Paul Ryan VP pick: Veterans' reactions mixed

Veteran groups are mixed on whether a Romney-Ryan administration would be good for the nation’s current and former service members.

Some praised the ticket’s fiscal positions, arguing that the two Republicans would get the country out of debt and keep America safe. Others accuse them of largely ignoring veterans and the war in Afghanistan.

The Special Operations for America PAC, recently launched by ex-Navy SEAL-turned-Montana state senator Ryan Zinke, endorsed Romney’s choice for vice president.

“We believe Paul Ryan has the fiscal skills that will turn our economy around — America’s weak economic situation is a threat to our national security,” said Special Operations for America PAC spokesman Scott Hommel. “We are confident that a Romney-Ryan administration will ensure America’s military is not gutted recklessly for political expediency and will remain the world’s pre-eminent power. If cuts need to be made, they will be made in a calculated and strategically planned process; not just throwing a huge figure on the wall, [as] is the case of sequestration.”

Sequestration refers to $500 billion in automatic, across-the-board restrictions in defense budget growth set to take effect Jan. 2, a consequence of last year’s failure by Congress to agree on how to reduce the long-term U.S. deficit. Ryan voted for the legislation that created it, but now says he opposes the cuts, which seems to have satisfied some vets groups.

Bob Wallace, executive director of Veterans of Foreign Wars, said he’s “never heard of [Ryan] to be anything but supportive of veterans and military personnel.”

“The Ryan budget protected veterans and he stated publicly that the first obligation of the federal government is our national security and that we must take care of those who step up and protect America,” he said.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) an Iraq and Afghanistan veteran who serves on the Armed Services Committee, said he believes Romney and Ryan would save the defense budget from the threatened massive cuts.

“U.S. national security is facing an uncertain future because of big budget cuts in the pipeline that can be averted with the right leadership. Paul Ryan has not only shown that he’s committed to protecting U.S. security, but he’s actually put an idea on the table and hasn’t skirted the issue,” Hunter told Politico. “That’s worth its weight in gold to the defense and veterans community. And far more than we’ve seen from this administration.”

But other veterans criticized Romney and Ryan — neither of whom served in the military — for largely ignoring veterans.

“In his first presidential-level decision, Mitt Romney picks a guy who would slash veterans care by tens of billions and whose budget didn’t even use the word ‘veteran?’ Paul Ryan sees veterans as numbers, not as people,” said Jon Soltz, a two-tour Iraq vet who heads VoteVets.org.

Last fall, Romney suggested government should privatize veterans’ health care, angering many vets.

“When you work in the private sector and you have a competitor, you know, ‘If I don’t treat this customer right, they’re going to leave me and go somewhere else, so I’d better treat them right,’” Romney said at the time. “Whereas if you’re the government, they know there’s nowhere else you guys can go. You’re stuck.”

And Ryan got into hot water with the Pentagon in March after he accused top generals fighting the war in Afghanistan of being less than candid about their budget needs. He also voted against the repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which wound up proceeding anyway almost without incident, officials have said.

Former Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Penn.), the country’s first Iraq War veteran elected to Congress, said President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have supported the nation’s military and veterans in their first term and have made the country safer.

Murphy pointed to Obama’s decision to raid Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan last year, end the war in Iraq and oversee “the largest increase in veterans’ benefits in the history of our country. Compare and contrast that to Romney’s budget, which doesn’t even mention veterans.”

“America hasn’t been at war. The military has been at war — a war put on the nation’s credit card. And now they’re complaining about deficits when the No. 1 reason [for those deficits] was unfunded, unnecessary wars,” Murphy said.  

Posted to: Elections Military Politico Presidential Election

How to be civil in comments:

 No name-calling, personal insults or threats. No attacks based on race, gender, ethnicity, etc. No writing with your Caps Lock on – it's screaming. Keep on topic and under 1500 characters. No profanity or vulgarity. Stay G- or PG-rated. Read the full rules here.

Can anyone tell me

when was the last time we didn't have at least one veteran on the ballot?



Robbing from the old and the sick

Ryan wants to eliminate 91% of non defense spending. That means no Social Security and no Medicare. Then he wants to reduce capital gains taxes to zero. Robbing from the old and the sick to give to the rich. I am glad that the Republican Party is finally revealing how evil they really are.


You should write the talking points for the Obama campaign. You're far more imaginative than they are. They've told some real doozies already but nothing compared to what you just came up with.

