the troops ahead of "politics" but they needed two more GOP senators to vote for the legislation if the bill was to pass.
But as we witnessed, 40 Republican senators had no problem telling our troops to go to hell, as they gave no support for helping the veterans find a job.
Everyone of those Republican senators voted against our military vets then voted to give themselves a 2 month vacation...nice, huh?
Had every Republican senator voted against the bill, I could better understand some of the complaints about funding, but not when there were 5 GOP senators who found nothing wrong with the funding or anything else the RWers are using for excuses...there are no acceptable excuses for voting against our veterans needs.
Last edited by mac; 09/22/12 08:23 AM.
GM strong...
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,404
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,404 |
When will the federal government realize that it does not and cannot create jobs...real, sustainable, jobs?
The free market is THE job creator in this country.
Throwing money in the direction of a well-deserving section of our population does NOT suddenly create jobs. To think so is silly.
Stabilize tax rates and STOP demonizing success...then shut up and leave things alone.
It is the private sector that will create jobs. Help the private sector and get out of the way.
Here's an idea:
Allow the Keystone pipeline to be built. Require that 20,000 vets be hired to work on the pipeline or give very, very simple, significant, and straight-forward tax credits for every vet hired.
The 'bill' could be "revenue-neutral" as the jobs created and revenue to the government could be used to pay for the tax credits to the vets.
Simple. No government spending...no government control. Create the environment for job growth and get out of the way.
THAT would be a jobs bill...what we have at the moment is a jobs spending bill. It is nothing but a well-timed political stunt.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 825
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 825 |
As I said in the national debt thread mac, your arguements are what I hate about politics and what is destroying our country.
Anytime anyone wants to cut federal spending for a certain program, you label them as "anti-veteran" or against women's rights. What you need to understand is that money doesn't grow on trees...our government likes to think so (they love printing more money) but this strategy has proven itself to be a very bad one throughout history.
You and Obama want us to be more like Europe; well, look at Europe right now, and you'll see our future in the next 5-10 years. The only problem is, we won't have a country like Germany able to bail us out.
Sorry to say this, but those veterans aren't going to be better off 5 years down the road (that's if they keep their jobs when the federal funding runs out) when this country defaults and we're all screwed.
I don't care if your artical say this is fully funded (what does that even mean? We are $16 trillion in debt!) How about we actually save this funding or use it to pay off our debts instead (only $15.999 trillion left to go!)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
THAT would be a jobs bill...what we have at the moment is a jobs spending bill. It is nothing but a well-timed political stunt.
I agree and also this is what peeves me the most. It's not like this problem hasn't been one for years now.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
The free market is THE job creator in this country.
We don't have a free market in this country. We never really have.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,445
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,445 |
Quote:
Quote:
The free market is THE job creator in this country.
We don't have a free market in this country. We never really have.
I've always been curious about this statement from you.
What is your reasoning behind this, and what type of market do you feel that we have?
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,045
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,045 |
Let's look at the law ...... The law repeals Section J of Title IX of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 ..... which deals with deep water drilling. How/why that applies to Veteran Jobs is beyond me ...... but if anyone wants to read that particular law and section, it starts on page 324 of this link. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ58/pdf/PLAW-109publ58.pdfThe law also extends a section of the IRS code that reads like Greek to me. Section 6331, paragraph 3. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6331As far as the law, again, it is trying to hire veterans for unsustainable jobs. The jobs are police, fire fighters, and other government jobs that have caused local governments so many problems in the past when the funding ran out, and other temporary jobs on public grounds. In other words, the bill, instead of actually trying to help veterans find long term employment, tries to pump up government employment at the local level at a time when most local governments are struggling precisely because they accepted this kind of "help" in the past. Imagine the political fun that will ensue when local governments are forced to lay off veterans when the funding runs out. If we want to truly help veterans, then we should set up an agency that examines ways to translate skills learned in the military to private sector professions, and which provides training and assistance for those pursuing such job skills. That would be a better course of action as far as I'm concerned. Here is a portion of the text from the bill. The full text is here if someone wants to read through this whole convoluted mess. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c112FFxAxi:e1015:SEC. 2. VETERANS JOBS CORPS . (a) Establishment- The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall, in cooperation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Commanding General of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, establish a veterans jobs corps to employ veterans-- (1) in conservation, resource management, and historic preservation projects on public lands and maintenance and improvement projects for cemeteries under the jurisdiction of the National Cemetery Administration; and (2) as firefighters and law enforcement officers. (b) Conservation, Resource Management, Historic Preservation, and Cemetery Maintenance and Improvement Projects- (1) IN GENERAL- As pÛrt of the veterans jobs corps , the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Commanding General of the United States Army Corps of Engineers shall-- (A) employ veterans to carry out projects described in subsection (a)(1); or (B) award grants to, or enter into contracts with, State governments, local governments, or nongovernmental entities to employ veterans to carry out projects described in subsection (a)(1).
