Skip to main content

View Diary: Sanders Helped Kill Military Pension Cut By Threatening the War Budget (60 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Really? What precisely does it say? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Silina

    It tells those who are serving in the middle of a shooting war that you are willing to threaten removal of their support in the middle of that warzone in order to protect veterans and their families at home.

    You forget a few things:
    One, those downrange are also veterans. You do realize that what is cut isn't people, but resources. Resources like fuel for air support, fuel for vehicles, ammunition, well, we can really pull the belt tight, cut back on food and medicine for the troops!

    You see, I am a military retiree. I retired and redeployed home from downrange.
    So, please, kindly do not screw my brothers and sisters downrange, who are fighting to keep rather unpleasant men from ramming airplanes into our office buildings and blowing up office buildings and embassies, just to protect me.
    For, doing so dishonors me in the greatest way I can imagine, short of surrendering to the Taliban or Al Qaeda.
    If you want to send a message, do it to the REMF crowd that is CONUS, start with the Pentagon, move toward the Puzzle Palace, not against those who are bleeding right now protecting you.

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I honestly think I'm going to puke.

    •  I understand what you are saying, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Silina, dewolf99

      my husband is a retired vet and I am a vet too.  I remember what it was like during the Carter administration when the military budget was cut to the bone and we had problems getting needed parts for aircraft to be fixed.  I don't think we are there right now, and hopefully the cuts will not impact those downrange.  There is waste in the military budget, we all know it, and those cuts could be made without harming the troops or our readiness.  Plus lets face it, we need to get out of Afganistan, completely.  It is a mess that is only going to get worse and I hate the thought of us losing anymore of our men and women over there.  Look at what happened the other day, when dangerous men were released by Karzi, men who had killed Americans.  They aren't serious about democracy over there, they are tribal and will continue to be tribal.  They didn't want the Russians and they don't want us.  We should leave, and save lives.  

      •  Even the British (0+ / 0-)

        and many centuries prior it was Genghis Khan who tried to rule Afghanistan, no one can, no one will be able to, for the reasons that you stated. Afghanistan and many other nations in that area are tribal, with each tribe virtually a separate nation.

    •  Our government owes you (0+ / 0-)

      a secure retirement, and all the care that you and your fellow service men and women need.  They owe you  this care, education, job placement with a decent living wage and what ever you need for the rest of your life and the rest of the life of your spouse, whether the service person's spouse was in the armed services or not. This is the very least that our country owes you for your and your spouse's sacrifice on behalf of a government that sent you into harm's way.

    •  there's plenty of extra money in the war budget (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      acornweb

      the status quo plan is to use this extra money for Congressional pork that the Pentagon doesn't need, like the 11th aircraft carrier (ie not retiring the USS George Washington.)

      Which would you rather see: 11 aircraft carriers, or keeping the promise to veterans on pensions?

       

    •  re: downrange (0+ / 0-)

      You're writing like cutting the war budget is going to make there be less resources to support war, while keeping the amount of war constant. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this is the case, and the unchallenged claim that it is the case has been used to block action to cut the war budget for far too long.

      First: The current war budget has more money in it than needed to prosecute the war in Afghanistan under any scenario. Congress added more money to the war budget than the President requested. Congress did this because it has been using the war budget as a slush fund to protect the base Pentagon budget from cuts. The first things that are going to be cut if the war budget comes under scrutiny is "base Pentagon budget" stuff that the Pentagon told Congress that it didn't want but Congress wants to fund anyway because of campaign donations from Pentagon contractors.

      Second: the amount of Afghanistan war is not fixed. It's a political choice that should be decided democratically, knowing that more war has a budgetary cost. How many US troops will be in Afghanistan after December 31, if any? Not decided. How fast should troops come out in 2014? Not decided. These choices, not yet made, have dollar signs attached. Why is it reasonable to talk about cutting military pensions, breaking a promise, but not reasonable to talk about saving money by taking troops out of Afghanistan faster than the Pentagon brass wants, even though bringing the troops out faster breaks no promise? And, indeed, bringing out troops faster keeps faith with the troops and the American people who don't want to see more sacrifice for no good reason?

      Do you really think that keeping an extra 12,000 troops in Afghanistan for an extra six months would have a significant positive impact on the threat of terrorism in the United States? If so, can you explain why?

      Note that keeping an extra 12,000 troops in Afghanistan for an extra six months will cost about six billion dollars, approximately the ten year cost of the military pension fix.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (121)
  • Community (58)
  • 2016 (45)
  • Elections (37)
  • Environment (35)
  • Media (34)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (33)
  • Republicans (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Law (28)
  • Barack Obama (27)
  • Iraq (27)
  • Civil Rights (25)
  • Jeb Bush (24)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Culture (23)
  • Economy (20)
  • Bernie Sanders (18)
  • Labor (18)
  • White House (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site