If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AP)   Senate passes and Obama signs 'piecemeal' law to pay vet benefits to troops killed in action. Jay Carney said he didn't have to because a charity is doing it. Really, we don't need the government to pay our military, a charity will   (hosted.ap.org) divider line 162
    More: Followup, Jay Carney, Obama, Senate, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Obama signed  
•       •       •

1434 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Oct 2013 at 11:36 PM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



162 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-10 11:34:55 PM
In before the derp storm of "Obama blinked!"
 
2013-10-10 11:35:49 PM

ManateeGag: In before the derp storm of "Obama blinked!"


I think you mean before people start to say 'Republicans won'.
 
2013-10-10 11:40:41 PM
As much as I hate the "piecemeal" idea for funding the government..this is one of the very few ones I can support.

/RIP
 
2013-10-10 11:44:16 PM

OBAMA BLINKED!!!1!!111!potato!

 
2013-10-10 11:46:25 PM
This is consistent with many prosperity doctrine christians, in that the Government shouldn't be doing these things like income reliefe and what not, it should be charities and good christian ethics that helps these people.
 
2013-10-10 11:46:27 PM
"You went out of your way to make this as ugly as possible, to inflict as much pain as possible on this department," said Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colo., who introduced the first bill days before the shutdown in an attempt to exempt the military.

*headdesk*
 
2013-10-10 11:46:41 PM
You do know the charity expected to be reimbursed when the shait storm cleared..and with interest.
 
2013-10-10 11:47:15 PM

grumpfuff: As much as I hate the "piecemeal" idea for funding the government..this is one of the very few ones I can support.

/RIP


It sets a bad precedent, but it was probably necessary. If the GOP had their act together they could have been hanging crap like this around Obama's neck in the press.
 
2013-10-10 11:48:33 PM

grumpfuff: As much as I hate the "piecemeal" idea for funding the government..this is one of the very few ones I can support.

/RIP


Could set a dangerous precedent, though. Shut down the government and then pass bills that funds only the things you like or are politically embarrassing not to fund.
 
2013-10-10 11:48:44 PM
Would that be the government that is currently shut down subby?
 
2013-10-10 11:49:31 PM
Really, we don't need the government to pay our military help the poor/feed the hungry/house the homeless, a charity will

So we agree that's a stupid argument. Good.
 
2013-10-10 11:49:45 PM

grumpfuff: As much as I hate the "piecemeal" idea for funding the government..this is one of the very few ones I can support.

/RIP


I agree.  If any spending should have been prioritized it should be VA operations (though from what an insider here had mentioned they have been pre-funded for a year) and death benefits.  If we're going to send our citizens into harms way, it's our duty to take care of them and their families should the worst happen.
 
2013-10-10 11:49:54 PM

optikeye: You do know the charity expected to be reimbursed when the shait storm cleared..and with interest.


As well they should be, however they made the offer without that provision. The DOD was prohibited from soliciting contributions, but once the offer was made the DOD was allowed to create a plan to reimburse the Fisher House Foundation.
 
2013-10-10 11:52:17 PM

fusillade762: grumpfuff: As much as I hate the "piecemeal" idea for funding the government..this is one of the very few ones I can support.

/RIP

Could set a dangerous precedent, though. Shut down the government and then pass bills that funds only the things you like or are politically embarrassing not to fund.


The Senate has been good about not blinking on most of the stuff the House has been trying to push item-by-item.  It's political suicide not to support the troops, and even beyond that, I fully believe it's the right thing to do.  There are things that transcend political victories.  When someone volunteers to defend the country and you send them into a war zone, you can't leave his family out in the cold should he pay the ultimate price.
 
2013-10-10 11:56:03 PM

Gunther: It sets a bad precedent, but it was probably necessary. If the GOP had their act together they could have been hanging crap like this around Obama's neck in the press.


fusillade762: Could set a dangerous precedent, though. Shut down the government and then pass bills that funds only the things you like or are politically embarrassing not to fund.


I agree with you both in principle. It is a dangerous precedent.

TuteTibiImperes: I agree. If any spending should have been prioritized it should be VA operations (though from what an insider here had mentioned they have been pre-funded for a year) and death benefits. If we're going to send our citizens into harms way, it's our duty to take care of them and their families should the worst happen.


However, this is the reason I'm ok with it.
 
2013-10-10 11:56:18 PM

Modguy: This is consistent with many prosperity doctrine christians, in that the Government shouldn't be doing these things like income reliefe and what not, it should be charities and good christian ethics that helps these people.




Which can work where there are charities (both religious and non religious) in place to take on the load.
The problem here is this isn't exactly charity. These people were promised death benefits from the government, even in light of the shutdown, to compensate for their losses suffered in the service of said government.

Suddenly not paying them is a dickish move.
Having to ask a charity to keep our leaderships promises is just embarrassing.

/someone made this decision, heads should roll.
 
2013-10-10 11:58:34 PM

optikeye: You do know the charity expected to be reimbursed when the shait storm cleared..and with interest.


So you're saying the charity was more of a payday loans scam, nice. I wonder what a United States title loan would bring in?

I think the dems need to start adding their own crazy wants and wish fulfillments to future proposals.
 
2013-10-11 12:00:28 AM

way south: Modguy: This is consistent with many prosperity doctrine christians, in that the Government shouldn't be doing these things like income reliefe and what not, it should be charities and good christian ethics that helps these people.

Which can work where there are charities (both religious and non religious) in place to take on the load.
The problem here is this isn't exactly charity. These people were promised death benefits from the government, even in light of the shutdown, to compensate for their losses suffered in the service of said government.

Suddenly not paying them is a dickish move.
Having to ask a charity to keep our leaderships promises is just embarrassing.

/someone made this decision, heads should roll.


A lot of people were promised a lot of things. Contractually. Not keeping our obligations is, in fact, a dickish move.
 
2013-10-11 12:01:57 AM
The deaths and sacrifices of our armed servicemembers should NOT be a political football. Only the lowest of the low, the most despicable, amoral sycophants would use them thusly.
 
2013-10-11 12:03:59 AM

DoctorCal: way south: Modguy: This is consistent with many prosperity doctrine christians, in that the Government shouldn't be doing these things like income reliefe and what not, it should be charities and good christian ethics that helps these people.

Which can work where there are charities (both religious and non religious) in place to take on the load.
The problem here is this isn't exactly charity. These people were promised death benefits from the government, even in light of the shutdown, to compensate for their losses suffered in the service of said government.

Suddenly not paying them is a dickish move.
Having to ask a charity to keep our leaderships promises is just embarrassing.

/someone made this decision, heads should roll.

A lot of people were promised a lot of things. Contractually. Not keeping our obligations is, in fact, a dickish move.


Federal employees will get their back pay, contracts on hold will be honored, everyone will receive what they are due.  Telling a woman that she's just been made a widow, or parents that their child is dead, and following up with news that they'll be responsible for the funeral expenses on their own, and in the case of many young military families, suddenly left without any income, goes beyond the pale.
 
2013-10-11 12:06:10 AM
You can see that more of the House Joint Resolutions are being placed on the calendar in the Senate. It seems the two sides are now willing to negotiate.
 
2013-10-11 12:06:15 AM
We should privatize the military.
That has never gone badly for any civilization that has done it. Ever.
 
2013-10-11 12:06:41 AM

valar_morghulis: The deaths and sacrifices of our armed servicemembers should NOT be a political football. Only the lowest of the low, the most despicable, amoral sycophants would use them thusly.


upload.wikimedia.org
You rang?
 