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,445
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,445 |
Quote:
The law repeals Section J of Title IX of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 ..... which deals with deep water drilling.
Either you mis-referenced this, or the way the law is written it will repeal nothing (just sayin').
There is no "Section J of Title IX" in that Act.
There IS a SubTitle J, with a Section IX
It details the following:
Sec. 999A. Program authority.
Sec. 999B. Ultra-deepwater and unconventional onshore natural gas and other petroleum research and development program.
Sec. 999C. Additional requirements for awards.
Sec. 999D. Advisory committees.
Sec. 999E. Limits on participation.
Sec. 999F. Sunset.
Sec. 999G. Definitions.
Sec. 999H. Funding.
Knowing just which portion of this it repeals would be interesting to know.... and, more importantly, how it may apply to "Veteran Jobs".
Any takers on the notion that they yanked funding from this to pay for the jobs?
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,045
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,045 |
Sorry, subtitle J.
If someone uses the 1st link, they will have to type in the title of the bill to search for it. The search times out after 30 minutes. The name is Veterans Job Corps Act of 2012
From the bill .....
SEC. 8. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR ULTRA-DEEPWATER AND UNCONVENTIONAL NATURAL GAS AND OTHER PETROLEUM RESOURCES.
(a) Repeal- Subtitle J of title IX of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,404
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,404 |
Quote:
Sorry, subtitle J.
If someone uses the 1st link, they will have to type in the title of the bill to search for it. The search times out after 30 minutes. The name is Veterans Job Corps Act of 2012
From the bill .....
SEC. 8. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR ULTRA-DEEPWATER AND UNCONVENTIONAL NATURAL GAS AND OTHER PETROLEUM RESOURCES.
(a) Repeal- Subtitle J of title IX of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C.
Why in the world is that entire thing a part of a veteran jobs bill?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,445
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,445 |
That same attempt to appeal appears in S.3080, the "End Polluter Welfare Act", which is "A bill to eliminate certain subsidies for fossil-fuel production".
One might argue that this makes sense, or whatever, but the total funding for this $50 million. That amount doesn't even register on the Federal level. That's less than 1/7th the cost of a single F-22 stealth fighter.
The really stupid thing about it is that the authority for that Deep-Water drilling sunsets on September 30, 2014, anyway.
No matter how you slice it, it doesn't belong in a "Veteran's Jobs" bill.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,045
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,045 |
We already know that this administration, and the Democrats in general, don't like fossil fuels,and especially don't like anything that subsidizes fossil fuel exploration and/or development.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728 |
Quote:
Quote:
I'm just wondering why mac wants this revolutionary war as badly as he obviously does. He won't even answer my questions.
To me it's the dumbest decision since Holmgren scheduled the Eagles to open the season. Didn't he know the Eagles would be good this year?!?
My purple is on the fritz!
held...I will ask you what others must be thinking after reading your posts in this thread...YOU DRUNK?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Quote:
When will the federal government realize that it does not and cannot create jobs...real, sustainable, jobs?
The two main things that drive jobs today were created by the government. The internet (US Army) and more specifically the World Wide Web (CERN) which you are using to post your opinions were both created due to government funding. Because of NASA alone, we have everything from satellites, GPS, ear thermometers, water filters and not to mention comfortable memory foam mattresses  How many jobs today rely on or solely exist due to all these things?
I'm not arguing about this jobs bill specifically, but to say the government can't create jobs IN PARTNERSHIP WITH the private sector is silly IMO. Without government funding and initiatives we would not be nearly where we are and I think government funding and innovation combined with the private sector's drive for success is a recipe that has worked extremely well in the past. Now, a lot of the conversation is about cutting all these government programs (including huge cuts to NASA). People on here blast Obama for not creating jobs and then turn right out around and say the government should not and cannot create jobs. It seems a bit hypocritical to me.
![[Linked Image from i190.photobucket.com]](http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z33/booger52/phpGGRdhwAM.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The free market is THE job creator in this country.
We don't have a free market in this country. We never really have.
I've always been curious about this statement from you.
What is your reasoning behind this, and what type of market do you feel that we have?
We have always had very extensive state intervention in the economy, even in our earliest days.
