Senate Republicans vote down veterans jobs bill

page: 1
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Some Republicans did the right thing and crossed the aisle on Wednesday to join Democrats in supporting a bill to create jobs for veterans.

But efforts to advance the bill failed anyway by a vote of 58-40 Senate Republicans voted down a bill designed to help veterans obtain jobs.

Republicans have a horrible voting record when it comes to veteran's issues this is just one of the many times they have forsaken those that make the ultimate sacrifice.
Sourcesource
source
source

Sen. Dean Heller was one of just a small handful of Republicans in the Senate who crossed the aisle Wednesday to join Democrats in supporting a bill to create jobs for veterans.
But efforts to advance the bill failed anyway — another victim of the partisan, pre-election proxy war members of Congress continue to wage in Washington.
The Senate came two votes short of the 60-vote hurdle needed to avoid a filibuster on a measure to steer a billion dollars toward getting up to 20,000 veterans employed.

Murray called the vote “a stark reminder that ... Senate Republicans are willing to do absolutely anything to fulfill the pledge they made nearly two years ago to defeat President Obama — it doesn’t matter who gets in their way ... even if it’s our nation’s veterans.” She later added: “Veterans are watching this vote closely.”



Sens. Heller and Scott Brown of Massachusetts were two of the five Republicans who elected to buck the party and add their support to the bill — which they emphasized by highlighting that legislative effort in statements directed toward the veteran community.

“Job creation is and continues to be my No. 1 priority — especially for our veterans,” Heller said in a statement released shortly after the vote. “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. We owe a debt of gratitude to these heroes and I am proud to support the Veterans Jobs Corps Bill.”


As a veteran this really makes me angry. They have no problems funding wars and sending troops to war but it seems it is just too costly to help them when they get back.

At least there were 5 republicans that were not just thinking about their re-election but the other 40 didn't care.

source
source
source
source
source
source
source
edit on 22-9-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


It is sad to see the GOP want to Tank the Country , just so they can blame Obama.

It is almost becoming Unpatriotic to consider a vote for the GOP.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


Oh look, someone gets it.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Those that voted it down shouldn’t be able to wear a flag pin they are a disgrace.

All they care about is their base and re-election. I think we all know they will do anything to make Obama look bad as well.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


This was nothing but a stunt to win favor among veterans! When are some of you going to stop being fooled when veterans are used as a political football?


Shame on you!


Others, like Sens. Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, argued the bill spends too much money on a duplicative program.

“The desire to help veterans is a noble desire ... but what are the other things that we’re doing for jobs for veterans and how well are they working?” Coburn asked. “We have six veteran job training programs. We already have a preference across the federal government for hiring veterans ... What we have is a bill that's brought to the floor that has good intentions behind it but shows the absolute laziness of Congress in terms of really digging things out.”
(OP’s Source)


There are plenty of programs in place now. All this dumbAs administration knows how to do is spend other people’s money! Buying votes with our money...typical!



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 





This was nothing but a stunt to win favor among veterans! When are some of you going to stop being fooled when veterans are used as a political football?


You are correct my friend. Typical dog and pony show because they knew this wasn't going to pass.

But that aside, you have to admit that it did work and Republicans will have to defend themselves on this over the next few days.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
This was nothing but a stunt to win favor among veterans! When are some of you going to stop being fooled when veterans are used as a political football?


Shame on you!
No my friend. Shame On You

You yourself ex-military, and even this you somehow Twist to Blame Obama its a bad thing?????

Something like a Vets Bill, should be Bi-Partisan, without a doubt.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Last time I checked, there were more democrats in the senate than republicans. Why aren't you blaming this on the democrats who crossed the isle and sided with the minority party? If they had stayed true, then the bill would have gone through.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by soontide
 


I place blame on those who vote against the bill. I gave credit to the Republicans that reached across the aisle.

5 republicans reached across the aisle because they knew it was important.

The one who didn't are just sticking to their base. They are slime.

It wasn't that long ago that I got out of the military. Their needs to be better programs.

Their is no defending these actions.
edit on 22-9-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


I will post it again just for you. From the OP.




They have no problems funding wars and sending troops to war but it seems it is just too costly to help them when they get back.


