Pentagon biggest obstacle to Democrats' GI bill

[Hawk]

It represents NINE DAYS in IRAQ for the 2009 sup!

Blue Dogs should remember, paying for their deaths is done OFF BUDGET!

What a disgrace, where are all the Republicans who used the GI Bill, errr oh, that's right, they didn't enlist, thay all had deferrments, now it's making more sense.

[winzy]

The CBO itself says the costs to recruit would rise under the bill. Troop retention is not only important for recruitment though, it is also important for a military which is well trained and experienced.

Should not Congress do its duty and obey the pay as you go rule? Should not Congress do its duty and ensure that they write the law in a way that not only provides for the education of the those that serve, but also provides for a military that is able to do its job?

If you failed to read the posts about pay as you go, that moderate and conservative Democrats were against it for that reason, the CBO report, then I can understand why you think this bill may be just what the nation needs.

The CBO is the Congressional Budget Office. They routinely provide cost estimates of bills so our Congress can be informed about costs and unintended consequences of laws they write.

Mykro wrote:

The Pentagon doesn't want troops educated enough to figure out they're getting screwed when their enlistments are up. Or when they get sent to Walter Reid.

[workerbeedrone]

winzy wrote:

The CBO itself says the costs to recruit would rise under the bill. Troop retention is not only important for recruitment though, it is also important for a military which is well trained and experienced.
Should not Congress do its duty and obey the pay as you go rule? Should not Congress do its duty and ensure that they write the law in a way that not only provides for the education of the those that serve, but also provides for a military that is able to do its job?
If you failed to read the posts about pay as you go, that moderate and conservative Democrats were against it for that reason, the CBO report, then I can understand why you think this bill may be just what the nation needs.
The CBO is the Congressional Budget Office. They routinely provide cost estimates of bills so our Congress can be informed about costs and unintended consequences of laws they write.
<quoted text>

I'm all for pay as you go. That's one reason I can't believe we're blowing a trillion dollars in Iraq.

[Lance Winslow]

winzy wrote:

The CBO itself says the costs to recruit would rise under the bill. Troop retention is not only important for recruitment though, it is also important for a military which is well trained and experienced.
Should not Congress do its duty and obey the pay as you go rule? Should not Congress do its duty and ensure that they write the law in a way that not only provides for the education of the those that serve, but also provides for a military that is able to do its job?
If you failed to read the posts about pay as you go, that moderate and conservative Democrats were against it for that reason, the CBO report, then I can understand why you think this bill may be just what the nation needs.
The CBO is the Congressional Budget Office. They routinely provide cost estimates of bills so our Congress can be informed about costs and unintended consequences of laws they write.
<quoted text>

What exactly did the CBO say about war in Iraq?

[Mykro]

Lance Winslow wrote:

<quoted text>What exactly did the CBO say about war in Iraq?

Where is the answer to this? And what about the nobid contracts?

[christopher snyder]

the troops should definitely recieve these benefits, bush did the pay as you go way for iraq and afghanistan, it's ridiculous, the democrats at least gave a viable funding option of taxing the rich.

[Hawk]

winzy wrote:

The CBO itself says the costs to recruit would rise under the bill. Troop retention is not only important for recruitment though, it is also important for a military which is well trained and experienced.
Should not Congress do its duty and obey the pay as you go rule? Should not Congress do its duty and ensure that they write the law in a way that not only provides for the education of the those that serve, but also provides for a military that is able to do its job?
If you failed to read the posts about pay as you go, that moderate and conservative Democrats were against it for that reason, the CBO report, then I can understand why you think this bill may be just what the nation needs.
The CBO is the Congressional Budget Office. They routinely provide cost estimates of bills so our Congress can be informed about costs and unintended consequences of laws they write.
<quoted text>

NOW you are concerned with Pay as you Go? I understand the premise.

I would simply want the two linked, if you can pay off budget for the War, you can take a tiny % and GIVE BACK to the Soldiers fighting it, period!

[Mr_Bill]

Who commands the Pentagon?

The commander in Chief.

The 'decider' has decided that his pals can make better use of our treasury than our veterans.

[Lance Winslow]

My kids are going to do the pay-as-you-go for Iraq.

[winzy]

I do not believe that the cost of a war is under the same rules. Congress passes a resolution to Declare war, in practice at that President's request. Perhaps Congress feels that the same rules would constrain the ability to Declare war in time of necessity.

I hope that explains the difference to you sufficiently, if not there is numerous information on the internet, partisan and nonpartisan, which can provide further facts.

Lance Winslow wrote:

<quoted text>What exactly did the CBO say about war in Iraq?

[winzy]

Did your kids make the choice to join as adults? That was their choice.