Exactly right!!!

and Romney let that guys wife die of cancer to protect Bain's profits!!

I haven't heard that they are have come out and actually said they are going to end social security and medicare, I mean we all know that is what the Repugs want to do but they usually don't admit it.

Thumbs Up!

Ignorance on this scale is very amusing.

really? pass the act, but now want to back out

so, if you agreed with the passing of the bill, why now you want to stop those budget cuts? afterall, if you had done your job as a congressman, you would have put a balance budget and not worried now about a huge cut in the budget. sounds like the usual congress, last minute to resolve an unstoppable issue. sounds like we need to remove those in congress because they can't do the job they were voted in for. i truly wud like to see more done for our vets, all vets! if you are in congress now, you a little late!


We had to fight the war on terror, disagree with me if you want to, but it is a fact. We have to fight them over there instead of over here. We are at a time that all programs necessary and entitlements have to be looked at & everyone of us, rich, poor, taking handouts, needing help, grannies, veterans, disabled, working rich, working poor, ALL OF US! We all have to sacrifice. Wether you have been in the military or not is not a factor to me in being President and it should not be, so stop trying to make that an issue. We can't just keep giving and giving and have less coming in. I do not beleive the answer is to bring in more, the answer is to cut some of what is going out. Yes we will all have to suffer. Life is not fair, never has been.

"We did fight the war on

"We did fight the war on terror." That would be a fact.

"We had to fight the war on terror." That's a stretch of the truth.


I do not like that there is war, I do not like that lives are lost, I do not like that tough decisions have to be made, I do not like the cost of war. With that ranting of mine, It does not change the fact that there is evil in the world. We were attacked on 9/11. What is it that you propose that we should have done? The radical terrorist are wanting to get rid of us, what is it that you propose we do? They are willing to kill themselves to do us harm, what is it you propose we do? There is something to the fact that we have not had another attack since 9/11, but I believe there will be another one though. I am willing to sacrifice to help in that, what do you propose we do? We disagree on this, but again tell me what you propose we do?


But you cant say we where attacked because of our freedoms, the CIA and American Foreign Policy in staging govt coup in foreign lands came back to bite us. We bailed in Afghanistan in the 80's and all the fighters we trained (ie: Bin Laden)to fight the Soviets, its in Rocky III too, and that came back to bite us in the bum.

We attacked the terrorist behind 9/11, but Iraq ?

We attacked the terrorist behind 9/11 but the attack on Irag was a war to benefit Halliburton. That cheney lied and cooked the books supports that. The same people who cooked the books about Iraq are cooking the books (lies) now.

Some care about our veterans, some only care what the money and what the veterans can do for them.

Playing into their hands in some ways

I am not going to say that the U.S. should never attack. That would be foolish, but action needs to be very pointed and strategic.

It is a strategy of radical terrorists to draw the U.S. into never ending war to drain our resources. The money we spend on bombs, fuel, and military vehicles is money that cannot be spent on education, infrastructure, and having a healthy workforce.

Finally, we also need to be smart about international policy, setting aside bravado and any sort of bully mentality. That is not to say that decisions should be made to appease those who are angry, but it is extremely ignorant to think we can do whatever we want, occassionally harm others in the process, tell them how to live, and question a violent reaction.


The House has passed three different budget bills. The Senate has refused to take up any budget measures passed by the House and has not passed a budget in over 1,000 days. Ryan has nothing to do with it.

Furthermore, neither Ryan or Romney served, but neither did Biden. You really can't use serving as a litmus test anymore, only as an added quality. For a time in America, serving was the norm. When I joined the Corps, my friends looked at me like I was crazy.

Military service

Budget bills are political documents with no force of law. Congress has passed appropriation bills which actually authorize government spending.

When Obama and Ryan grew up there was an all volunteer military. Biden and Romney came of age during Vietnam War draft. Biden received student deferments. Romney received student deferments and a missionary deferment (trying to convert French Catholics to Mormonism).

By the numbers?

"The House has passed three different budget bills"
The House has also passed thirty three identical bills to do away with the Affordable Health Care plan, knowing perfectly well that they would go nowhere. How much time and money was wasted there by a group that constantly mouths the words "Government waste"?

So What?

"The House has also passed thirty three identical bills to do away with the Affordable Health Care plan, knowing perfectly well that they would go nowhere."