2013-10-11 12:12:55 AM

The bill that funded the military (and that was later magically noted to fund DOD civilians) seems to me to already authorize the payments that were stopped. This sentence seems to say that allowances will be paid:

[S]uch sums as are necessary to provide pay and allowances to members of the Armed Forces (as defined in section 101(a)(4) of title 10, United States Code), including reserve components thereof, who perform active service during such period,


Now I'm now Washington lawyer, so perhaps I don't know what pay and allowances means, but the plain reading makes it clear to me. You can read the entire thing for yourself, it is only a few sentences at the Library of Congress. See if you don't think they 'death gratuity' should have been paid all along.

See if you don't think it was withheld out of spite by the administration, that is what I think.
 
2013-10-11 12:12:58 AM

unlikely: We should privatize the military.
That has never gone badly for any civilization that has done it. Ever.


What would Machiavelli do?
 
2013-10-11 12:17:44 AM

DoctorCal: way south: Modguy: This is consistent with many prosperity doctrine christians, in that the Government shouldn't be doing these things like income reliefe and what not, it should be charities and good christian ethics that helps these people.

Which can work where there are charities (both religious and non religious) in place to take on the load.
The problem here is this isn't exactly charity. These people were promised death benefits from the government, even in light of the shutdown, to compensate for their losses suffered in the service of said government.

Suddenly not paying them is a dickish move.
Having to ask a charity to keep our leaderships promises is just embarrassing.

/someone made this decision, heads should roll.

A lot of people were promised a lot of things. Contractually. Not keeping our obligations is, in fact, a dickish move.




True, but this takes it up a notch.

Both congress and the president (people who agree on very little) agreed, specifically, that these payments should be made. It was supposed to fall under other essential funding so that the government shutdown wouldn't cause a tragedy.

The shutdown IS only meant to be political theater. The White House electrical bill doesn't go unpaid and congressional guards were not furloughed. Money is still flowing from certain coffers so that critical stuff stays online.

Some chucklefark went out of his way to cause a mess that both the left and right were trying to avoid.
That guy is a dick and he needs to be castrated.
 
2013-10-11 12:20:54 AM
Once again, to those yelling 'Shut it down!', YOU DID THIS.  You shut down the government, and insanely thought it would be a good thing.

And speaking of insane, NPR had the guy who runs Reason.com on this morning, with two more people, to talk about how we should be reducing spending this way from now on, and how good this all is.  This is why I don't want to listen to NPR for domestic political news.
 
2013-10-11 12:20:58 AM

feckingmorons: The bill that funded the military (and that was later magically noted to fund DOD civilians) seems to me to already authorize the payments that were stopped. This sentence seems to say that allowances will be paid:[S]uch sums as are necessary to provide pay and allowances to members of the Armed Forces (as defined in section 101(a)(4) of title 10, United States Code), including reserve components thereof, who perform active service during such period,

Now I'm now Washington lawyer, so perhaps I don't know what pay and allowances means, but the plain reading makes it clear to me. You can read the entire thing for yourself, it is only a few sentences at the Library of Congress. See if you don't think they 'death gratuity' should have been paid all along.

See if you don't think it was withheld out of spite by the administration, that is what I think.


Sure. It was Item #17 ("Unsupport the Troops") on Obama's can't-backfire-at-all shutdown list, right after "16. Repossess Monthly Candy Subsidy from D.C. Orphanage" and right before "18. Cancel Baseball, Mom and Apple Pie". You certainly have uncovered the inner workings of our media-obsessed political landscape.
 
2013-10-11 12:25:35 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: unlikely: We should privatize the military.
That has never gone badly for any civilization that has done it. Ever.

What would Machiavelli do?


Get someone else to pay for it, and take credit for it. Duh. Which, I suppose is what folks are trying for...
 
2013-10-11 12:26:58 AM
Yeah everyone loves the troops, but our extremely bloated military is one of the biggest reasons we can't pay our farking bills. Why do we still need 80,000 troops in Japan and Korea, and another 50,000 in Germany? Not to mention all of the current pointless world policing we do.
 
