Voter education links

[Gan]

Thought I'd share a few links I've been browsing on the candidates.

John McCain
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300071
http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=53270
http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm

Barack Obama
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629
http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=9490
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

Joseph Biden
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300008
http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=53279
http://www.ontheissues.org/Joe_Biden.htm

Sarah Palin
http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm
(still looking for more not-so-partisan resources)

[crb]

Earmarks:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5540648.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/27/politics/washingtonpost/main4388540.shtml

In total since elected Obama has gotted $740 million in earmarks, in the same time McCain has gotten $0.

There are charts buried on taxpayer.net as a source, but I've finding their website difficult to navigate and it looks like they changed the URLs so all the links and google results are wrong. So I'm having trouble finding the direct link.

[Ashliana]

Talking about earmarks as a way to reduce the deficit is just smoke-and-mirrors bullshit. Earmarks are an incredibly tiny amount of our budget; if you want to cut spending--we need to seriously reform Medicare, Medicaid and most of all, cut wasteful defense spending.

[Parkbandit]

Talking about earmarks as a way to reduce the deficit is just smoke-and-mirrors bullshit. Earmarks are an incredibly tiny amount of our budget; if you want to cut spending--we need to seriously reform Medicare, Medicaid and most of all, cut wasteful defense spending.

740 million in less than 2 years is an incredible tiny amount? We have 100 senators... If they all spent money like Obama, you do the math. It is a practice from both side that needs to be ended.

Of course, I just signed a contract today for close to $30k that is for government assisted housing.. So I should just stfu. I am amazed that they took my first, highly inflated estimate AND they gave me wiggle room in case I need to charge more. "No bids, just tell me how much it'll cost and I'll submit the PO". No approval, no reference checking. Gotta love how the government works.

[crb]

Right... cut defense because the defense industry creates no jobs that cannot be outsourced for security reasons and protecting our country isn't a good thing. Obama said he would cut spending on research into new weapon systems - great way to lose our global advantage, thats not how we won the cold war Barack.

Saying earmarks doesn't matter is like some fat chick saying cutting back on her chocolate habit doesn't matter because it is only a little bit a chocolate every day. Or refusing to park further out from the store to burn a few calories walking because it is only a few calories each trip. EVERY LITTLE BIT HELPS BITCH.

T Boone Pickens is building the largest wind farm in the world in Texas for 2 billion. Obama's massive $740 million haul is actually on the small side, clinton had like 2.3 billion over the same period. So assume the average for a senate is 400 million a year. There are 100 senators, that is $40 billion a year. That doesn't even count the house, just the senate, and you're at $40 billion, with a B. Billion.

If you just took all the earmarks and instead built say wind farms you could build something 20x larger than the largest windfarm in the world with just the pork of 1 year from the senate.

But no... its only a little bit of money... it doesn't matter.

[Gan]

Just dont build the wind farms off Cape Cod. ;)

See Cape Wind.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/05/26/kennedy_eases_his_stance_on_wind_plan/
http://www.clf.org/programs/cases.asp?id=187

[crb]

I like that first site, govtrack.us

I like the little indicator meter for where they fall on the spectrum. McCain is only slightly red, Obama is way off in the blue.

Who is the moderate again?

[Ashliana]

740 million in less than 2 years is an incredible tiny amount? We have 100 senators... If they all spent money like Obama, you do the math. It is a practice from both side that needs to be ended.

Of course, I just signed a contract today for close to $30k that is for government assisted housing.. So I should just stfu. I am amazed that they took my first, highly inflated estimate AND they gave me wiggle room in case I need to charge more. "No bids, just tell me how much it'll cost and I'll submit the PO". No approval, no reference checking. Gotta love how the government works.

Because it's not as simple as you're making it out to be? Is every earmark inherently wasteful? No. Was Obama the only sponsor of these earmarks? That $740 million are requests (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/us/politics/14campaign.html)--not earmarks that actually went through.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/22/how-vulnerable-are-obama_n_87996.html

Obama's efforts have received: "$91 million in earmarks ... put[ting] him at the lower end of the spectrum" of senators.


Right... cut defense because the defense industry creates no jobs that cannot be outsourced for security reasons and protecting our country isn't a good thing. Obama said he would cut spending on research into new weapon systems - great way to lose our global advantage, thats not how we won the cold war Barack.


See, this is what makes you an idiot, Crb. As I said before, the $740 million wasn't the actual number of money. So now you're in favor of the government-provided jobs for people simply because they can't be outsourced? Brilliant. Good to see that you're in favor of liberal economic policy.