Which has exactly nothing to do with the post you're responding to. Go get a pamphlet on how to debate please.

As far as Obama ordering anything...

There had been a standing kill order for Osama bin Laden for years. He was the FBI's most wanted terrorist since shortly after 9/11.
Obama didn't do anything legendary or extraordinary in taking out a person the enitre military had been after for over a decade. I guess this si more of his "leading from behind".

Commander in Chief

What do you mean "leading from behind?" Did you expect President Obama to lead the raid personally and kill bin Laden himself?

As Commander in Chief, President Obama ordered a highly risky assault on bin Laden's compound inside Pakistan. Many of his military advisors favored a lower risk missile attack, but there would have been no confirmation that bin Laden had been killed and we would have missed the capture of a trove of intelligence. It proved to be the right decision, executed flawlessly by the military team.

Imagine the derision from Obama's political opponents if the mission had been a disaster.

There was no guarantee that

There was no guarantee that the person in the compound was Osama. Based on intel it was surmised that it could be him, but not 100%. There were also different options: bomb the compound and never know for sure if it was him. . . or do nothing. It also took executive leadership to order that we enter another country's airspace . . .an ally in the war on terrorism . . . without any advance notice. That's not automatic, and there were repercussions. And if the whole operation had been a failure, and our SEALs were killed, I bet you are the first one posting that it was all Obama's fault. So good, bad, or ugly, the commander in chief gets the credit. It wouldn't have happened without his orders.

"an ally in the war on terrorism"

Thanks for the laugh. I just got back from Afghanistan a couple of months ago and I can assure you Pakistan is anything but.

bin laden

"I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much
time on him. I truly am not that concerned about him."
[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

Captain Obvious

Of course their reactions are mixed. Only one group in this country votes as a bloc.

Many currently in office served

at a time when service was by draft. I wonder if Bush, Kerry, and others who tout their service would have ever served had there not been a draft. Or were they just meeting a mandatory requirement and getting their "service" ticket punched?

If you wanted to avoid going

If you wanted to avoid going to Vietnam and had a low draft number (and didn't want to flee to Canada), you joined either the reserves or national guard. I did it myself. Neither were called up in those days. I had a draft number of 5, it was the first year of no student deferment and I was able to miss only one semester of college by going through a combined 4 mos active duty of boot camp & personnelman A School in Orlando, FL. Those who joined the active military did it by choice. I'll fess up. I had other plans at the time.

or you could get married.

As you no doubt recall that for a while married guys went to the bottom of the list so there were a lot of right out of High School weddings. That was eventually over turned when the Government realized there were not enough singe kids to kill so the decided to kill the married kids also.
The average age of a GI was 19. I was and turned 20 there.


“Last fall, Romney suggested government should privatize veterans’ health care, angering many vets.”


The Ryan budget cut $75 million for housing 11,000 homeless veterans.


“When you work in the

“When you work in the private sector and you have a competitor, you know, ‘If I don’t treat this customer right, they’re going to leave me and go somewhere else, so I’d better treat them right,’” Romney said at the time. “Whereas if you’re the government, they know there’s nowhere else you guys can go. You’re stuck.” Yea right, I give you bank of America, or any one of the private insurance companies that routinely deny care auto automatically. Where are you going to go if you are diagnosed with cancer and your insurer say no treatment. Where are you going to be able to get another company to insure you. If your boss mistreats you where are you going to get another job in this republican created economy. More republican li


Lousy customer service and couldn't care less if you drop them.

VP pick doesn't really matter

Vice Presidential picks do not really impact campaigns. Its still about the presidential candidates. Ryan's claim to fame with his budget plan, IMO, isn't all that great. Sure it gets us on the path of fiscal control, but in about 16-18 years from now. But even in his plan, that annual credit card bill will go from $450 bil to $1 trillion or more. Bye-bye defense AND entitlements. Its a hard area for many Amercians to understand, and a classic debt spiral.. borrowing to service your growing "credit card" payments. All you want to insure with your VP pick is that they don't become a distraction. Most amercians and many dems don't know who he is - the response has been to blast him or laud him, and then run to wikipedia to find out who he is.

VP pick doesn't really matter

It is true that "Vice Presidential picks do not really impact campaigns." Sometimes they help win their home states (except Ryan has low favorability in Wisconsin) and sometimes they hurt the ticket (Palin).

