Smackdown Of The Troops
The occupied White House has used emergency funding to carry on its unjustifiable war in Iraq and has not paid for the war, but charged it on taxpayers' credit. This has been a violation of its responsibility in so many ways, I won't use up this space to list them all. A major violation is the bypass of Congress' constitutional powers to manage the economy. Needless to point out, disaster is the result.
Congress under the Democrats has used that emergency funding tactic to attempt to serve the public that this executive branch despises for all but its deep pockets. Of course, the right wing is screeching over this prospect of actually doing its job. Tacked onto the emergency funding are several measures, including benefits for education for our troops.
The benefits of veterans of their wars have been cut to the bone by the war criminals, and the congressional Democrats are trying to remedy that injustice. Benefits adequate to finance their education amended into the emergency funding promise to benefit not just individuals, but the entire economy.
The vote has been delayed by attempts to give the war criminals everything they are misusing while cutting away any benefits to the country.
As Avedon pointed out this a.m. in her comment at the usual WaPo editorial against serving public interest,
Avedon wrote:
There's nothing wrong with having a good GI Bill and taking care of our troops if we're going to be at war.
What's wrong is being "at war" when we shouldn't be, maiming and killing other people and our own soldiers for no good reason.
If the Washington Post was serious about responsible government, it would be demanding that the executive show some responsibility, not complaining because the legislature is trying to ameliorate the executive's irresponsibility a little.
Complain if Congress fails to end the occupation, if you must. But as long as WaPo supports the occupation, you don't get to complain about Bush insisting on phony "emergency" funding and Congress trying to use it to do some good.
5/12/2008 8:22:57 AM
Like the cabal in the White House, the WaPo and other enablers will give a pass to the irresponsible use of continuing emergency funding to prevent debate on their war. Meanwhile, the use of that tactic actually to do this country some good gets an attempted smackdown, and the cretin in chief promises to veto any actual benefits. In addition to educational benefits for our troops, these would include extension of unemployment benefits during the economic crisis the war and related expenses has caused.
Another commenter, one of WaPo's loyal cadre of actually concerned and informed readers trying to bring reportage back to the paper, gave this elementary information the editors ignored:
hope77 wrote:
The GI Bill, as applied after World War II, returned $8 for every $1 spent....this represented higher taxable income for the college graduate soldier, not to mention a higher quality of life and the increased possibility that that soldier's children would also be educated. It was a much better investment than this war has turned out to be, and, if fully funded, will probably turn out to be the only positive outcome of this war.
While encouraging citizens to improve their status to increase their incomes, the occupied White House turns away from any actual means to do that. The great economy of earlier years was greatly enhanced by GI benefits, and I am proud to have worked on the Cold War GI bill that gave educational access to our Vietnam soldiers. With an administration that actually respects and serves its citizens, this country can pull out of the disaster this administration has created.
Education has been devalued along with the public and its interests. While control is in the hands of these bottom liners, a.k.a. bottom feeders, the economy will continue to deteriorate for everyone.
A return to responsible government - of the people, by the people and for the people - is desperately needed. When we elect actual public servants to high office, we can restore the economic health of the U.S.
\***************************************************
My comment at WaPo this a.m.:
jocabel wrote:
The emergency funding method of carrying on the war which the occupied White House instituted is objectionable indeed. It is budget busting as well as being an avoidance of the executive branch's responsibility to provide sound government and sound finances. Using the emergency ruse as a vehicle to pass needed measures like veterans' education benefits has been pushed onto the legislative branch by the irresponsibility and truculence of the executive branch. If it is to serve the public, which is being held hostage to the war, the congress will have to use what means it can. Their attempts to carry out their responsibility are praiseworthy. WaaPo criticizes the wrong branch, as usual.
5/12/2008 6:35:03 AM
Congress under the Democrats has used that emergency funding tactic to attempt to serve the public that this executive branch despises for all but its deep pockets. Of course, the right wing is screeching over this prospect of actually doing its job. Tacked onto the emergency funding are several measures, including benefits for education for our troops.
The benefits of veterans of their wars have been cut to the bone by the war criminals, and the congressional Democrats are trying to remedy that injustice. Benefits adequate to finance their education amended into the emergency funding promise to benefit not just individuals, but the entire economy.