You're stuck in a cold war mentality. We spend ten times as much on "defense" as the #2 spender--it's an enormous waste of money. Yes, waste.



Saying earmarks doesn't matter is like some fat chick saying cutting back on her chocolate habit doesn't matter because it is only a little bit a chocolate every day. Or refusing to park further out from the store to burn a few calories walking because it is only a few calories each trip. EVERY LITTLE BIT HELPS BITCH.

That would work if you eliminated the tiny fraction of spending that goes to earmarks along with cutting the ENORMOUS EXPENDITURE OF ENTITLEMENETS AND DEFENSE SPENDING. Instead of cutting a single hershey's kiss a day, how about skipping the GIANT PIZZA COVERED IN CHOCOLATE SAUCE?


T Boone Pickens is building the largest wind farm in the world in Texas for 2 billion. Obama's massive $740 million haul is actually on the small side, clinton had like 2.3 billion over the same period. So assume the average for a senate is 400 million a year. There are 100 senators, that is $40 billion a year. That doesn't even count the house, just the senate, and you're at $40 billion, with a B. Billion.

If you just took all the earmarks and instead built say wind farms you could build something 20x larger than the largest windfarm in the world with just the pork of 1 year from the senate.

But no... its only a little bit of money... it doesn't matter.

Again, your figures are fudged because it suits your argument.

"Having said that, earmarks account for only about 0.6 percent of government spending and 0.1 percent of GDP."
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2008/earmark_reform.html

"Earmarks for 2008 are projected to be just one half of one percent of the budget."
http://www.drummajorinstitute.org/library/article.php?ID=6676

Earmarks are not the source of fiscal irresponsibility that the republican-controlled congress and republican-controlled presidency have created since Clinton's departure. It's irresponsible defense spending and not reforming Medicare/Social security/etc.

[Khariz]

Cutting defense spending is pretty much the worst idea ever. Defense/Military is like one of three things the Federal Government actually SHOULD be doing. There's about 30983094587309587349508734975843695873649873659837 6593874653947563948o576329457863498576349587365897 other things that could be legitimately constitutional cut if we would stop reading shit into the document that isn't there.

[Gan]

Earmarks are not the source of fiscal irresponsibility that the republican-controlled congress and republican-controlled presidency have created since Clinton's departure. It's irresponsible defense spending and not reforming Medicare/Social security/etc.

And earmarks are something that not even the Democrat controlled Congress is willing to eliminate.

Does it matter as much as who built the custom jet if the current owner refuses to put it on ebay?

[Ashliana]

And earmarks are something that not even the Democrat controlled Congress is willing to eliminate.

Does it matter as much as who built the custom jet if the current owner refuses to put it on ebay?

That's right! Now that the democrat's have regained 51-49 control in the senate, and 235-199 in the congress, everything becomes the fault of the democrats. Because they definitely have the majority they need to force the other side's hand!

The point that I'm making is not that the democrats don't use earmarks. Both sides do. The point is that earmarks are not:

1) necessarily a waste of money
2) the source of the massively increasing federal deficit.

The source of the federal deficit?

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/images/stories/chartspage/totaloutlaysfy2008.gif


Entitlements. Defense. They're what need reform. Not the tiny, less-than-1%of-the-budget earmarks.

[Gan]

That's right! Now that the democrat's have regained 51-49 control in the senate, and 235-199 in the congress, everything becomes the fault of the democrats. Because they definitely have the majority they need to force the other side's hand!

The point that I'm making is not that the democrats don't use earmarks. Both sides do. The point is that earmarks are not:

1) necessarily a waste of money
2) the source of the massively increasing federal deficit.

Entitlements. Defense. They're what need reform. Not the tiny, less-than-1%of-the-budget earmarks.

We agree in pricipal. We disagree in that earmarks are bad/good.
I'd like to see either greater transparency in not only proposed earmarks but the reporting of passed earmarks as well. If that cant be done, another vehicle needs to be used in getting the funding necessary for the congressman's constituency that promotes accountability and transparency. Regardless of its presence in the budget, if its wasteful or below the table then it needs reformed. Especially if it is below the table.

So one camp is campaigning on earmark reform and another on change when reform is perceived as insignificant and change is not espoused by the very people supporting the candidacy.

I'll take insignificant change as a stepping stone over change thats not likely to happen based on current behaviors.

