Criminal, if true...

Amos Umwhat

I was listening to Dennis Miller on the way home from work last night, fellow calls in and says he's just gotten off the phone with his son in Afghanistan. Guy says his son's telling him that their being told that there won't be any GI Bill for them, that because of the sequester the College money is all cut out.

This comes at the same time that we're giving 250 million to the Muslim Brotherhood government of Egypt.

Can this possibly be true?

fla-gypsy

From Stars and Stripes; http://www.stripes.com/news/army-suspends-tuition-assistance-program-for-troops-1.210999

clearlysuspect

GI Bill is unaffected. Tuition Assistance, is cut, which is completely separate from GI Bill.

JDH

"...This comes at the same time that we're giving 250 million to the Muslim Brotherhood government of Egypt. ..."

The US has a treaty, which is a legally binding contract, with Egypt. This treaty was put in place when Anwar Sadat was President of Egypt, and was maintained during the Mubarak years. I've seen similar criticism of this treaty lately, and most of it suggests that President Obama is "behind" a subsidy of the Muslim Brotherhood. Well, it just aint true. Unless the United States decides to negate all treaties with governments who are represented by democratically elected parties that we do not agree with, this treaty must stand until it is re-negotiated.

Additionally, if anyone thinks that cutting tuition assistance for soldiers is a good way to balance anything, well, I'll just bite my tounge instead of commenting about their ability to think rationally. Sequestration is just stupid, and is only another in a long line of examples that Congress cannot or will not govern.

One more thing...This is a perfect example of how talk radio is little more than gossip, with no filters to insure accuracy, but with plenty of opportunities to spread lies, half-truths, and propaganda.

Rain

True, soldiers can now just use their GI Bill. But if you're active duty and using the GI Bill rather than TA, then you're not getting your Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH). This is, at Fort Hood, about 1000 bucks a month. So we're talking about you missing out on a LOT of money if you're active duty and want to go to school.

Rain

Two things I like from that SAS article above.. "It is utterly unacceptable that the first casualties of Congress' inability to act are education benefits for servicemembers,” Michael Dakduk, executive director of SVA, said in a statement. “The decisions of the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Army set a dangerous precedent that educating our nation's servicemembers and veterans is an expendable option.” “Every commercial, every brochure, has money for college written all over it … recruiting us into the Army and then taking away one of the main reasons we joined is a bit hypocritical,” said Barina, who added that as an 11-year Army veteran, it’s his junior troops he is concerned about. “There are so many things that cost a lot of money and don’t need to take place that are not getting the ax.”

xmacro

JDH:

"...This comes at the same time that we're giving 250 million to the Muslim Brotherhood government of Egypt. ..."

The US has a treaty, which is a legally binding contract, with Egypt. This treaty was put in place when Anwar Sadat was President of Egypt, and was maintained during the Mubarak years. I've seen similar criticism of this treaty lately, and most of it suggests that President Obama is "behind" a subsidy of the Muslim Brotherhood. Well, it just aint true. Unless the United States decides to negate all treaties with governments who are represented by democratically elected parties that we do not agree with, this treaty must stand until it is re-negotiated.

Are you really this stupid? Seriously, I'd like to know, because unless you've actually read the treaty and can point out where it says that, I'm considering where your brain has gone

The US is a sovereign nation; we can void any treaty we want, especially when the treaty was with a Gov't that's no longer in power. Sovereign nations can decide what they want to do, and treaties can be voided for no reason at all. What are they gonna do, sue us? North Korea voids treaties all the time - no consequences; Greece is thinking seriously about voiding their repayment promises. Argentina has already torn up their repayment contracts for their debt; though this crashed their bond market, no consequences from other nations - people and other nations still lend them money. Treaties aren't worth the paper they're printed on; anyone who's followed the news of the past 5 years, to say nothing of the past century, would know that

Second, when Gov'ts change, treaties go out the window. To say that we're legally mandated to uphold it is like saying the US is legally mandated to provide money to Iran's Gov't because we had an agreement with the Shah once upon a time. When nations change their Gov'ts thru revolution, the treaties are no longer applicable.

Additionally, the Muslim Brotherhood wants to impose an islamic State, Sharia law; they've already created a Morality police force to enforce their idea's of whats proper in public. They shoot their own people when they protest; Morsi is trying to grant himself dictatorial powers, and you think we should just blindly hand over taxpayer money? Are you daft or just dumb? You really think we should still be giving them this money "because we said we would when Mubarak was in power"?