As you say, "Its still about the presidential candidates." What is significant is that Romney has endorsed the Ryan budget plan, which will cut taxes for the rich, replace Medicare with a voucher, and slash domestic spending.

As a veteran, the lack of

As a veteran, the lack of reality as expressed in the Ryan budget is disturbing to me. It is simply impossible to regain our economic edge if the cuts proposed by Ryan were to be implemented. In fact, most economists predict that if all we do is cut, cut, and cut some more, as outlined in the Ryan budget, not only will we put the nation back into recession, but depression is possible, worldwide. Fact is, too much austerity too quickly is a formula for economic havoc for both defense and domestic programs. Kowtowing to the tea party and the Koch Brothers may bring contributions to the republican party and to their PACs, but it won't get us started on the economic reform required in the next decade to restore prosperity.


That we have to raise some taxes in order to pay off debt & that we also have to look at what we are spending & we will need to reduce some of that as well. We all need to realize that. I know that there will be those who will be affected by receivng a little less. We just can't keep spending & spending. I understand that there has to be entitlments but now is a time that requires sacrificing by all. I understand that my payroll tax may need to go up some, but If I have to do with less in my pay, then everyone receiving handouts should have to deal with a little less as well. I don't agree with just a tax increase on the 1%'ers and I am not a 1%'er. Me, you, Granny, GI Joe, diabled John, TANF/SNAP Mary and Bill Gates, we are all in this.

Actually Terry, you just

Actually Terry, you just expressed the President's plan to take $4 Trillion off the deficit in 10 years. It takes cuts, increases in revenue, removal of unneeded corporate tax breaks, and modifications in entitlements. All four were in the deal arranged by the President and Speaker Boehner but rejected by the republicans in the House. They prefered a credit downgrade and sequestration instead.

Now why would they deny a solution? Because they are owned, lock, stock, and barrel by big corporate money and those in the tea party who accept the largess of big money to support them. It really is that simple. If our legislators will sit down at the table and follow the formula above, we can have revenues and expenses at 20% of GDP by 2022.


What is needed, truely needed is entitlement reform. If this whole fiscal mess that has been ongoing for many years, not just the previous Bush years, then we really need to take a look at what we are handing out, how much we are handing out and come to the realization that we just can't keep handing out and handing out. There has got to be reducing, not modification. I know that we will have to have some tax revenue increases in order to pay off the debt, but it should not be tax revenue increase on just one tax bracket, it should be all of us, so if there is a proposal that just wants to increase on the 1 %'ers, then I am not for that. The era of smoke and mirrors needs to go away. The sacrafice will have to come from ALL of us!

We need a bridge folks

Entitlement reform only has to deal with the next 25 years of a baby boom passing from middle age to senior citizen to death. Actuarily the baby boomers pass over in 2035 to 2040. After the boomers are gone there are fewer drawing benefits. The answer isn't to fix SS and Medicare forever, it's to see us through the next twenty five years. The answer is simple. Eliminate the cap on earnings subject to SS and Medicare for the next 25 years you get through this with no reductions in entitlements necessary. So here's the deal Ryan and Republicans, in exchange for lower income tax rates and maintaining low capital gains tax rates you support a lifting of the cap on income subject to FICA with every last dollar raised going to a "lock box".

too many flaws in your propsosal

The first flaw is your rejection of a "permanent" fix. After you allowed that to be your foundation, the building fell down.

The best fix is to move to the FairTax with the repeal of Amendment 16 first.
Make Social Security a locked box.
Eliminate taxes on savings accounts.
Set a point and move all federal employees hired after that date to be under a 401k system.
Set a point and move all military hired after that date to be under a 401k system that they get to keep no matter how long they serve (and those serving at least 20 years get to start making tax free withdrawls).

Tax all SHORT trades very high and that tax goes directly to debt. (Investment is needed, not speculation).

Raising wage limits is also on the table.

You don't need permanently high taxes

The point was the system will be under stress for the next 25 years but that stress will pass. That is why the increase in FICA taxes should be geared towards meeting the crisis. Once crisis is past you can revert to lower FICA rates. The Fair tax does away with the progressive nature of the tax RATES. In an economy fueled by consumers allowing those in low and middle ranges to have more disposable income fuels spending. Rich get richer and middle thrives. Right now we have only the high end doing well. 401Ks are fine as long as they are low load or no load funds -- too often your savings are eaten up with high fees. My main point was SS and Medicare not the greater economy but you are right it will take multiple measures to fix it.

There is no plan

to reduce the deficit under Obama. He is on a spending spree and shows no sign of slowing down on building debt. We hear a lot of excuses and Bush blaming. Show me some savings, anything.

Republicans can call him on this

He has promised large scale reductions in spending in exchange for a modest increase in high end earner taxes. I believe the last point before negotiations broke down was 2.5 to 1 cuts to tax. So instead of going for the whole loaf why don't Republicans accept the modest tax increase on high end in exchange for large cuts. Once that is done and we see results you then negotiate further cuts and revenue measures. But you simply can't get there from here if both sides refuse to compromise.

"and shows no sign of slowing down on building debt"

and yet you republicans are approving it in the republican majority House for the last 1 1/2 years.

Approve What?

There has not been a budget in that time, only continuing resolutions. The only pause happens when we hit our debt ceiling and the Republicans try to reign in some of the out of control spending. That's when the Dems accuse their foes of trying to shut down the government for political reasons. We've seen this exact scenario play out a few times. The Dems win and the debt increases.

There is nothing to "approve". There is only going along with Obama and his party at current spending levels or take the blame for shutting down the government. Your comment is a non-starter.

your excuse does not fly.

You show that democrats are strong and republicans are tough only in talk and weaklings in action.

Budget resolutions

are political documents with no force of law. House Republicans have continued to pass appropriations which actually authorize spending.

Congressional Republicans routinely raised the debt ceiling 7 times under President Bush. Even the Ryan budget would have required raising the debt ceiling.

The President

has barely mentioned the deficit since January. Nice try Mike. He's generated the largest debt in US history and he shows no sign of slowing down.

Well Pierre, he had

Well Pierre, he had inherited the largest fiscal mess in american history, brought to us by the fiscal risk taking and supply side economic principles of the Bush Administration. Yes, classic economic theory says that in a depression, the government must spend to prime the pump. While many say the stimulus was insufficient, we are in recovery from the Bush fiscal debacle. For the good of the entire nation, not just the 1%, we must stay on course for a solid recovery.

The Ryan budget is a radical departure from that which has made us the strongest and richest nation in the world. It would put us back into depression, and the world would follow. For what? We can and will continue to prosper if we reeelect the President and his team.


I know that Granny will suffer, GI Joe will get less, Veterans will have to accept less, TANF/SNAP Jane will have to get less and I will have to have less of my pay. That is the sacrifice that we will all have to endure. I do not believe that Government is the answer, too often it is the problem. I am ok with what Ryan is proposing with his budget. We need a radical departure from the way things are. I know that it comes down to the Senate, but Congress has not been able to pass a budget. That is wrong. If you have to take from me (payroll taxes) then you need to take away from all. We have got to reduce the spending if we are going to raise taxes as well to pay down the debt. I am not a rocket scientist and I figured that one out!

How long

will you continue to blame Bush for the presidents spending spree? Largest debt in US history belongs to Obama.

The so-called "spending

The so-called "spending spree" were the bailouts of Wall Street, the Banks, Chrysler and GM, and TARP, which saved police, firefighter, teacher, and construction jobs. These expenditures were necessary to keep the nation from a second Great Depression, and the result has been that unemployment has now come down 2% and there have been 27 months of economic growth. The "spending spree" was the price we had to pay because of economic collapse brought on by deregulation, two unbudgeted wars, a prescription drug benefit that was never paid for . . . and all after two large tax cuts that took a surplus and immediately thrust us into deficit spending.

Do not forget

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) (a program to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector) was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008.

And dont forget that Bush gave the auto makers $13 billion before he left town. And Cheney's on record as saying that his admin kicked the problem down the road for the black guy to deal with.

When people like Pierre use this deficit line, they need to look at ACTUAL spending INITIATED by each president... Bush v. Obama. If they did, they would not make the claim. On top of that, heaven forbid that they realize that tax revenues cratered (deficit) while Bush was at the Titanic's helm.

And why

are we still on that spending spree? More excuses please....

You act as though

You act as though Romney/Ryan have a plan to erase the national debt. They don't. It just cuts programs for the middle class and taxes for the wealthy. It has no impact the debt, and in fact perpetuates deficit spending. Perhaps you can enlighten me on the benefits of their plan.

