• 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!

Obama to cut medical benefits for active, retired military, not union workers

mac said:
[h=1]Obama to cut medical benefits for active, retired military, not union workers[/h]
Obama to cut medical benefits for active, retired military, not union workers - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com

"In an effort to cut defense spending, the Obama Administration plans to cut health benefits for active duty and retired military personnel and their families while not touching the benefits enjoyed by unionized civilian defense workers."

Despicable.
Click to expand...

And Romney (Ryan plan mainly) will cut benefits for veterans.

Weee.

Choose between who should suffer. People who are serving the country or those who served their country!
 
Rainman05 said:
And Romney (Ryan plan mainly) will cut benefits for veterans.

Weee.

Choose between who should suffer. People who are serving the country or those who served their country!
Click to expand...

What benefits will it cut? For which veterans?
 
mac said:
What benefits will it cut? For which veterans?
Click to expand...

He sounds like Obama in the debate......Throwing **** against the wall and hoping something sticks.
 
Rainman05 said:
And Romney (Ryan plan mainly) will cut benefits for veterans.

Weee.

Choose between who should suffer. People who are serving the country or those who served their country!
Click to expand...

Obama already cut defense 500 billion and wants to cut it another 500 billion..........Even his own SECDEF is against that.
 
Navy Pride said:
Obama already cut defense 500 billion and wants to cut it another 500 billion..........Even his own SECDEF is against that.
Click to expand...

Are veteran benefits included in defense spending or not?
 
sharon said:
Sounds like someone should check their facts.. Obama just expanded services for wounded warriors.

Which unionized civil defense workers?
Click to expand...

There should not be a charity for wounded warriors....The Government should pay everything for these wounded heroes.
 
Somerville said:
Really? Obama cut defense spending by $500 billion? Care to prove it?
Click to expand...

It would be more accurate to say, "Obama's failed budget called for nearly 500 billion cut". But, we all know he hasn't had an actual budget in the last three years.
 
mac said:
It would be more accurate to say, "Obama's failed budget called for nearly 500 billion cut". But, we all know he hasn't had an actual budget in the last three years.
Click to expand...


NO! It was not the President's "failed budget" that called for the cuts - it was the result of a Republican-dominated House refusing to pass any revenue-increasing bills and demanding that only cuts be considered. The 'financial wonk' voted for the grand bargain known as "sequestration", so Republicans should quit trying to pass this off onto the President - they were willing participants in this deal and now they lie and try to pin everything on the President and the Dems.

The President can only present a budget 'proposal' - it is the duty of Congress to legislate the national budget and for some odd reason, the most obstructive Congress in history has managed to do nothing.
 
Navy Pride said:
Obama already cut defense 500 billion and wants to cut it another 500 billion..........Even his own SECDEF is against that.
Click to expand...

There is still plenty of money left in the defense budget to kill as many people as we want.
 
Somerville said:
NO! It was not the President's "failed budget" that called for the cuts - it was the result of a Republican-dominated House refusing to pass any revenue-increasing bills and demanding that only cuts be considered. The 'financial wonk' voted for the grand bargain known as "sequestration", so Republicans should quit trying to pass this off onto the President - they were willing participants in this deal and now they lie and try to pin everything on the President and the Dems.

The President can only present a budget 'proposal' - it is the duty of Congress to legislate the national budget and for some odd reason, the most obstructive Congress in history has managed to do nothing.
Click to expand...

You don't remember the Presidents budget getting shot down....unanimously? You know what unanimous means right?
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Yes I do, but most socialism is good for the public interest/majority.
Click to expand...

Reparations are not socialism. Paying what is owed is not socialism. The government taking care of it's wounded veterans is not socialism. It is just the right thing to do.

edit: oh, and most socialism is a sure fire way to destroy innovation and ambition. It does nothing for the public interest except redirect the opium of the religions it suppresses to enable itself.
 
Somerville said:
The President can only present a budget 'proposal' - it is the duty of Congress to legislate the national budget and for some odd reason, the most obstructive Congress in history has managed to do nothing.
Click to expand...

You got that part right. The last time the Senate passed a budget, no one had even heard of an iPad. Harry Reid is the worst excuse for a Senate leader that we have ever had and, since the Dems elected him, the way forward is to get a Republican majority in the Senate.
 
Diogenes said:
You got that part right. The last time the Senate passed a budget, no one had even heard of an iPad. Harry Reid is the worst excuse for a Senate leader that we have ever had and, since the Dems elected him, the way forward is to get a Republican majority in the Senate.
Click to expand...

I don't like super-majorities, but, if there has to be one....it should never be Dem.
 
mac said:
Reparations are not socialism. Paying what is owed is not socialism. The government taking care of it's wounded veterans is not socialism. It is just the right thing to do.

edit: oh, and most socialism is a sure fire way to destroy innovation and ambition. It does nothing for the public interest except redirect the opium of the religions it suppresses to enable itself.
Click to expand...

That's the problem. There are always way too many things under the category of, "just the right thing to do". I thought cons were aainst gov spending. .Or, is that just for the poor?
 
Babies are delicious when properly cooked.

roughdraft274 said:
That's a forum! That isn't a source, lol. What are you thinking? It's a forum. That's like me creating a thread here that said Romney eats babies, and then using that thread I created as a source for my claim that Romney eats babies. It makes no sense. It's a forum. Like this one. I really can't stress that enough. You are sourcing an opinion that was on a forum that provided no facts. A forum. An opinion, on a forum, like this one. With no facts. Forum.
Click to expand...
 
Just reparations are when you get paid. Socialism is when the other guy gets paid.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
That's the problem. There are always way too many things under the category of, "just the right thing to do". I thought cons were aainst gov spending. .Or, is that just for the poor?
Click to expand...

I'm not a "con". If you drive your pos into the back of another pos, you should pay for the pos you wrecked. That's not socialism, it's responsibility for your actions. I have no problem with well aimed welfare, try a different assumption.
 
Somerville said:
Really? Obama cut defense spending by $500 billion? Care to prove it?
Click to expand...

You really need to try and keep up with the every day news...............Obamacut 500 billion frrom defense and want to cut 500 billion more.......Even SECRETARY Panneta oposes him..........

I am not going to look it up for you....If your going to debate politics be prepared,,,,
 
mac said:
It would be more accurate to say, "Obama's failed budget called for nearly 500 billion cut". But, we all know he hasn't had an actual budget in the last three years.
Click to expand...

His own senate voted his budget down 99-0.
 
Somerville said:
NO! It was not the President's "failed budget" that called for the cuts - it was the result of a Republican-dominated House refusing to pass any revenue-increasing bills and demanding that only cuts be considered. The 'financial wonk' voted for the grand bargain known as "sequestration", so Republicans should quit trying to pass this off onto the President - they were willing participants in this deal and now they lie and try to pin everything on the President and the Dems.

The President can only present a budget 'proposal' - it is the duty of Congress to legislate the national budget and for some odd reason, the most obstructive Congress in history has managed to do nothing.
Click to expand...

Harry Reid has over 100 bills on his desk that were approved in the house and he has tabled them and not bring it to the floor for a vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom