Liberals don't like the military anyway..

[ironglow]

  So they make it difficult for vets to get their benefits..
 http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/29/health/delayed-veterans-benefits/index.html 
  I know some Iraq/Afghan vets personally who are being "jerked around".  Sure, we will hear excuses..but any administration which can p _ _ _  away a trillion dollars of "stimulus" and NOW be going back for more "stimulus"  can surely expedite veteran's claims.
 
  This is especially egregious, considering that the VA has spent millions on extravagant "conferences" for VA big shots..2 in particular cost taxpayers $5,000,000.. 
 http://www.texasgopvote.com/issues/stop-big-government/cornyn-demands-answers-extravagant-va-training-conferences-004522
     
      News this morning..VA boss has resigned.. to prevent embarrasment of the pres and Gen Shinsecki...

[Mike in Virginia]

That ain't the worst part.  Because the liberals don't like the military, they vote in the Dems who would like to cut it back.  'tis my opinion that the government's function is too keep us safe.  Their #1 priority.  Yet they would scale down the mlitary. 

[garbhead]

I read the CNN story you posted, but doesn't cast much blame on whose fault it is but this article does:

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/09/military-senate-delay-could-mean-late-colas-retirees-092712w/

[yellowtail3]

  Re: Liberals don't like the military anyway.. So they make it difficult for vets to get their benefits..

Liberals don't like the military? Why not?
 
I think some folks confuse things: they think that if one doesn't give the military a blank check, or doesn't kowtow to what the military wants - or what conservative want - that means they don't like the military. These are the same types that think I'm a gun-grabbin' librul Muslim atheist, oftentimes...
 

That ain't the worst part.  Because the liberals don't like the military, they vote in the Dems who would like to cut it back.  'tis my opinion that the government's function is too keep us safe.  Their #1 priority.  Yet they would scale down the mlitary.

You oughta read Eisenhower's speech on the military industrial complex...

[ironglow]

I read the CNN story you posted, but doesn't cast much blame on whose fault it is but this article does:

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/09/military-senate-delay-could-mean-late-colas-retirees-092712w/

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
 
   I think we have to look at the record..unlike the Dems,the Reps have never been viewed as having a dislike for the military.
  What kind of poison pill was in the bill which the congress rejected..maybe another $200 billion spending?
  I look at who is commander-in-chief..and who could expedite care for our veterans...unless he is holding their care hostage to get some spending he wants.  That's an old trick..
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
 
  YT;
  The old "military-industrial complex" shell game huh?  Eisenhower made that statement in 1961, so it is a bit dated.  Although the third and main leg was not mentioned in the phrase, he was warning especially about the political connections..political patronage... with contractors kisssing politicians.  He was in no way pitching for disarmament, but to the contrary..warning us to get our "money's worth" with the spending we do, since some politicians would spend billions on supposed "military projects" which have no military application.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex
  I think of our space defense..to be developed and maintained by NASA..now the NASA budget, by presidential orders will be spent to fund a "muslim self-esteem" building effort!  Or the airplane contract pulled from Beechcraft and handed to a Soros owned company in Brazil.That's just the kind of crookedy political/military/industrial spending of  which Eisenhower was warning  us.

[yellowtail3]

YT;
  The old "military-industrial complex" shell game huh?

No shell game here. Shell game???
How much 'defense' money is enough? Is there such thing as too much? Do YOU think we spend too little money on the military?

[OldSchoolRanger]

YT;
  The old "military-industrial complex" shell game huh?

No shell game here. Shell game???
How much 'defense' money is enough? Is there such thing as too much? Do YOU think we spend too little money on the military?

Well, since turn around is fair play.  Suppose you tell us, how much "entitlement" is enough?  Is there such a thing as too much? Do YOU think we spend too little money on entitlements?

Enough defense money is whatever amount is needed to adequately support our military.  To protect us, and to fight a war or wars where ever necessary in the national defense.
In answer to your question, the 6 trillion dollars wasted by the current administration is too much.
We do spend too little on the military, just ask those service members that are losing their homes, and our soon to be, lack of ability to fight two wars at the same time if needed.