Benefit number one

It limits the growth of governemnt spending more than any other plan. No one has ever said it stops deficit spending dead in its tracks. That is simply not possible in our current situation. What it does do is limit it more than any other plan AND has a plan to eliminate it, eventually.

" Largest debt in US history"

republican approved for the last 1 1/2 years by the republican majority House.

how do you inherit something that you were a part

You do realize that before he became President Obama that he was SENATOR Obama.

He may not have been able to do have anything passed as a junior senator, but it is DISHONEST to say that Obama "inherited" the mess since SENATOR Obama did not even SUBMIT a single bill that would have "fixed" the economic mess.

As a CANDIDATE Senator Obama could have "forced" the Senate to "fix" the mess using the campaign platform. Don't you think his followers would have called on their representative to relay Obama's message IF HE HAD ASKED THEM?

So, how does President Obama HONESTLY say that he "inherited" the economic mess when he did NOTHING. He didn't even TRY!


Neither did 99 other senators (of both parties) nor did 435 representatives (of both parties). That is a bogus argument. One senator from Illinois in two years should have fixed the system? Give me a break. The Republicans had six solid years of control of both houses, the white house and had a favorable supreme court they fixed what? Not a doggone thing!

yes, please TRY reading

It was not FIXING but TRYING to fix.

What bill of ammendment did SENATOR Obama submit to fix the economic mess? Even if it had zero chance of passage by a junior senator, what did he TRY?

Since SENATOR Obama didn't even TRY, why does he say he "inherited" the economic mess? That's like the person who killed his parents asking the judge for mercy because he is an orphan.

Obama didn't cause the mess but he LIES everytime he says he "inherited" the mess because he was part of the senate and DID NOTHING.

I truly love the hyperbole of the left

Constantly proclaiming the recent recession as the largest in history (or since the Great Depression) without a single shred of evidence to back up their claim. Tell us, Mike, by what standard do you consider it the "largest fiscal mess in american history"?

Most economists or just

Keynesian economists?

Its interesting that Romney had to shore up the GOPT base

... by picking Ryan. One would think that the base was a lock anywho. And in picking Ryan, rMoney alienates the old, white, faux-news-watching, keep-gubmint-off-my-medicare base that should have been a lock. Funny stuff.

Funny perhaps

But not nearly as funny as Obama launching "African Americans for Obama." Talk about a voting block he should have locked up.

Nah, Romney is funnier

I agree that AAFO is 'odd', especially given the craven race baiting that the GOPT/FOXNEWS employ constantly.

But thats not the same as having to pick a VP running mate to secure your own base.

And its not the same as picking a VP running mate that will ostracize his own base... that he's trying to appease.

That....... is funnier. By far.

You mean, let me understand this cause,

ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little sleepy maybe, but it's funny how, I mean funny like a clown, it amuses you? It makes you laugh, African Americans for Obama is here to amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How is it funny?

Let me help you out, good fella

Overall approval rating of President Obama's job performance is about 48%. Among black Americans it's at 90%. Forming a group to shore up a demographic in which nine out of ten approve of your performance seems funny to me. Not funny ha ha but funny strange.

The history of the treatment of African Americans,

may give a clue. Why are so many Republicans white?

2008 Election Results

95% of black voters voted against McCain and for Obama
Only 55% of white voters voted against Obama and for McCain

While I reject your unfounded ridiculous notion that Republicans are racists, and that anyone votes based on race, if we follow your logic and look at the actual percentages which party his hiding the actual racists?

I did not say Republicans are racists.

Just mostly white. Is it your conclusion that they are racists? Or, was your earlier suggestion equally bogus?

reading your post did give

reading your post did give me a bit of a chuckle but then I thought about that group organizing a get out the vote campaign and it makes a lot of sense. Sure Obama will likely get 80-90% of the black vote (as has been typical for Dem presidential candidates, race baiters) but what that percentage represents in real votes is dependent on how many black people get to vote. It's algebra or something. But do go on snickering

Obviously, TR, you have not been paying atention

to dialogue on the right. Romney needed to shore up his position with the conservatives in the Republican party. It was the establishment Republicans he had in his pocket, not the conservatives and, unless you have been ignoring recent political trends, you should know the conservative movement in the Republican party has become very important to anyone's chances of winning an election.