That money should have gone straight to our troops; instead Secretary Doofus hands it over to the Muslim Brotherhood, who the very next day announced they decided to create the "Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice" - they'll be equipped with canes for beating violators, and will be given electric tasers in the future. It's Saudi Arabia all over again.

Think before you talk. You go on and on about how you don't like right-wingers, how dumb they are and how they don't know anything, and then you come out in support of giving a quarter of a billion dollars in aid to people who aren't any different than the Taliban, 'because a piece of paper says we need to'. Give me a break.

JDH:

Additionally, if anyone thinks that cutting tuition assistance for soldiers is a good way to balance anything, well, I'll just bite my tounge instead of commenting about their ability to think rationally. Sequestration is just stupid, and is only another in a long line of examples that Congress cannot or will not govern.

Bite it some more, because no one ever said it was a good idea. The DoD and the Executive branch have wide discretion in how they want to make the required cuts; the fact they're making them as painful as possible just goes to show where their priorities lie.

JDH

xmacro:

JDH:

"...This comes at the same time that we're giving 250 million to the Muslim Brotherhood government of Egypt. ..."

The US has a treaty, which is a legally binding contract, with Egypt. This treaty was put in place when Anwar Sadat was President of Egypt, and was maintained during the Mubarak years. I've seen similar criticism of this treaty lately, and most of it suggests that President Obama is "behind" a subsidy of the Muslim Brotherhood. Well, it just aint true. Unless the United States decides to negate all treaties with governments who are represented by democratically elected parties that we do not agree with, this treaty must stand until it is re-negotiated.

Are you really this stupid? Seriously, I'd like to know, because unless you've actually read the treaty and can point out where it says that, I'm considering where your brain has gone

The US is a sovereign nation; we can void any treaty we want, especially when the treaty was with a Gov't that's no longer in power. Sovereign nations can decide what they want to do, and treaties can be voided for no reason at all. What are they gonna do, sue us? North Korea voids treaties all the time - no consequences; Greece is thinking seriously about voiding their repayment promises. Argentina has already torn up their repayment contracts for their debt; though this crashed their bond market, no consequences from other nations - people and other nations still lend them money. Treaties aren't worth the paper they're printed on; anyone who's followed the news of the past 5 years, to say nothing of the past century, would know that

Second, when Gov'ts change, treaties go out the window. To say that we're legally mandated to uphold it is like saying the US is legally mandated to provide money to Iran's Gov't because we had an agreement with the Shah once upon a time. When nations change their Gov'ts thru revolution, the treaties are no longer applicable.

Additionally, the Muslim Brotherhood wants to impose an islamic State, Sharia law; they've already created a Morality police force to enforce their idea's of whats proper in public. They shoot their own people when they protest; Morsi is trying to grant himself dictatorial powers, and you thing we should just blindly hand over taxpayer money? Are you daft or just dumb? You really think we should still be giving them this money "because we said we would when Mubarak was in power"?

That money should have gone straight to our troops; instead Secretary Doofus hands it over to the Muslim Brotherhood, who the very next day announced they decided to create the "Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice" - they'll be equipped with canes for beating violators, and will be given electric tasers in the future. It's Saudi Arabia all over again.

Think before you talk. You go on and one about how you don't like right-wingers, how dumb they are and how they don't know anything, and then you come out in support of giving a quarter of a billion dollars in aid to people who aren't any different than the Taliban, 'because a piece of paper says we need to'. Give me a break.

JDH:

Additionally, if anyone thinks that cutting tuition assistance for soldiers is a good way to balance anything, well, I'll just bite my tounge instead of commenting about their ability to think rationally. Sequestration is just stupid, and is only another in a long line of examples that Congress cannot or will not govern.

Bite it some more, because no one ever said it was a good idea. The DoD and the Executive branch have wide discretion in how they want to make the required cuts; the fact they're making them as painful as possible just goes to show where their priorities lie.

Like my Dad told me a long time ago; when you argue with a Jackass, you are the only one who looks bad, so you can keep your venom and insults, because you won't be getting a response from me, thank you very much.

xmacro

JDH:

xmacro:

JDH:

"...This comes at the same time that we're giving 250 million to the Muslim Brotherhood government of Egypt. ..."