2013-10-11 12:27:16 AM

orclover: valar_morghulis: The deaths and sacrifices of our armed servicemembers should NOT be a political football. Only the lowest of the low, the most despicable, amoral sycophants would use them thusly.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x1062]
You rang?


Time and Whiskey have not been kind to the good speaker have they.
 
2013-10-11 12:28:19 AM
We really need to go back to the pre-1980 style shutdowns. This shiat is getting ridiculous,
 
2013-10-11 12:28:42 AM

Darth Macho: Sure. It was Item #17 ("Unsupport the Troops") on Obama's can't-backfire-at-all shutdown list, right after "16. Repossess Monthly Candy Subsidy from D.C. Orphanage" and right before "18. Cancel Baseball, Mom and Apple Pie". You certainly have uncovered the inner workings of our media-obsessed political landscape.


Most of that is your flight of fantasy. The DOD through Robert Hale insisted that the payments were not authorized. Read the Pay Our Military Act, it is very short. I linked to the full text at the LOC above. See if you can figure out why they needed lawyers to see that this didn't authorize the payments to the families of killed service members.

See also where it says civilian contractors can be paid, and DOD civilians can be paid. Yet they needed a team of government lawyers (all working for the administration) to figure out what you and I can plainly read.

If you think your government is looking out for your best interests you are in for a big surprise one day.
 
2013-10-11 12:29:05 AM

Karma Chameleon: Yeah everyone loves the troops, but our extremely bloated military is one of the biggest reasons we can't pay our farking bills.

Why do we still need 80,000 troops in Japan and Korea,


North Korea and China

 and another 50,000 in Germany? Not to mention all of the current pointless world policing we do.

Russia
 
2013-10-11 12:29:31 AM

feckingmorons: [S]uch sums as are necessary to provide pay and allowances to members of the Armed Forces (as defined in section 101(a)(4) of title 10, United States Code), including reserve components thereof, who perform active service during such period,


It is not pay or an allowance-such as housing- to a serving member of the Armed Forces; it is a benefit paid to to the Survivors of a deceased member of the armed forces.

Also you cannot be a Lawyer, you admitted to not knowing something
 
2013-10-11 12:29:46 AM

Heliovdrake: orclover: valar_morghulis: The deaths and sacrifices of our armed servicemembers should NOT be a political football. Only the lowest of the low, the most despicable, amoral sycophants would use them thusly.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x1062]
You rang?

Time and Whiskey have not been kind to the good speaker have they.


I'm told that it is now a cash bar rather than open bar in the cloak rooms.
 
2013-10-11 12:30:31 AM

Karma Chameleon: Yeah everyone loves the troops, but our extremely bloated military is one of the biggest reasons we can't pay our farking bills. Why do we still need 80,000 troops in Japan and Korea, and another 50,000 in Germany? Not to mention all of the current pointless world policing we do.


We need the troops in Korea because one of the world's last truly crazy dictators still has power across the border.  The bases in Japan and Germany might make sense from strategic points of view, they can provide quicker and cheaper flight paths to trouble areas than sending people from the US or a carrier group if we don't have one in the area.

The military spending is certainly too high, but there are other areas to cut first, like buying tanks the Pentagon doesn't want, or alternate engines for the F-35 that were deemed unnecessary, just to make sure contracts stay within certain congressional districts.
 
2013-10-11 12:31:24 AM
Really, we don't need the government.
 
2013-10-11 12:31:52 AM

Alphax: And speaking of insane, NPR had the guy who runs Reason.com on this morning, with two more people, to talk about how we should be reducing spending this way from now on, and how good this all is. This is why I don't want to listen to NPR for domestic political news.


They have to cover both sides, right?
 
2013-10-11 12:35:24 AM

Alphax: Once again, to those yelling 'Shut it down!', YOU DID THIS.  You shut down the government, and insanely thought it would be a good thing.

And speaking of insane, NPR had the guy who runs Reason.com on this morning, with two more people, to talk about how we should be reducing spending this way from now on, and how good this all is.  This is why I don't want to listen to NPR for domestic political news.


