Cuts for military retirees costs GOP support for budget deal

There are 73 comments on the The Washington Post story from Dec 16, 2013, titled Cuts for military retirees costs GOP support for budget deal. In it, The Washington Post reports that:

Three Senate Republicans have spoken out against the bipartisan budget deal that the House approved last week because of concerns about spending cuts that would affect working-age military retirees.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Washington Post.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#1 Dec 16, 2013
Woodward: Budget Deal Happened ‘Because Obama Wasn’t Part of the Negotiations’

BOB WOODWARD: I think this budget deal worked, quite frankly - let's go right to the center of this - because Obama was not part of the negotiations. He is not a good negotiator. And I agree with Bill. I think Paul Ryan comes off as somebody who no one, even Bill is not going to say Ryan is a conservative. He is a conservative, but the philosophy that he employed here is very significant: sitting down with the Democrats and saying what is our common ground? What can we agree on?

And it is indeed small, but it’s a step forward. And what it does is it strengthens Ryan, but it also strengthens Boehner in a very, very significant way. He got way over 300 votes for this, and he said I, you know, he castigated the ultra-right-wing and the outsiders. And so I think he’s in a position maybe they can deal on some of these things.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/20...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#2 Dec 16, 2013
Well there's a nice slap in the face to all of us who put our lives on the line for our country.
fatbacks x

Portland, OR

#3 Dec 16, 2013
There you go! Hero for the uso package but after your homecoming the phoney cockroach politicians can't be found with a gieger counter. They're busy counting their insider trading profits and figuring out more countries for their shoot em up B S wars we can't win. Same s--t as the nam.

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#4 Dec 16, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Well there's a nice slap in the face to all of us who put our lives on the line for our country.
I don't think this will help a 100% volunteer Military recruitment quotas.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#5 Dec 16, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think this will help a 100% volunteer Military recruitment quotas.
Doubt it will hurt much either as long as the economy is still "recovering", except maybe among the career force, which to be fair is bloated anyways.

I can certainly live with a decreased COLA in the years to come, but I doubt this will survive to take effect in Dec '15.

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#7 Dec 16, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Well there's a nice slap in the face to all of us who put our lives on the line for our country.
Weren't you the one that stated the government couldn't do this?

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#8 Dec 16, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think this will help a 100% volunteer Military recruitment quotas.
It won't for gutless Chickenhawk teabaggers. They're even afraid to walk down the street on the same side as a recruiting office.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#9 Dec 16, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Well there's a nice slap in the face to all of us who put our lives on the line for our country.
Had to see it coming, especially after watching Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan cut funding for the popular and efficient, Service Dogs for Veterans suffering from PTSD.......Why they would attack a low-cost program, that has so much success, is hard to defend......

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#10 Dec 16, 2013
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>Weren't you the one that stated the government couldn't do this?
I you're referring to the govt not being able to decrease military pensions, that still stands.

This is merely a decrease in the annual increase pensions usually receive.

Only liberals see that as a "cut".

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#11 Dec 16, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I you're referring to the govt not being able to decrease military pensions, that still stands.
This is merely a decrease in the annual increase pensions usually receive.
Only liberals see that as a "cut".
OK. If you say so. A decrease in the increase is not a cut. Got it.
serfs up

Ormond Beach, FL

#12 Dec 17, 2013
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>OK. If you say so. A decrease in the increase is not a cut. Got it.
When the real cuts come and they will, you will blow a gasket. But you already did. Social security and medicare especially are slowly being trimmed also. Decades ago this was addressed. But the politicians kept moving forward without worry about what they created and what was left behind.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#13 Dec 17, 2013
serfs up wrote:
<quoted text> When the real cuts come and they will, you will blow a gasket. But you already did. Social security and medicare especially are slowly being trimmed also. Decades ago this was addressed. But the politicians kept moving forward without worry about what they created and what was left behind.
Sure was being trimmed when Reagan and both Bush's emptied funds from Social Security, and not even the courtesy of an IOU......
Cordwainer Trout

Leitchfield, KY

#14 Dec 17, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text> Sure was being trimmed when Reagan and both Bush's emptied funds from Social Security, and not even the courtesy of an IOU......
You're nutz. It was Democrats putting Social Security into the General Fund, just as it was Democrats destroying its future by promoting abortion.
read my lips

Da Nang, Vietnam

#15 Dec 17, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text> Sure was being trimmed when Reagan and both Bush's emptied funds from Social Security, and not even the courtesy of an IOU......
;) who do U missssing?!! ;-00

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#16 Dec 17, 2013
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
<quoted text>
You're nutz. It was Democrats putting Social Security into the General Fund, just as it was Democrats destroying its future by promoting abortion.
Show us, who spent it?

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#17 Dec 17, 2013
serfs up wrote:
<quoted text> When the real cuts come and they will, you will blow a gasket. But you already did. Social security and medicare especially are slowly being trimmed also. Decades ago this was addressed. But the politicians kept moving forward without worry about what they created and what was left behind.
The only thing you blow is the Kock Bros. Every teabaggers breakfast of champions.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#18 Dec 17, 2013
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>OK. If you say so. A decrease in the increase is not a cut. Got it.
Correct.