The US has a treaty, which is a legally binding contract, with Egypt. This treaty was put in place when Anwar Sadat was President of Egypt, and was maintained during the Mubarak years. I've seen similar criticism of this treaty lately, and most of it suggests that President Obama is "behind" a subsidy of the Muslim Brotherhood. Well, it just aint true. Unless the United States decides to negate all treaties with governments who are represented by democratically elected parties that we do not agree with, this treaty must stand until it is re-negotiated.

Are you really this stupid? Seriously, I'd like to know, because unless you've actually read the treaty and can point out where it says that, I'm considering where your brain has gone

The US is a sovereign nation; we can void any treaty we want, especially when the treaty was with a Gov't that's no longer in power. Sovereign nations can decide what they want to do, and treaties can be voided for no reason at all. What are they gonna do, sue us? North Korea voids treaties all the time - no consequences; Greece is thinking seriously about voiding their repayment promises. Argentina has already torn up their repayment contracts for their debt; though this crashed their bond market, no consequences from other nations - people and other nations still lend them money. Treaties aren't worth the paper they're printed on; anyone who's followed the news of the past 5 years, to say nothing of the past century, would know that

Second, when Gov'ts change, treaties go out the window. To say that we're legally mandated to uphold it is like saying the US is legally mandated to provide money to Iran's Gov't because we had an agreement with the Shah once upon a time. When nations change their Gov'ts thru revolution, the treaties are no longer applicable.

Additionally, the Muslim Brotherhood wants to impose an islamic State, Sharia law; they've already created a Morality police force to enforce their idea's of whats proper in public. They shoot their own people when they protest; Morsi is trying to grant himself dictatorial powers, and you thing we should just blindly hand over taxpayer money? Are you daft or just dumb? You really think we should still be giving them this money "because we said we would when Mubarak was in power"?

That money should have gone straight to our troops; instead Secretary Doofus hands it over to the Muslim Brotherhood, who the very next day announced they decided to create the "Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice" - they'll be equipped with canes for beating violators, and will be given electric tasers in the future. It's Saudi Arabia all over again.

Think before you talk. You go on and one about how you don't like right-wingers, how dumb they are and how they don't know anything, and then you come out in support of giving a quarter of a billion dollars in aid to people who aren't any different than the Taliban, 'because a piece of paper says we need to'. Give me a break.

JDH:

Additionally, if anyone thinks that cutting tuition assistance for soldiers is a good way to balance anything, well, I'll just bite my tounge instead of commenting about their ability to think rationally. Sequestration is just stupid, and is only another in a long line of examples that Congress cannot or will not govern.

Bite it some more, because no one ever said it was a good idea. The DoD and the Executive branch have wide discretion in how they want to make the required cuts; the fact they're making them as painful as possible just goes to show where their priorities lie.

Like my Dad told me a long time ago; when you argue with a Jackass, you are the only one who looks bad, so you can keep your venom and insults, because you won't be getting a response from me, thank you very much.

Your dad doesn't sound too bright if he told you to ignore the argument and issue pithy replies

webmost

Always the party line: Obama's sequester is Congress' fault, Dear Leader won't compromise means Republicans won't compromise, and a budget bigger than last year is a drastic cut. Come on. Crank down the excuse machine. I don't want to hear it.

Between this, border guards in AZ, and white house tours, all coming the same week as $65 bil for the IMF, Our Dear Leader is starting to look awfully darn petty.

Four more years of this jackass?

We have guys laying their a$$es on the line who were promised this stuff. We're gonna worry about a contract with Mubarak?

Really?

Really.

beatnic

I'm speechless! Did he really say that? Smoking too much Bluegrass.

Amos Umwhat

I must say, I don't see any treaty made with Sadat's govt. as being binding in anyway with the govt. in existence at least two governments removed from Sadat.

JDH

Amos Umwhat:

I must say, I don't see any treaty made with Sadat's govt. as being binding in anyway with the govt. in existence at least two governments removed from Sadat.

The United States made a Treaty with the Nation of Egypt, not Anwar Sadat, or Mubarack, or the Muslim Brotherhood.

Amos Umwhat

JDH:

Amos Umwhat:

I must say, I don't see any treaty made with Sadat's govt. as being binding in anyway with the govt. in existence at least two governments removed from Sadat.

The United States made a Treaty with the Nation of Egypt, not Anwar Sadat, or Mubarack, or the Muslim Brotherhood.