I will agree that there needs to be some revenue increasing in order to pay down debt, but not for new spending or for fake-out spending. I agree that taxes may need to be raised to pay debt, but they should be raised on everyone, not just a certain income bracket. I am for a fair tax. Entitlements have to be looked at & there needs to be some reducing of entitlement spending, just has to be. I know that Granny will hae to get some less in her SSI check, I know that diabled Johnny will have to get some less in his SSI check. I know that unwed pregnant Mary with 2 children will have to get less in her TANF & SNAP benefits. But if I have got to pay a little more in taxes, then all those receiving handouts should receive a little less too.

I sense that you're not out

I sense that you're not out in extreme right field. But let me give you a real life example as to why such cuts aren't always practical. My 56 yr old schizophrenic cousin is in a NN facility. In return for all her SSI, Medicaid & disability, they provide room, board, nursing care, drugs, medical care, access to minimal clothing, etc. The funds previously went to the state mental institution in Williamsburg where she was housed & cost the state more than the private facility. The facility does a reasonably good job but is nonetheless depressing. We pick her up every other weekend w/ her meds, bring her home & buy her clothes suitable to go out in public. How do you propose cutting her SSI, etc?

by the deserved

US Senator Coburn has been railing against the abuse of Social Security Disability. He has highlighted a case which the Social Security Administration DEFENDED THE APPROVAL of "adult baby" "disability".

Why should someone like your cousin have to try so hard to get the government assistance NEEDED while another that is seen working on TV (NATGEO) got approved?
SSI is for complete disability. It is all or none. It is not like the military with VA paying partial disability.

Who can defend not cutting SSI to eliminate such horrible abuse when the needy are told they are able to work (except in REAL LIFE THEY CANNOT)?

Cutting doesn't mean using a machete, it also means using careful evaluation and FIXING bad policies.

Here's a challenge for you

Go look up which administration has recovered the most funds from prosecution and adjudication of fraud waste and abuse in the Medicare system? Like which administration has deported more folks in a three year period --- you will be surprised.

I'll save you the trouble

The Administration’s anti-fraud efforts recovered $4.1 billion in taxpayer dollars last year, the second year recoveries hit this record-breaking level. Total recoveries over the last three years were $10.7 billion. Prosecutions are way up, too: the number of individuals charged with fraud increased from 797 in fiscal year 2008 to 1,430 in fiscal year 2011 – a more than 75 percent increase.

did you miss the question

Okay, then it should be easy for you to identify the policy put in place by the Obama administration's political appointees or by the president directly that caused these CAREER federal employees to do something different than they have in past administrations.

Don't worry - I will save you time - there isn't. Since they are the same employees under Bush and probably Clinton, the deportations increase probably was due to immigration judges getting caught up with their backlog of appeals.
Are you seriously believing that Medicare fraud cases prosecutions have come from cases that were INDICTED DURING the Obama presidency?
How long do you think it takes from investigation to indictment to prosecution to judgement?

Want to try again?

Facts are facts

Or are you arguing that the President can't go back to assign blame on previous administration but then has to give credit to previous adminstration for everything good that has happened? The facts are medicare fraud is a lynchpin to Health Care Reform and the emphasis of this administration has been to prosecute this crime aggressively.

The deportations occur because the administration made it a priority. Heck if only to deflect the constant harping from the right they did it through a motive of self-preservation -- whatever the reason, it has happened.

Believe what you want. Reality escapes you and that is unfortunate.

The problem that vets have always had.

What do you do after the war.
In the past WWII, Korea and Vietnam vets could go to school on the GI Bill and get a degree. A degree was valuable then as the general populace was not replete with college educated people.
That is still an option but apart from a technical degree they aren't of much value. Personal accomplishment of course but not marketable in most cases if not technical.
Or you could get a job. It use to be that you could buy every thing from auto ball joints to toilets that were made in the USA. Quality manufacturing is what the the US the dominate nation it WAS.
Today, ball joints and toilets are made in China and their economy is stronger than ours. No manufacturing = no jobs.
What to do? I dunno. Maybe increase tariffs?

A vote for Romney Ryan

Is a vote to put Americans back in chains! Theses racist repugs HAVE to be defeated!


That is an interesting comment. To bad you failed to offer a shred of evidence to back your hate-filled, hallucination.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Please note: Threaded comments work best if you view the oldest comments first.

Daily Deal |  | Promote your business