The shame belongs in your corner.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Maybe I am wrong but it looks like there are 51 democrats in the Senate, 2 independents who usually side with the dems and 47 republicans. If some republicans voted in favor then it logically many dems voted against this bill as well. I do not see how the GOP can be blamed for this.

Also a title of a bill does not necessarily mean the bill will actually accomplish what is stated in its title. There is no guarantee this bill if passed would have been good and would have created jobs for vets. I am still looking for the actual text of the bill. You would have to read the actual text of a bill and not just its title to understand the full impact of any particular bill.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 





Something like a Vets Bill, should be Bi-Partisan, without a doubt.


Yes, it should be bipartisan. But if this was such a big issue why wasn't it addressed sooner.

From 2011

The unemployment rate for veterans who served on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces at any time since September 2001--a group referred to as Gulf War-era II veterans--was 12.1 percent in 2011, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The jobless rate for all veterans was 8.3 percent.



www.bls.gov...
www.bls.gov...

Now


The unemployment rate for Iraq and Afghanistan-era Veterans (or Gulf War II-era Veterans) in August ticked up to 10.9 percent. However, as we’ve noted before, month-to-month unemployment figures, especially for this demographic, are volatile. The longer term trends are a more reliable measure, and that continues to show a consistent decline over more than two and a half years—a strong sign of recovery following the worst economic recession since The Great Depression.


www.blogs.va.gov...

Seabag is correct. This is about votes. And the Obama thing doesn't work for me because I am voting for Obama.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by soontide
Last time I checked, there were more democrats in the senate than republicans. Why aren't you blaming this on the democrats who crossed the isle and sided with the minority party? If they had stayed true, then the bill would have gone through.


I believe you are correct. This is not the GOP's fault.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by crazyguy2012
Maybe I am wrong but it looks like there are 51 democrats in the Senate, 2 independents who usually side with the dems and 47 republicans. If some republicans voted in favor then it logically many dems voted against this bill as well. I do not see how the GOP can be blamed for this.

Also a title of a bill does not necessarily mean the bill will actually accomplish what is stated in its title. There is no guarantee this bill if passed would have been good and would have created jobs for vets. I am still looking for the actual text of the bill. You would have to read the actual text of a bill and not just its title to understand the full impact of any particular bill.


The vote came up short 2 of 60. Its in the OP you did the math now who is to blame?

51 Democrat 2 Independent and 5 republican = 58
edit on 22-9-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
edit on 22-9-2012 by DarthMuerte because: My math sux today.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


Why don't you check the 4 sources I put in the OP one of which is Pro Republican.

I just gave you 7 more sources and the video on the vote.
edit on 22-9-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



I see you took down your post so I guess that means you no longer call BS on it.
edit on 22-9-2012 by Grimpachi because: add



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyguy2012
 


No that is not correct, every Senator that voted against the bill was republican.

Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lee (R-UT)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Mark Kirk and James Inhofe did not vote.
Veterans Jobs Corps Act of 2012

And the bill was based on FDR’s Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC).
FDR’s Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC).



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


The problems is that the bils that Congress look at are rarely stand alone.

There are always provisions attached.

As one Vet to another, look deeper into what was in the bill.

I think every bill should stand on its own.

No attachments...PERIOD!



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


You are probably right I haven’t read the whole bill yet but it really ticks me off that many of the senate was willing to stay and hammer out the bill but instead they decided to go on leave till after the elections.

Listen to me. Their going on leave I still say stuff like that.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 




Now


The unemployment rate for Iraq and Afghanistan-era Veterans (or Gulf War II-era Veterans) in August ticked up to 10.9 percent. However, as we’ve noted before, month-to-month unemployment figures, especially for this demographic, are volatile. The longer term trends are a more reliable measure, and that continues to show a consistent decline over more than two and a half years—a strong sign of recovery following the worst economic recession since The Great Depression.


.


So you do reckon that the uptick in unemployment is motivating the action?

There are many things I did not do right in the past, but I figure it's better late than never.

Even if there are other programs in place, I think if it gets people working and off of
welfare (for doing nothing) it can't be that bad, even to Republicans.
edit on 22-9-2012 by campanionator because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join