[crb]

Because it's not as simple as you're making it out to be? Is every earmark inherently wasteful? No. Was Obama the only sponsor of these earmarks? That $740 million are requests--not earmarks that actually went through.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...a_n_87996.html

Obama's efforts have received: "$91 million in earmarks ... put[ting] him at the lower end of the spectrum" of senators.
$740 is since entering office

$91 is for 2007.

and either one is still infinitely more than McCain's 0.



See, this is what makes you an idiot, Crb. As I said before, the $740 million wasn't the actual number of money. So now you're in favor of the government-provided jobs for people simply because they can't be outsourced? Brilliant. Good to see that you're in favor of liberal economic policy.

You're stuck in a cold war mentality. We spend ten times as much on "defense" as the #2 spender--it's an enormous waste of money. Yes, waste.

I'm calling you a hypocrite for being a liberal and being against defense spending because of how it makes jobs.

We won the cold war because we won the arms race. The soviets could not keep up and their economy collasped. Since the end of the cold war we've maintained peace because of our military. Reducing our military advantage is only going to lead to the type of world where we fight big wars, instead of little ones. I don't much want to see WW3, and the best way to ensure it doesn't happen (in addition to promoting free trade) is to make sure we maintain massive crushing force in comparison to everyone else.

You keep bitching about defense spending, while out of the same corner of your mouth calling earmarks not wasteful.

Do you know why earmarks ARE wasteful? BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT FUCKING VOTED ON YOU IGNORANT COW. Defense spending is voted on, there is accountability, earmarks are just slyly slipped in with more or less no review by the legislature, and with no line-item veto the executive can't do much about it either.

And in anycase, defense is not a black hole. All the defense industry workers pay income tax, all of the defense industry companies pay taxes, and we sell our superior technology to our allies for a profit. Defense exports are big business. Which helps with our trade deficit. Then obviously the economic risks of having a weak military are far greater than the economic risks of having a strong one.

Now you can, aim for more efficient defense spending, such as John McCain's stance on getting that airforce tanker deal redone. However... to do what Barack Obama wants to do and cut back on technological advancement is fucking dumb. If the United States ever loses military superiority we will be infinitely closer to WW3 and a nuclear holocaust.

[Ashliana]

$740 is since entering office

$91 is for 2007.

and either one is still infinitely more than McCain's 0.

Again, no. $740 is the total for his proposed earmarks, the total that he himself offered. I provided two sources for that. Find your own.


I'm calling you a hypocrite for being a liberal and being against defense spending because of how it makes jobs.

And I'm calling you an idiot for trying to label me as something I'm not, and then ignorantly basing a flawed argument upon it. Wasteful spending is wasteful spending. Wasteful defense spending is wasteful spending. This isn't rocket science. 0.5% of the federal budget is a far cry from, oh, say, the Iraq War, which is spending $10,000,000,000 a month?


We won the cold war because we won the arms race. The soviets could not keep up and their economy collasped. Since the end of the cold war we've maintained peace because of our military. Reducing our military advantage is only going to lead to the type of world where we fight big wars, instead of little ones. I don't much want to see WW3, and the best way to ensure it doesn't happen (in addition to promoting free trade) is to make sure we maintain massive crushing force in comparison to everyone else.

Newsflash: The cold war is over. We do not have to continue spending ten times the amount of even the NUMBER TWO spender in order to remain on top.


You keep bitching about defense spending, while out of the same corner of your mouth calling earmarks not wasteful.

Earmarks are not inherently wasteful. They're not just money being poured into some pit. They have a purpose. The point is that they're a miniscule part of the federal budget, and yet we have douchebags like you acting like they're the source of our federal deficit, which is bullshit. It's a smokescreen issue meant to distract people from worrying about the REAL issues.


Do you know why earmarks ARE wasteful? BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT FUCKING VOTED ON YOU IGNORANT COW. Defense spending is voted on, there is accountability, earmarks are just slyly slipped in with more or less no review by the legislature, and with no line-item veto the executive can't do much about it either.

Except they are voted on, dumbass! If the earmark warranted it, the political will of the opposition would force its removal. You're ignorantly claiming there's no recourse or defense against earmarks, which is bullshit. If we pressured our legislators into actually READING what they're signing, it wouldn't happen. But they definitely have the means to address them.


And in anycase, defense is not a black hole. All the defense industry workers pay income tax, all of the defense industry companies pay taxes, and we sell our superior technology to our allies for a profit. Defense exports are big business. Which helps with our trade deficit. Then obviously the economic risks of having a weak military are far greater than the economic risks of having a strong one.

Again, you're arguing that government and not private business should be providing jobs and controlling the marketplace. How economically liberal of you!