That is a very high-minded take on things, but I don't think technically true. If we're going to go that route, I suggest we put Egypt on the list, and start closer to home by honoring the agreements we made with the peoples here at home, you know, Cherokees, Sioux, Kiowas, etc. Once we've fulfilled those commitments, we could think about Egypt.

webmost

See if I got this right: The Constitution is your favorite fascist's toilet paper. The Bill of Rights is his attorney general's toilet paper. A promise made to an earnest young patriot when he or she enlists is crap... But a treaty made by wastrel idiots to prop up the raghead du jour two rags back is inviolable.

Listen to yourself.

Look, cancel F35 if you have to. Don't double cross the people who put their life on the life for you.

Amos Umwhat

Well, the only reason I mentioned the whole Egypt thing in particular was that it was the illustration used on the program. I personally get just as/or more upset about Pakistan. I feel like we're giving our lunch money to the tiny bully on the school yard who has everyone buffaloed into believing he's some kind of threat. I know, we're trying to buy influence, like we always have, propping up whatever strongman is brutal enough to control the savage elements of his nation in order to create whatever kind of market we're after. Could be oil, military strategy, intelligence, whatever.

It's also very easy to convince Americans that we're "spreading democracy", but for the history of making sure that those foreigners vote in what we want them to. Crazy.

What I'm concerned with, upset about, is the broken promises. I didn't like Recruiting, but I did it with honor. That was my name on the paperwork, along with those I enlisted, with me representing the Army, and our government, and I don't like being made a liar. Period.

So, surely we could start our much-needed cutbacks somewhere else, like, say, the trillions we spend on bribing people who hate us to pretend they're our friends.

clearlysuspect

Amos Umwhat:

Well, the only reason I mentioned the whole Egypt thing in particular was that it was the illustration used on the program. I personally get just as/or more upset about Pakistan. I feel like we're giving our lunch money to the tiny bully on the school yard who has everyone buffaloed into believing he's some kind of threat. I know, we're trying to buy influence, like we always have, propping up whatever strongman is brutal enough to control the savage elements of his nation in order to create whatever kind of market we're after. Could be oil, military strategy, intelligence, whatever.

It's also very easy to convince Americans that we're "spreading democracy", but for the history of making sure that those foreigners vote in what we want them to. Crazy.

What I'm concerned with, upset about, is the broken promises. I didn't like Recruiting, but I did it with honor. That was my name on the paperwork, along with those I enlisted, with me representing the Army, and our government, and I don't like being made a liar. Period.

So, surely we could start our much-needed cutbacks somewhere else, like, say, the trillions we spend on bribing people who hate us to pretend they're our friends.

^^^^Well said.

webmost

Acting like a paltry few billion out of 3.8 trillion makes for a drastic cliff is a lie
Laying off border patrol in Arizona before the cliff deadline because AZ tried to enforce a federal law you don't like is vindictive
Turning away school kids who came to visit the White House is petty
Breaking promises to brave patriots dying and getting maimed for us is nasty

A petty vindictive nasty liar. Try and blame that on George Bush.

I tell you I can't stand him. I am tired of looking at all these stock pictures shot up his nose like he's Mussolini. I am tired of speeches every day where he talks to this corner of the room, then that corner, then back to this corner, but never looks ahead, and every other sentence is a bald faced lie.

Sick of him

Haven't hated a prez this bad since LBJ.

webmost

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/11/world/asia/afghanistan-insider-attack/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

fla-gypsy

This has become my favorite thread and it is very revealing. When I read this at 6 am I blew coffee back through my nose I was laughing so freaking hard. Just for the record, 85 billion is 2.7% of the federal budget before the new taxes kicked in. This administration had great leeway in how the cuts would be instituted and CHOSE the ones that are being used ENTIRELY for political reasons.

phobicsquirrel

JDH:

"...This comes at the same time that we're giving 250 million to the Muslim Brotherhood government of Egypt. ..."

The US has a treaty, which is a legally binding contract, with Egypt. This treaty was put in place when Anwar Sadat was President of Egypt, and was maintained during the Mubarak years. I've seen similar criticism of this treaty lately, and most of it suggests that President Obama is "behind" a subsidy of the Muslim Brotherhood. Well, it just aint true. Unless the United States decides to negate all treaties with governments who are represented by democratically elected parties that we do not agree with, this treaty must stand until it is re-negotiated.