Does the government shutdown hurt the guy who runs Reason.com?

Nope. Which just proves their deploy right.

If it hurts you or someone you know, you should have been more like that guy.

In this just world, you get what you deserve.
 
2013-10-11 12:36:13 AM
And the problem is? Seriously, when doing the cost / benefit analysis of joining the military you might include "what happens if I die?" so if "I have to hope charity helps my family if I die" then the number of enlisted drops to those who really want to and we can't go to senseless war anymore.
 
2013-10-11 12:36:31 AM

feckingmorons: See if you don't think it was withheld out of spite by the administration, that is what I think.


Yeah, all the things you like were "withheld" out of spite, while 23 Head Start programs were shut down, needed action on climate change, withering public infrastructure, and unsustainable rates of public incarceration were all put on the backburner so GOP assholes could shiat-ass about Obamacare for 3 years after it was passed, signed, and upheld--even though they could have gone to budget conference in April or May. This was a deliberately and carefully orchestrated plan by Republicans to fark over everyone who wasn't a Republican and some that are. Don't even think of talking about "spite" or "trying to make this painful."
 
2013-10-11 12:36:56 AM

Karma Chameleon: Yeah everyone loves the troops, but our extremely bloated military is one of the biggest reasons we can't pay our farking bills. Why do we still need 80,000 troops in Japan and Korea, and another 50,000 in Germany? Not to mention all of the current pointless world policing we do.


When can scale back the military after we've gutted all the other useless stuff.
 
2013-10-11 12:38:00 AM

Modguy: This is consistent with many prosperity doctrine christians, in that the Government shouldn't be doing these things like income reliefe and what not, it should be charities and good christian ethics that helps these people.


Well, that's a good point. Good Christians should help people. But since the overwhelming majority of them don't, the government has to step in.
 
2013-10-11 12:38:12 AM

KellyX: Russia


That doesn't answer shiat. Russia doesn't have 50,000 troops in Canada or Mexico. Why the fark does the U.S. have 50,000 in Germany?
 
2013-10-11 12:39:59 AM

sendtodave: Really, we don't need the government.


Look pal, DARPA, a United States Department of Defense agency AND THEREFORE A PART OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT created this funny little network thingy you're communicating with.

Don't be a derp.
 
2013-10-11 12:40:43 AM
This is a good thing.

/ Now if these f*ckwits could get together and let me know whether disabled veterans, like myself, will be getting paid next month, that'd be great.
 
2013-10-11 12:43:37 AM
Maybe we could just outsource our army to Pakistan.

We'll save Billions!
 
2013-10-11 12:43:43 AM
img.fark.net
 
2013-10-11 12:44:06 AM

feckingmorons: See also where it says civilian contractors can be paid, and DOD civilians can be paid. Yet they needed a team of government lawyers (all working for the administration) to figure out what you and I can plainly read.

If you think your government is looking out for your best interests you are in for a big surprise one day.


I imagine they needed a team of lawyers to make sure an executive decision to pay death benefits didn't violate the Antideficiency Act and result in Administration officials (even the president) going to jail. I'm no lawyer either but I imagine in a shutdown the rule is 'Hell No unless Congress is explicitly cool with it'.

Shutdowns suck. These are not supposed to happen at all. Lots of agencies and government departments rely upon the yearly budget and discretionary spending to operate. Even the DoD. When there's no budget and no discretionary spending lots of things get forgotten or overlooked, including families of dead soldiers. Passing the bill, sure, fine, decent; literally the least we can do. But in no way should we be inuring ourselves to an unpleasant reality of a budgetless government.

In a certain sense this reminds me of someone throwing a quarter at a homeless person so they don't have to look them in the eye or hand them money in physical contact. It's a miniscule act of kindness disguising a callous disregard / avoidance of facing reality. It shouldn't feel like a happy ending until all parts of the government are back online.
 
Displayed 50 of 162 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report