Obama to Veterans: DROP DEAD (Literally)

[Dos Equis]

Every single promise Obama made he has lied about.  Whether it's the mandate in obamacare, being fiscally responsible, the wars, transparency, etc, has all been a bogus lie. 


Hey mal, if you knew that every single Obama promise was a lie and a scam would you still have voted for him?

To be fair, he did repeal DADT.  That might be the lone accomplishment of his administration.   

[Skip8282]

We provide some good or aid with that... Interest is not a good or a service in my mind. I do agree it is an expenditure, but none the less... The budget didn't include the wars at this time either... there's a few more billions or is it trillions you have to put on the pie chart now.

It's definitely more than 60% at this point in those three... So which of those do we cut?

?  You don't have to put anything else on the chart.  In fact, it's from 2009 so they would have already done so. 

Supplemental emergency appropriations are still counted as expenditures.

As for what to cut, like I said across the board is probably the most fair, but I don't like the idea of somebody going without heat, electricity, food, etc.  Some value judgements will have to be made (or perhaps should be made) - IMHO.

[Skip8282]

So it's OK for him to spend this country into insolvency because all politicians lie? That should be reassuring to the tens of millions of Americans out of work or underemployed right now.

"Everybody does it so let's give him a free pass." Come on, man. He's the fucking President. He ASKED to be given the reins of this country and its economy. Time he took responsibility for the profligate spending he and his cronies Piglosi and Dingy Reid have unleashed on this country.

lol

[Skip8282]

No... The wars didn't go on the "budget" in 2009. So there is more in the "budget" now than there was in 2009.

Dude, the wars don't have to be on the budget.


Supplemental emergency appropriations are still counted as expenditures.

I can't make it any simpler.  Do you know what off budget means?  Do you realize that a huge chunk of Social Security is off budget?  Taking your argument, you'd have to almost double the size of the social security in your little graph.

[Skip8282]

If that's what's SPENT, then yes, double it... my point is that the 3 biggest SPENDS in the government are MORE than the budget has allocated in it.

I guess that's what I should have said originally, but none the less, if that is the case, then the big 3 are even MORE than 75 percent of the federal "spend" as it were.

That doesn't make sense.  The graph is fine and if you look at 2010, it will be right along the same lines.

Of course we spend more, but the unified budget accounts for that by the sale of securities and borrowing from the SSTF, etc.  In your expenditure chart the "interest", which you dismiss, is what's owed from that borrowing.

Your chart is not a comparative analysis of what we take in versus what we spend.  It's only showing how the 4 Trillion that we spent was allocated.  The government took in less revenue, hence we incurred debt/deficit.

[240 is Back]

Yawn - and three years later things are still getting drastically worse by nearly every single economic indicator.   

[Soul Crusher]

LOL.  That chart is beyond ludicrous. 

[Soul Crusher]

I didn't make it... I just found it... Is it inaccurate?

Where is it wrong?

Stim Bill was 865 Billion, that does not include Lybia, does not include the escalation in Aghanistan, does not include the other bs.  Does not incvlude the payroll tax extension he wants, does not include the financial bailouts.   

[Soul Crusher]

Well, to be honest, you're using "Things he wants" and you can't do that... You have to use what he actually did.

I believe TARP was the financial bailouts right? That's under the Bush column.

What am I missing here?

Chart looks accurate to me.

Obama was in favor of TARP and appointed the architect of TARP as Treasury Sec remember? 


 

[Soul Crusher]

I do, but that's neither here nor there... a lot of people were in favor of TARP.

Everyone was told without TARP the economy would collapse... Was it true? I have no idea... no one does, but TARP happened anyway.

I was against TARP from Day 1.   But please - Obama supported TARP and flew in to DC and appointed the architect of TARP as Tres Sec, re-appointed Bernake, etc. 

He is every much as responsible for TARP as anyone else.

[Soul Crusher]

Obama’s and Bush’s real effects on the deficit in one graph
http://dailycaller.com/ ^ | July 30 2011 | By Steve McMillin



Ezra Klein recently posted a New York Times graphic supporting his view that the deficit is primarily the fault of former President Bush and his predecessors, rather than President Obama. Interestingly, he makes no attempt to claim that Obama’s policies have reduced the deficit, just that Obama’s deficit increases were smaller than Bush’s.

Leave aside for a moment the fact that Bush’s entire eight-year record is being compared to policies enacted during Obama’s first two and a half years. The fundamental flaw in the New York Times graphic is that it assumes that a president’s fiscal policy is confined to “new” policies enacted under his watch. Every year, the president proposes a budget that contains a mix of new policies and old policies. The result is a comprehensive vision of what federal tax and spending policy ought to be. A president who simply continues the fiscal policy he inherits must bear his share of responsibility for its consequences.