Our industrial revolution was able to take off largely in part to high protectionist tariffs. We wouldn't have the tech industry we do today if it wasn't for massive government subsidies, funded through places like the Pentagon or NASA or other defense outfits.
You often see companies build plants in U.S. cities instead of Mexico or overseas because the city or county offer subsidies to pay for a percentage of capital costs.
Throughout our country's history, we've fought against a free market, as it wouldn't bode well for us. If we were to allow a free market to function, we would've been crushed in so many industries - automobiles, steel, technology, etc. Back in the 1980's, the Japanese would've destroyed us in so many areas economically if Reagan hasn't been a very protectionist president, limiting markets and pouring public funds into industry.
I never understood how so many touted the free market when:
A) The U.S. never has and never will be a free market economy
and B) There isn't a single country in the history of the world who has developed successfully through adherence to free market principles. Not one.
At the end of the day, we have a modified capitalist system. But it's not a free market system, nor was it ever close to being one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,404
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,404 |
Perhaps you missed this part from my post:
"...No government spending...no government control. Create the environment for job growth and get out of the way..."
As was done with the internet as you pointed out...and a result of space exploration...and the things made availble through our defense efforts.
Unfortunately, this jobs bill is nothing but a spending bill. It does not include any plan to create an environment or opportunity to create any sustainable jobs. The only way those jobs become long-term is with more government spending when the initial funding runs out.
The government does not create sustainable jobs. The government creates - or destroys - environments for job creation. The private sector takes advantage of the environment to make a profit...which typically requires hiring to make it happen.
This admistration has chosen to demonize profit-makers - those raskly rabbits that require employees to make a profit - and to temporarily buy jobs (aka votes) by spending money that we don't have.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,045
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 51,045 |
My problem with the jobs created by a bill like this one is that they are not sustainable. They weren't with Clinton's COPS program, they haven't been on almost every other example that I can think of.
Many of the types of jobs listed, by their very nature, would be temporary. Others would put a burden on local governments.
I do believe that government can help create an environment for business to create jobs .... and that government can create some government jobs, but whether or not they will be permanent is highly debatable. Further, in an era where we will, necessarily, have to cut some government jobs in order to cut the federal budget, adding government jobs makes little sense. We should be looking for ways to help businesses add jobs. We should be using tax policy to help employers add jobs. We should get the tax code set so that employers can plan. We should look at regulations to determine which are really necessary, and which just hurt business.
This bill is supposedly going to create 20,000 jobs ...... but it's a 5 year program, and each job would be funded at a level of $50,000 per job total. (on average) That's $10,000 per year, per job. How much does that help? Does it help? Does it help enough to allow local governments, many of which are struggling for funds as it is, to spend more money that they may not have?
It seems to me that this could have been set up in a better, and more effective way.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Quote:
We already know that this administration, and the Democrats in general, don't like fossil fuels,and especially don't like anything that subsidizes fossil fuel exploration and/or development.
Here's the breakdown of actual tax credits by industry:
Quote:
Coal got about $1.4 billion in direct subsidies, mostly for research and in tax incentives.
Natural gas and petroleum got $2.82 billion, nearly all from tax incentives and none from the federal stimulus act.
Nuclear got $2.5 billion, mostly in research and development and tax incentives.
Solar got $1.13 billion, most in direct funding, and about 70percent of which was tied to the federal stimulus act.
Wind got $4.99 billion, nearly all tied to the stimulus.
Biomass got 1.17 billion, split about evenly between tax incentives and research and development.
Geothermal got $273 million, mostly tied to the stimulus.
Biofuels got $6.6 billion, mostly in tax credits.
link
What this information shows is that before Obama, we almost exclusively gave tax breaks to only coal and patroleum. We continue to give them tax breaks even as they continue being the most profitable industry out there. But I guess that's why the "free market" isn't so free.
Now we are also giving subsidies (temporary in some cases) to those forms of energy which we will actually have to use since coal and oil are finite resources. Or would you rather we just not invest in those energy sources until the last drop of oil is gone?
Oil and gas prices are only going to continue going up. Even if we allow drilling literally everywhere, fossil fuels will still run out, prices will eventually again rise and fossil fuels cannot be re-created. It is literally a dying technology. Instead of hanging on, we need to take initiative and fund the energy initiatives of tomorrow. If we can develop these alternative fuels where they can become affordable on a mass level we can a) have low cost energy and b) not rely on other countries (read: OPEC and other countries which exploit our dependence on oil). I don't see that goal as a bad thing at all and I think it's a goal worth funding.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Republicans vote down Veterans'
Jobs Bill
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/FL_Dawg/Logo5_1.gif){kind=logo}