Additionally, if anyone thinks that cutting tuition assistance for soldiers is a good way to balance anything, well, I'll just bite my tounge instead of commenting about their ability to think rationally. Sequestration is just stupid, and is only another in a long line of examples that Congress cannot or will not govern.

One more thing...This is a perfect example of how talk radio is little more than gossip, with no filters to insure accuracy, but with plenty of opportunities to spread lies, half-truths, and propaganda.

far be it for the GOP to care for the troops and any other non wealthy person. this whole idea of cutting everything is stupid. at least congress should have thier pay cut too. congress woman tammy duckworth did

phobicsquirrel

fla-gypsy:

This has become my favorite thread and it is very revealing. When I read this at 6 am I blew coffee back through my nose I was laughing so freaking hard. Just for the record, 85 billion is 2.7% of the federal budget before the new taxes kicked in. This administration had great leeway in how the cuts would be instituted and CHOSE the ones that are being used ENTIRELY for political reasons.

the WH does not pass any bill nor does it control money for the govt. That is congress and the GOP run the money for the govt. potus only signs and can propose bills. this whole thing was congress's doing.

fla-gypsy

phobicsquirrel:

fla-gypsy:

This has become my favorite thread and it is very revealing. When I read this at 6 am I blew coffee back through my nose I was laughing so freaking hard. Just for the record, 85 billion is 2.7% of the federal budget before the new taxes kicked in. This administration had great leeway in how the cuts would be instituted and CHOSE the ones that are being used ENTIRELY for political reasons.

the WH does not pass any bill nor does it control money for the govt. That is congress and the GOP run the money for the govt. potus only signs and can propose bills. this whole thing was congress's doing.

Time to get real here, the original sequester idea came from the WH and the executive branch has GREAT leeway in how the monies they control are spent within the departments they are designated for and control. saying the executive branch does not have choices in how money is spent is ludicrous. How else could Kerry give away 250 mil, DHS buy 1.6 bil rounds of ammo, purchase 2700 armored personnel carriers and spend 50 mil on uniforms? Remember it is only 2.7% before the new taxes kick in. In reality there is NO cut, only a reduction in the increase. Come on my furry friend you know all that.

phobicsquirrel

The WH floated the idea to get things rolling as the "cliff" deals were not going any where. So why not make something that was worse? It also was praised by the GOP which now they say the opposite. But you forget, the WH doesn't pass bills, it only suggests it. If you don't like the bill then you may want to vote for people who don't do crap like this. The GOP only wants to cut things. Thing is, what the WH should do is cut all govt money going to states who get more money from the govt then they send back. That would be ... a lot of the south. That would save a lot of money.

The WH can decide what to do with a lot of the money "PASSED" and "APPROVED" by the congress but it has to be approved first. That's the key. And budgets usually start to roll about a year after they were approved. Specific types of legislation can start whenever, however not the budget .. if they ever get around to passing one instead of kicking it down the road.

I don't know what you mean by "kerry" gave out 250 mil and all those other numbers. Plain thing is sure, the govt wastes a lot of money on BS. I won't argue on that. However it is annoying as hell IMO that you have a bunch of assclowns who are working for us, this country and all they do is cause their own people to lose pay, jobs, and reductions in hours while they sit back (literally if you count the congress lately) and keep getting their share. Just as an example, cut defense back to around the 1st bush/clinton era. Get rid of all of these stupid agencies that the 'W bush admin created (homeland, airport theater police, and any other bs money wasting crap) not to mention close a few hundred bases around the world. That would cut a lot. However that isn't going to happen. Instead more workers and govt workers are going to get screwed and our economy will continue to get worse. This country is collapsing and just not from this BS but actually, physically collapsing.

Rhamlin

It's hard times spending has to be cut and unfortunately lots of it will come from areas that people don't like. Pensions are getting cut or just done away with, Medical Insurance with a company you've put 30 years in with tells you when you retire it's gone. Company's cutting contributions to 401's. There's just no easy answers. My generation of towboaters for my company are the last to even get a pension luckily for me I am grandfathered in. I know it sucks especially when your putting your life on the line just look at cops and firefighters I'm sure they have lost a lot of benefits over the years. I only hope people smarter than me can fix it.

Amos Umwhat

Rhamlin:

. I only hope people smarter than me can fix it.

Amen brother, me too.