It's STILL an increase, just not as much of one.

Only a liberal would think that's a decrease, which is why we have a $17+ TRILLION debt.

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#19 Dec 17, 2013
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>It won't for gutless Chickenhawk teabaggers. They're even afraid to walk down the street on the same side as a recruiting office.
What did your daddy tell you about his time in Canada.........when he ran off of his duty to serve.

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#20 Dec 17, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text> Show us, who spent it?
You really are quite stupid doofus.
LBJ's Great Society: 40 Years Later

1964 was a very busy year for Lyndon Johnson. First he rammed through Congress the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, giving him war powers in Vietnam. Next he signed into Law the now famous or infamous, depending on ones political slant, Civil Rights Act. He called this ambitious undertaking his "Guns and Butter" program. The first part of this equation to go sour was the war effort. Johnson treated the war like a political problem that he could solve by twisting the arms of Ho and Giap the same way he had got things done in the Senate for so many years. When this strategy failed to produce results he next tried to micro-manage the war from the Oval Office as if it were a giant chess game with our troops as the pawns. He went so far as to select bombing targets and to turn missions on and off like a switch with a carrot-on-a-stick approach to entice Ho to the peace table. Meanwhile on the home front, with his Great Society and War on Poverty programs, he was socially engineering our country into a welfare state while funding a military adventure overseas. When asked by a reporter if it was fiscally prudent to fund a war effort and his social programs at the same time he replied, "Heck yeah man, we're rich".

When Cronkite abandoned him on National TV, as he strolled through the ancient city of Hue with his battle helmet and somber intonations that we were mired in a quagmire and that it was time to seek peace,(code word for surrender), with honor, Johnson folded up like a wet tissue, tucked his tail between his legs, and slinked off back to his ranch in Texas.
As bad as his failure in Vietnam proved to be, the results of his Great Society Programs were far more insidious, deadly and injurious to our Nation's psyche. The mammoth social welfare entitlement programs that streamed out of Washington did more damage to the fabric of our society than any number of Vietnams could have done. The irony is, that the segment of our society that it meant to help, was the one that was most grievously harmed. Of all those who fell victim to the welfare mentality, none suffered more than the black communities.

In the fifties, although blacks were still struggling for equal oppertunities and were on the low end of the economic ladder, the black family was for the most part strong and stable. Two parent families were the rule, not the exception. They attended church together, had strong moral values, and did not comprise a majority of the prison population. Compare that to the present state of the black community after 40 years of Liberal Socialism. Our prisons are disproportionably black, unwed mothers and single parent families are the rule, black youths without a strong male role model other than rap stars and basketball players, roam the streets and are drawn into a culture of drugs and crime.

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#21 Dec 17, 2013
Part Deux

The following statistics are provided by Star Parker's Coalition of Urban Renewal,(CURE).

*60 percent of black children grow up in fatherless homes.
*800,000 black men are in jail or prison.
*70 percent of black babies are born to unwed mothers.
*Over 300,000 black babies are aborted annually.
*50 percent of new AIDS cases are in the black community.
*Almost half of young black men in America's cities are neither working nor in school. What we have here is a ticking time bomb waiting to explode.
What was the message of the social programs that came out of LBJ's Great Society? One of the most devestating to the family was that if an unwed woman became pregnant, moved out of the home of her parents, did not name or know who the father was, then Big Daddy in Washington would provide for all her essential needs. Ergo she no longer needed a husband or the support of her family. In fact, the more children she had out of wedlock, the more money she would receive from the government. This program was the death knell for many families, especially in the black community. Unfortunately many black men saw this as the best of all possible worlds. They could father as many children as they wanted, from multiple women, without ever having to accept the responsibility of fatherhood. Many women rejected marriage in favor of a boyfriend who could slip in the back door and not jeopardize her government check. In this dysfunctional culture why would education be important? Why seek an education only to have to compete for a good job in the market place when they could just hang around the neighborhood and have all of life's amenities? In fact studying and getting good grades, for many blacks, became a social stigma. They were called "Uncle Toms" and accused of trying to act "white". Many blacks who had the potential to succeed gave in to this pressure and opted for failure. After all they had the perfect excuse. Did not the NAACP and race hustlers like Jesse Jackson tell them that it was not their fault? That they were just innocent "victims" of white racism?

This is the legacy of LBJ's Great Society.....compassion as defined by Liberalism.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 3 min Sunshine 182,497
News GOP Praises Court Halting Amnesty: 'Impatient P... 3 min wild child 1
News Ireland same-sex marriage 5 min Andy 100
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 min DanFromSmithville 164,043
News Immigration Activists Vow Electoral Repercussio... 6 min wild child 1
News Fast food workers document lives for Fight for ... 6 min ronnie 1
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 6 min red and right 53,562
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 14 min lucid 1,233,306
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 16 min Guru 189,969
News Riots in Baltimore raise questions about police... 19 min BoneYard 2,343
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 29 min freebird 328,500
More from around the web