Senate Republicans vote down veterans jobs bill

reply to post by jam321


The answere is yes. There are many many bills that apply to soldiers that have served in specific wars time periods and parts of the world.

For example a soldier who has never served during war time will not qualify for the same benifits as a soldier that has.

I do not qualify for certain programs that my father does because I never served in veitnam and he has.

WW2 vets have seperate bills. Gulf war, Korean war, Vietnam war, Gulf war, and Iraq War vets have seperate bills. Their are specific bills for dates of vervice and theaters of operation as well. All vets should aleready know this.

For more info go to www1.va.gov/directory/guide/home.asp?isFlash=1
That will direct you to the nearest facilitie and they can help with most questions on benifits.

Originally posted by jam321
Do you call a bill a veterans bill if it gives priority to a certain group of veterans?

From the Senate version I read yesterday, it gave priority to veterans who served actively on or after 9/11/2001.

shall give priority towards the employment of veterans who served on active duty in the Armed Forces on or after September 11, 2001.

thomas.loc.gov...:1:./temp/~c112BgSuUs:e901:

Good question.

Because I believe in these sorts of things, I suspect there must be a higher batch of these
troops that are having a hard time adjusting, probably why they are trying to focus the money
their way.

At least thats what my liberal inclinations suspect, whether or not that is right to do is another story
all together.

reply to post by soontide


because republicans have been and are abusing the filibuster rule. it used to be that a bill would be given a straight up or down vote. now, all bills need to have 60 plus votes to be even considered for a vote. we now have a tyranny of the minority in place.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

As a wife of a veteran, I am going to tell you what is going on, Obama defense budget bill just left in the last 4 months hundreds of thousand of already working veterans out of job and in limbo.

How do I know this, because my husband was one of the first wave of people that were left out when the cuts became in effect

Yes the cuts affected the contractors ability to employ US citizens, priority is given to veterans regardless, because private contractors like the fact that most veterans are already under government subsided health insurance or receiving benefits to complement salaries.

So do not let the propaganda win, the problem with this bill is that even if is passed, Is still not jobs to give away anyway, so is nothing but political crap as usual, if people were no so blind by party lines they will see what this bill is all about what a political game it is.

So the problem is, they are trying to correct a mistake or you think they just did this for fun, or what?

reply to post by Grimpachi

The answere is yes. There are many many bills that apply to soldiers that have served in specific wars time periods and parts of the world.

We're not talking about benefits. Why should an unemployed veteran of the first Gulf War be any different than an unemployed veteran from the second Gulf War? They are both veterans and both unemployed.

reply to post by jam321


Really? You served in the military and you are asking questions like this.

So you think Vietnam vets that are not working and vets who have recently ETSed should be equally oriented in the job market?

Because I would have to disagree.

reply to post by Grimpachi

Really? You served in the military and you are asking questions like this.

You bet I'm asking questions or should I just be a puppet and blame the Republicans for not being patriotic cause they didn't pass this lame bill.

So you think Vietnam vets that are not working and vets who have recently ETSed should be equally oriented in the job market?

Go ahead, you claim to have read the text of the bill. Please tell me what type of job orientation will be offered to these vets under this bill?

Because I would have to disagree.

Welcome to America where you have a right to.

The deal is that they supposedly want to help these vets find a job because the economy is so bad RIGHT NOW. I have no problem with that. But the reality is that this bill doesn't guarantee a job. They are investing 1 BILLION over 5 years. These vets will still have to wait for a steering committee to come up to set up criteria and if you know anything about government committees this isn't a good sign for vets who need jobs NOW not LATER.

If you think this is a good bill, then so be it. I DON"T. I would be more than happy to pony up on my taxes and use that 1 billion right now to help them cover some of their finances while they land on their feet.

Peace

reply to post by marg6043

Job training is nothing but that, it doesn't guarantee that you will have a job after you training because the money is not there, but the government can spend a few millions still training.

You can have 22 years already trained in a field in specialized work, that comes handy when you finish your tour of duty a look for a career into the civilian area, then you get to spend years working as a civilian gaining experience and training.

So as you can see training means nothing, because is not about training but money to support employment.

My job in the military was EOD explosives ordinance disposal it is very hard to find a job in that specific fields even in the police and besides that I left the military because I didn’t like that my wife worried so much. You should understand that.

Many other soldiers especially ones with combat MOSes are hard pressed finding jobs because there isn’t much of a job market for combat unless you are in a security firm. This bill would have retrained thousands of returning soldiers and at least given them a marketable profession.

reply to post by jam321


Asking questions is fine I just find it odd that as a veteran yourself that your question would be over eligibility.
So it seems that your main argument here isn’t the much needed job training or that it wouldn’t be for all vets but the cost and that your taxes may not equal into immediate jobs for those that are deserving.

This seems to be the only real argument in the senate as well. One billion is a drop in the bucket compared to what our government spends daily on operations around the world and training to send our soldiers into combat.
For republicans to use cost as their argument against helping those same soldiers that are reentering civilian life that have served their country is disgraceful.
I suggest the reason the bill did not pass is not because of cost or that it is a bad bill but because they are serving an ulterior motive by making this president look bad by not passing good legislation.

I know I have a right to disagree and I would like to think I fought for it with my service but the simple fact is that right is not exclusive to the US many other countries including EU countries also afford their citizens that right as well as helping their returning soldiers and I think as US citizens we should hold our government to the same if not better standards. Wouldn’t you agree?