A prime example of this is the “Bush tax cuts,” which the New York Times graphic charges solely to President Bush, conveniently ignoring the fact that President Obama supports making most of the cuts permanent and signed into law a two-year extension of all of them. President Bush also signed a new Medicare drug benefit into law. But President Obama didn’t repeal this new spending, he expanded it.

Below is a graphic that focuses on the results of fiscal policy, not simply on adjustments made on the margins of fiscal policy. If anything, the analysis is overly generous to President Obama because: (1) it assigns full responsibility for Fiscal Year 2009 to President Bush, despite the enactment by Obama of the stimulus, higher domestic appropriations and an expansion of TARP spending during that year; and (2) it gives Obama credit for the policies he intends to enact for the rest of his presidency, since we cannot judge his actual future record. The graphic compares the records of these two presidents based on the deficits, revenues and spending incurred by the federal government on their watch, expressed as a percentage of GDP.

The results show one surprise — thanks in part to the recession and tax stimulus measures which have temporarily lowered federal revenues, Bush and Obama tax policies yield virtually the same amount of revenues on average. But the real story is the comparison of spending. Obama’s policies result in historically high spending as a share of the economy, which in turn results in historically high deficits.

To President Obama’s credit, he has begun to embrace the need for a change in direction, though he was dragged there kicking and screaming by Republicans and continues to insist that significant spending cuts be linked to higher taxes. In contrast, Bush’s initiatives were opposed at every turn by congressional Democrats, who insisted on even higher spending.

[BayGBM]

 If there was any one instance in which I was in support of a government-run healthcare plan/socialized medicine, it would be for our troops. They shouldn't have to pay for it themselves. Obama and the Repubs need to keep their hands off of it.

Why?  America has shown over many years, that it does not “care about our troops.”  Why pretend to care now?

[whork]

 If there was any one instance in which I was in support of a government-run healthcare plan/socialized medicine, it would be for our troops. They shouldn't have to pay for it themselves. Obama and the Repubs need to keep their hands off of it.

So Socialism is okay as long as its in our military?

[Soul Crusher]

Veterans Often Wait Over A Year For Benefits, Some Wait Up To 642 Days As VA Struggles To Handle Claims


The Huffington Post  |  By Nick Wing Posted: 03/14/2013 11:29 am EDT  |  Updated: 03/14/2013 1:12 pm EDT



The Department of Veterans Affairs is failing to keep up with a torrent of benefits claims, and the backlog leaves many service members high and dry for well over a year after first filing their forms, a new report from the Center for Investigative Reporting finds.

From the CIR report:

The agency tracks and widely reports the average wait time: 273 days. But the internal data indicates that veterans filing their first claim, including those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, wait nearly two months longer, between 316 and 327 days. Those filing for the first time in America’s major population centers wait up to twice as long -- 642 days in New York, 619 days in Los Angeles and 542 days in Chicago.
 The ranks of veterans waiting more than a year for their benefits grew from 11,000 in 2009, the first year of Obama’s presidency, to 245,000 in December -- an increase of more than 2,000 percent.


And the VA is predicting that the situation will get worse, as the number of veterans waiting on the department to process their claims is expected to surge past the current 900,000 and toward a million by the end of March. A spokesman for the VA told the CIR that the department is being inundated by a nearly 50-percent increase in the number of filed claims. He said the growth was due to a combination of increasing numbers of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans returning home, broadening claims for PTSD and Gulf War illness, and new guidelines allowing Vietnam vets to request compensation for complications due to exposure to Agent Orange.

The department is also being crushed, quite literally, under claims filed on paper. The CIR reports that 97 percent of all veterans’ claims are submitted on paper, a trend that recently led the VA to warn that the weight of the files and cabinets had compromised the structural integrity of one of its office buildings in North Carolina.

(Click over to the Center for Investigative Reporting for the entire report, as well as a picture of a VA office flooded with paperwork.)

Veterans groups have called on President Barack Obama, who has frequently touted his record on veterans issues, to address the failure of the VA under his watch.

“If this report is true, it reveals a total betrayal of trust for America’s veterans. IAVA calls on the president to respond to this report immediately. Enough is enough," Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans Association CEO and Founder Paul Rieckhoff said in a statement. "Disabled Iraq and Afghanistan veterans should not have to wait until 2015 to receive the financial and health support they depend on. We call on the president to establish a presidential commission to end the VA backlog now. This backlog is a national embarrassment -- it’s time to end it once and for all.”

The VA acknowledged that its performance was lagging in a recent hearing before the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs.

"Too many veterans still have to wait too long to get the compensation benefits they earn, and that is unacceptable to us," VA Undersecretary for Benefits Allison Hickey said, according to CNN.

