Farm and GI bills face the threat of a veto

[Tsa`ah]

The Farm Bill passes the house and senate by 318-106 and 85-15 margins respectively.

While the primary goal of the bill is to increase aid in respect to rising food costs, there are several additions to it that address issues such as subsidy caps and conservation.

It appears that the bi-partisan movement will have enough leg power to over-ride a veto.

Bush has also vowed to veto the latest GI Bill ... which would make him the first president in US history to veto Vet benefits. From the rhetoric being tossed around on either side of Congress ... I get the feeling that this piece of legislation will also have the leg power to ignore a veto.

[Gan]

Exactly what are the details and riders on the bill that makes W want to veto them?

I know I've read that the GI Bill has timeline specific language that has been included even though the Democrats know that Bush will veto anything with such language.

I have not read up on the farm subsidy bill yet to know why its under threat of veto.

I suppose I'll look up some links in a bit and post them so we can discuss the merits of why they're under threat of veto.

:shrug:

[thefarmer]

It wouldn't surprise me if both sides (Dem/Repub) wanted to sneak in some extra stuff under the cover of G.I. Bill.

[Stanley Burrell]

"I thought they meant those liberal feminazis who used godless pro-abortion medicine on lions and tigers and bears?"

/South of the Mason Dixon

[ClydeR]

The whole point of the farm bill was to give Republicans a chance to vote to override Bush's veto so they can show the folks back home how independent they are.

That GI bill is more of a political problem. Fortunately, the Republicans have an alternative to the Democrat proposal. The Democrat bill is basically the same tired old big government giveaway we did after World War II, but the Republican plan will cost less and encourage retention of military personnel by requiring longer service to qualify for the most generous benefits.

[thefarmer]

Why would they need to require longer service?

From what I've read/understand the military can extend your service/tour regardless of whether you want to or not (in some cases).

[TheEschaton]

That GI bill is more of a political problem. Fortunately, the Republicans have an alternative to the Democrat proposal. The Democrat bill is basically the same tired old big government giveaway we did after World War II, but the Republican plan will cost less and encourage retention of military personnel by requiring longer service to qualify for the most generous benefits.

Funny, that "same tired old big government giveaway we did after World War II" created a new middle class.

[Stanley Burrell]

Timing baby boomers to collect social benefits in-between war generations is a strategic technique nowadays. We need more blowjobs.

[Tsa`ah]

Exactly what are the details and riders on the bill that makes W want to veto them?

On both it's the "cost". In regards to the Farm Bill, and a point I actually agree with Bush on, is the subsidy cap on NAI/NFI. To get key republicans on board the cap was reduced from somewhere over two mill to around 3/4 of a mill. Bush thinks that should be lower ... at around 200 grand. I personally think it should be 100 grand or lower.

The GI Bill becomes less of a financial reason and more of a political reason IMO. McCain is opposed to it because of the cost and utility use of it ... I'll point it out when I respond to tard boy.


I know I've read that the GI Bill has timeline specific language that has been included even though the Democrats know that Bush will veto anything with such language.

Like most bills of a financial nature, there's a shelf life. I don't believe (once passed) this one would be up for discussion again for quite some time


The whole point of the farm bill was to give Republicans a chance to vote to override Bush's veto so they can show the folks back home how independent they are.

Actually they started jumping on board in droves about the time they lost the first seat in special elections. It's called manning the life rafts until the next big ship comes along.


That GI bill is more of a political problem. Fortunately, the Republicans have an alternative to the Democrat proposal. The Democrat bill is basically the same tired old big government giveaway we did after World War II, but the Republican plan will cost less and encourage retention of military personnel by requiring longer service to qualify for the most generous benefits.

The GI bill was utilized as both a recruitment tool and a means in which soldiers could successfully reintegrate into civilian life after service to their country. All things considered, that was the least we and our government could do for them.

The current bill doesn't do anything overly spectacular outside of giving ANY combat veteran benefits no matter the duration of their service. It really doesn't make sense for a soldier serving just under a year to become disabled in combat and thus unfit to serve, get discharged with a medal and a heart ... and a sorry about your piss poor luck ... no GI Bill for you.

Additionally it increases the benefit (which has been long over due) and removes the pay forfeiture for those pursuing GI benefits for education.

McCain, and thus Bush at this point, want a retention tool and as such want to increase the required amount of service .... to the tune of 12 years.

It's flawed logic. People enter the service for an education opportunity they normally wouldn't get. It's not like they sign a paper and get free cash ... they earn it many times over. Very few people are going to sign up for 12 years of service for a chance to get a degree at 34 years of age. You may as well suck it up and stay another 8 and get a pension. In fact, such requirements would provide endless opportunities to deny our soldiers the benefits.

There is never a good reason to deny our soldiers benefits.