[yellowtail3]

Well, since turn around is fair play.

  Suppose you tell us, how much "entitlement" is enough?  Is there such a thing as too much? Do YOU think we spend too little money on entitlements?I don't know - and by entitlement, I'm guessing you mean money that goes to people fm gov't, especially to people you think undeserving? But I don't know... whatever voters decide, I suppose. I'd rather not pay for it. Such thing as too much? Sure, I suppose. Can we spend too much? Sure we can (they're doing it in some European countries and are in deep doo-doo because of that).

We do spend too little on the military, just ask those service members that are losing their homes, and our soon to be, lack of ability to fight two wars at the same time if needed.

losing their homes? That's happening to other folks, too.
The military is a pig, that consumes lots of resouces. It's not immune. Patriots know this. Those who want to Show They Love The Military can go watch Top Gun and read a couple more Tom Clancy novels.

[garbhead]

Historically liberals are most often minorities, lower income people, under-educated people....hmmm
..looks like the same groups of people most often drafted (when we did that)...

the hawks are typically right-wing upper income people who have always been able to avoid the military, but jump at the chance to send others into harm's way....

[ironglow]

Historically liberals are most often minorities, lower income people, under-educated people....hmmm
..looks like the same groups of people most often drafted (when we did that)...  An erroneous conclusion..when I served in the 1950s, I served with graduates of such schools as Princeton and Yale..in an approximate proportion to what they were represented in the public.

the hawks are typically right-wing upper income people who have always been able to avoid the military, but jump at the chance to send others into harm's way....  Not quite accurate, when I served in the 50s & 60s..see above.  I served, have some college ...and I doubt many presidents enjoy sending troops into combat, with the exception of some liberals who "loathe the military" (re: Clinton's letter to Col Holmes who was tricked into helping Clinton avoid the draft)... sent by Clinton from  England.  Note last paragraph...
       http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/draftletter.html

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
 
  As I said, liberals don't like the military....

[OldSchoolRanger]

Historically liberals are most often minorities, lower income people, under-educated people....hmmm
..looks like the same groups of people most often drafted (when we did that)...

the hawks are typically right-wing upper income people who have always been able to avoid the military, but jump at the chance to send others into harm's way....

Your mostly correct as far as your comment about liberals.  But what about the rich liberal kids?  Who avoided the draft? And the rich kids who served voluntarily?

Your wrong about "typical right-wing upper income people".  There have been plenty of upper income people who have served in our military in time of war, and most of them aren't right-wingers. 

Why don't you mention the typical left-wing upper income people bona-fide draft dodgers who serve in government.  How about the  's, and the  's.  You know the big famous names.

[mechanic]

The Democrats have the numbers to pass this bill if they wanted...instead of blaming Republicans.  The dems have 58 members to 40 repubs.  and the two independents almost always caucus with the dems.  A simple majority is all that is needed, except to override a presidential veto.  To break a filibuster, they need 60 votes.
 
Ben

[garbhead]

The Democrats have the numbers to pass this bill if they wanted...instead of blaming Republicans.  The dems have 58 members to 40 repubs.  and the two independents almost always caucus with the dems.  A simple majority is all that is needed, except to override a presidential veto.  To break a filibuster, they need 60 votes.
 
Ben

Nothing will ever be passed with 51 votes....60 votes is the new "simple majority" with the automatic Republican filibuster on everything. Dems can't even get all their guys to vote, much less 2 Independents or a few Repubs

[mechanic]

Doesn't really matter Garbhead, even when they had the votes to break a filibuster they let it slide so they could blame republicans.  The republicans are just as bad.  The majority of these guys are playing political games while the republic disentegrates.  At some point there has got to come a reckoning and no matter who gets blamed, America pays the price.  Here we are on this forum debating things that in  the long run won't matter when we're all broke.
 
Ben