As I said earlier, I am not against benefits for our military, I do believe Congress also has a responsibility to do their complete job. Not just write out checks, but also insure that the check is payable, and that their actions do not have unintended consequences, such as weakening a experienced and capable military force. National Defense is one of the primary reasons for a government, Congress has a duty to consider that as well.

Lance Winslow wrote:

My kids are going to do the pay-as-you-go for Iraq.

[winzy]

It was other Democrats that were against the viable funding option. I do believe it finally got in their however.

Bush is the President, that is Administration. Bush gives his budget to Congress, Congress talks about it and gives a budget back for Bush to sign. Bush does not have anything to do with pay as you go. Congress does because they actually set the budget, Bush can veto it however.

christopher snyder wrote:

the troops should definitely recieve these benefits, bush did the pay as you go way for iraq and afghanistan, it's ridiculous, the democrats at least gave a viable funding option of taxing the rich.

[winzy]

Beyond the answer I gave below.

pay as you go applies to benefits, not War, nor contracts.

However, the CBO did respond to a request for the estimated cost of activities related to military operations in Iraq in September of 2002. They stressed that the total cost of a conflict and the conflict's aftermath were highly uncertain due to a variety of unknowns. The estimates are available if you do a search.

Mykro wrote:

<quoted text>Where is the answer to this? And what about the nobid contracts?

[winzy]

Pay as you go does not apply to everything.
Here is a good explanation if you are interested.

http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3...

A short part of it:

PAYGO is a rule that governs mandatory spending and tax legislation. The purpose of a PAYGO rule is to ensure that neither mandatory spending nor tax legislation increases the deficit. To comply with PAYGO, new mandatory spending programs or tax cuts need to be offset by an equal amount of mandatory spending cuts and/or tax increases.

workerbeedrone wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm all for pay as you go. That's one reason I can't believe we're blowing a trillion dollars in Iraq.

[Mykro]

winzy wrote:

Pay as you go does not apply to everything.
Here is a good explanation if you are interested.
http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3...
A short part of it:
PAYGO is a rule that governs mandatory spending and tax legislation. The purpose of a PAYGO rule is to ensure that neither mandatory spending nor tax legislation increases the deficit. To comply with PAYGO, new mandatory spending programs or tax cuts need to be offset by an equal amount of mandatory spending cuts and/or tax increases.
<quoted text>

So where was the tax increase to pay for the Iraq War?

[winzy]

Since you seem to have a misconceived idea of what pay as you go is, as well as what it applies to, there is a link in one of my posts above which explains.

It wasn't required by Congress in that case.

Pay as you go applies to Congress. Congress decides the funding, there is a budget process. Congress does not require pay as you go in every case.

Congress probably feels that pay as you go would hamper their ability to declare war if the need arose. Congress declares war, not the President. While in practice, the President usually, or always has, requested Congress to declare war, it is Congress that the Constitution gives the power declares war, not the President.

Mykro wrote:

<quoted text>So where was the tax increase to pay for the Iraq War?

[winzy]

A resolution that declares war is not considered to be either mandatory spending or tax legislation.

"PAYGO is a rule that governs mandatory spending and tax legislation."

Mykro wrote:

<quoted text>So where was the tax increase to pay for the Iraq War?

[Mykro]

winzy wrote:

A resolution that declares war is not considered to be either mandatory spending or tax legislation.
"PAYGO is a rule that governs mandatory spending and tax legislation."
<quoted text>

So how do you propose to pay for the war? Print more money?

[Getting The Business]

The reason the Pentagon gave for not wanting a better GI bill is that they would lose enlistees and have a quicker and larger turn over. Thereby losing the governments investment in training for these individuals. Have you ever thought about Black Water and these other private para-military Companies that have access to the elite of these enlistees and lure them away with large salaries and other incentives and the Pentagon never says anything about their greater investment in these men and the cost of training them. Once again Big Business gets the gravy and the little guy gets THE BUSINESS.

[winzy]

How would I pay for it given the choice?

If it was all up to me, I had total control over the spending and money supply. I'd put major restrictions on Congressional spending. I'd cut programs that did not show cost effective ways of meeting their goals.

I'd look at all trade agreements and evaluate whether they met their goals. I'd consider taxing business and other limited taxes but stopping taxes on income from work altogether on individuals.

If you have total control there are all kinds of options.

Congress isn't going to do these things. The war in Iraq is an easy target, but if it wasn't there they'd blame something else. Our government is exceedingly good at placing blame, and terrible at fixing things. I'm not sure they have actually "fixed" any of their problems in decades, and not for lack of funding.

Mykro wrote:

<quoted text>So how do you propose to pay for the war? Print more money?