...thousands of veterans who, although proud of their service, are coming home from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan struggling to pay for the education they thought the military would help them obtain. The current GI Bill pays out a maximum of $1,101 per month, with most vets receiving benefits for 36 months. That's a total of $39,636. Since the average four-year public college costs more than $54,356, including room, board, fees and books, according to the College Board, there is a lot of ground to make up. Private schools, for the record, can total more than $129,000 for the full package.
The original GI Bill was passed at the end of World War II and sent millions of veterans to public and private universities on full rides. They even had their books paid for and got a monthly stipend. Many historians credit the GI Bill with building America's middle class and creating the idea of an accessible college education. "Godfather" author Mario Puzo, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and former Presidents George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford are among the famous veterans who paid for their education this way.
The education benefits our current military and veterans receive were created in the 1980s, under the Montgomery GI Bill, in order to promote enlistment in the military during peacetime. The discrepancy between today's era of multiple deployments and meager educational benefits, along with pressure from veterans' organizations, has inspired some lawmakers to craft new versions of the GI Bill. The most popular one could be voted on by Congress as early as Thursday (May 8), as part of the funding for the war in Iraq.
The vote has been delayed by attempts to give the war criminals everything they are misusing while cutting away any benefits to the country.
As Avedon pointed out this a.m. in her comment at the usual WaPo editorial against serving public interest,
Avedon wrote:
There's nothing wrong with having a good GI Bill and taking care of our troops if we're going to be at war.
What's wrong is being "at war" when we shouldn't be, maiming and killing other people and our own soldiers for no good reason.
If the Washington Post was serious about responsible government, it would be demanding that the executive show some responsibility, not complaining because the legislature is trying to ameliorate the executive's irresponsibility a little.
Complain if Congress fails to end the occupation, if you must. But as long as WaPo supports the occupation, you don't get to complain about Bush insisting on phony "emergency" funding and Congress trying to use it to do some good.
5/12/2008 8:22:57 AM
Like the cabal in the White House, the WaPo and other enablers will give a pass to the irresponsible use of continuing emergency funding to prevent debate on their war. Meanwhile, the use of that tactic actually to do this country some good gets an attempted smackdown, and the cretin in chief promises to veto any actual benefits. In addition to educational benefits for our troops, these would include extension of unemployment benefits during the economic crisis the war and related expenses has caused.
Another commenter, one of WaPo's loyal cadre of actually concerned and informed readers trying to bring reportage back to the paper, gave this elementary information the editors ignored:
hope77 wrote:
The GI Bill, as applied after World War II, returned $8 for every $1 spent....this represented higher taxable income for the college graduate soldier, not to mention a higher quality of life and the increased possibility that that soldier's children would also be educated. It was a much better investment than this war has turned out to be, and, if fully funded, will probably turn out to be the only positive outcome of this war.
While encouraging citizens to improve their status to increase their incomes, the occupied White House turns away from any actual means to do that. The great economy of earlier years was greatly enhanced by GI benefits, and I am proud to have worked on the Cold War GI bill that gave educational access to our Vietnam soldiers. With an administration that actually respects and serves its citizens, this country can pull out of the disaster this administration has created.
Education has been devalued along with the public and its interests. While control is in the hands of these bottom liners, a.k.a. bottom feeders, the economy will continue to deteriorate for everyone.
A return to responsible government - of the people, by the people and for the people - is desperately needed. When we elect actual public servants to high office, we can restore the economic health of the U.S.
\***************************************************
My comment at WaPo this a.m.:
jocabel wrote:
The emergency funding method of carrying on the war which the occupied White House instituted is objectionable indeed. It is budget busting as well as being an avoidance of the executive branch's responsibility to provide sound government and sound finances. Using the emergency ruse as a vehicle to pass needed measures like veterans' education benefits has been pushed onto the legislative branch by the irresponsibility and truculence of the executive branch. If it is to serve the public, which is being held hostage to the war, the congress will have to use what means it can. Their attempts to carry out their responsibility are praiseworthy. WaaPo criticizes the wrong branch, as usual.
5/12/2008 6:35:03 AM
Labels: Dirty Tricks, Iraq War, the Press, The Troops, The Unitary President
posted by Ruth at 8:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home