But others are calling for more immediate action. In a column in Time Magazine, Joe Klein argued that it was time for VA Secretary Eric Shinseki to "step down."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/14/veterans-benefits_n_2875637.html

[Option D]

But Obama is the one who hates veterans   

3333 youre so full of shit



AP/ September 20, 2012, 3:48 PM
Senate GOP blocks veterans jobs bill
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. / CBS

47Comments
/ 4KShares / 282Tweets / Stumble / Email More + inShare.3..(AP) WASHINGTON - Senate Republicans blocked legislation Wednesday that would have established a $1 billion jobs program putting veterans back to work tending to the country's federal lands and bolstering local police and fire departments.


Republicans said the spending authorized in the bill violated limits that Congress agreed to last year. Democrats fell two votes shy of the 60-vote majority needed to waive the objection, forcing the legislation back to committee.


Supporters loosely modeled their proposal after the President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Civilian Conservation Corps used during the Great Depression to put people to work planting trees, building parks and constructing dams. They said the latest monthly jobs report, showing a nearly 11 percent unemployment rate for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, merited action from Congress.


Democratic lawmakers turned to the legislation shortly before they'll adjourn for the finals weeks of this year's election campaigns. The bill had little chance of passing the House this Congress, but it still allowed senators to appeal to a key voting bloc.


"(With) a need so great as unemployed veterans, this is not the time to draw a technical line on the budget," said Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, the bill's lead sponsor, who faces a competitive re-election battle.


Republicans said the effort to help veterans was noble, but the bill was flawed nevertheless.


For National Guard, civilian jobs hard to come by
After war, vets fight for jobs at home

Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma said the federal government already has six job-training programs for veterans and there is no way to know how well they are working. He argued that making progress on the country's debt was the best way to help veterans in the long-term.


"We ought to do nothing now that makes the problem worse for our kids and grandkids," Coburn said.


Democratic officials did not have an estimate for how many veterans would be hired as a result of the legislation. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said much would depend upon the number of applicants. She noted that more than 720,000 veterans are unemployed across the nation, including 220,000 veterans who have served since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. She said putting veterans back to work was the cost of war.


"Instead of meeting us halfway, we have been met with resistance. Instead of saying yes to the nearly 1 million unemployed veterans, it seems some on the other side have spent the last week and a half seeking any way to say no," Murray said.


The advocacy group Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America denounced the vote.


"This bill was smart bipartisan policy that would put veterans back into service for their communities as policemen, firefighters and first responders," the group's founder and chief executive, Paul Rieckhoff, said in statement. "The result of today's vote creates tremendous doubt that this Congress will be able to pass any additional veterans legislation in 2012. Iraq and Afghanistan veterans should not have to wait until 2013 for critical support from Congress."


A handful of Republicans joined with Democrats in voting to waive the objection to the bill: Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Dean Heller of Nevada, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Maine's Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. Brown and Heller are also in tough re-election contests.


Heller said he was proud to support the bill.


"After everything our veterans have done for us, the least we can do is make sure they are afforded every opportunity to thrive here at home," Heller said.

[LurkerNoMore]

^^ bitch slap.

[Soul Crusher]

The ranks of veterans waiting more than a year for their benefits grew from 11,000 in 2009, the first year of Obama’s presidency, to 245,000 in December -- an increase of more than 2,000 percent.

[Soul Crusher]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/14/veterans-benefits_n_2875637.html

Even the obamabots are slamming him over this failure

[Option D]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/14/veterans-benefits_n_2875637.html

Even the obamabots are slamming him over this failure

SOOOOOOOOOOO....Nothing on that Jobs Bill huh?

[Soul Crusher]

SOOOOOOOOOOO....Nothing on that Jobs Bill huh?

Injured people should be a higher priority than another Stim Bill 2.0 that wont ever do shit. 

[Option D]

Injured people should be a higher priority than another Stim Bill 2.0 that wont ever do shit. 

Soooooo youre saying they dont deserve jobs?

[Soul Crusher]

Soooooo youre saying they dont deserve jobs?

Exactly - let em starve - thats exactly what im saying.  Funny - obama's economy is fucking disastrous to the point where we have to discuss jobs bills and spending more $$$$ we dont have to employ able bodied men. 

[Option D]

Exactly - let em starve - thats exactly what im saying.  Funny - obama's economy is fucking disastrous to the point where we have to discuss jobs bills and spending more $$$$ we dont have to employ able bodied men. 

'

lol...

hey do you still believe in the tooth fairy

[LurkerNoMore]

The Easter Bunny is real though.

[Soul Crusher]

'

lol...

hey do you still believe in the tooth fairy

W's fault for ever.