Now you can, aim for more efficient defense spending, such as John McCain's stance on getting that airforce tanker deal redone. However... to do what Barack Obama wants to do and cut back on technological advancement is fucking dumb. If the United States ever loses military superiority we will be infinitely closer to WW3 and a nuclear holocaust.

I'm not against military research or technological advancement. The entire point of this was--as you've opted not to discuss--that it makes no sense to argue about earmarks, a TINY portion of the budget, as "wasteful spending" when there are huge money pits like entitlements, and enormous expenditures like defense spending that could be cut.

You want solid, long-term defense applications? Put an end--the right way--to our unnecessary wars, and invest that money in NASA. Develop space superiority. Or simply give it back to the taxpayers.

[crb]

Your attitude is exactly what is wrong with washington.

"Its only $50 million for this park, or that bridge, or whatever, so its okay, lets not worry about it."

It is a fucking bad attitude and fiscally irresponsible. Any family on a budget will tell you that every purchase matters.

[Ashliana]

I think your attitude is exactly what's wrong--focusing on less than 1% of the budget, claiming it breaks the bank, and refusing to confront the enormous, looming money pits that we've set up in defense and entitlements, responsible for over 50% of the budget--and GROWING!

[Parkbandit]

I think your attitude is exactly what's wrong--focusing on less than 1% of the budget, claiming it breaks the bank, and refusing to confront the enormous, looming money pits that we've set up in defense and entitlements, responsible for over 50% of the budget--and GROWING!

According to your chart.. entitlements by themselves account for over 50%.. I'm certain that is your main focus for reform, yes?

[Ashliana]

According to your chart.. entitlements by themselves account for over 50%.. I'm certain that is your main focus for reform, yes?

Yep. I mentioned both right off the bat. But his knee-jerk, neo-con response "NO! WE CAN'T CUT DEFENSE!" reaction let me to point out that defense spending is the next biggest chunk. You're aware, I'm sure, that the various defense agencies don't come close to using as much money as they have, and every year blow through it all so they don't get shortchanged the next year when they need it. That's what I'd call a broken, wasteful appropriations system.

The entitlements are broken, because of population demographics. I'm personally opposed to a federal retirement system--there's no reason to have the government do it--but other areas I believe in. Medicaid, for instance. They badly need reform. They haven't yet reached "critical" status, whereas I think we could easily, safely and quickly scale back our military spending. Not "to zero," before Crb explode in neo-con rage. But not the absurd levels we spend now.

[Daniel]

We won the cold war because we won the arms race. The soviets could not keep up and their economy collasped. Since the end of the cold war we've maintained peace because of our military. Reducing our military advantage is only going to lead to the type of world where we fight big wars, instead of little ones. I don't much want to see WW3, and the best way to ensure it doesn't happen (in addition to promoting free trade) is to make sure we maintain massive crushing force in comparison to everyone else.



Wow.

Okay. So we won the cold war because of an arms race. Congrats. Now, who exactly are we competing with 19 years later?

How exactly has our "Crushing force in comparison" helped us out in Somalia\Kosovo\Bosnia\Iraq\Afghanistan\War on Terror?

[Khariz]

Wow.

Okay. So we won the cold war because of an arms race. Congrats. Now, who exactly are we competing with 19 years later?

How exactly has our "Crushing force in comparison" helped us out in Somalia\Kosovo\Bosnia\Iraq\Afghanistan\War on Terror?

So you think we should reduce the size of our military, just because nobody else's can compete with ours? I'm confused. I really doubt that's your opinion.

[Daniel]

So you think we should reduce the size of our military, just because nobody else's can compete with ours? I'm confused. I really doubt that's your opinion.

Let me illustrate my perspective:

In 2002 I got assigned to the new Stryker Brigade Combat Team which was being stood up at Ft. Lewis. This was the newest baddest vehicle that the Army was fielding. It was built off the chasis of an updated vehicle in use by the marine Corp with all sorts of Gizmos. At the time I was in Fallujah our Recce Platoon had the same reconnasaince capacity as the entire 1st Cavalry Division.

There are now probably about 8-9 of these brigades at about 50 Billion a pop. To say nothing off the new logistical and repair burden they created when we deployed to Iraq (which was huge).

About 6 months after I got to the unit, and before they were even operational, I heard about an entirely new fleet of vehicles that was being developed for probably dozens of billions of dollars. Which in turn will take Hundreds of Billions of dollars to field.

Do I want our soldiers on the field with inferior equipment? Of course not.

But think about this. The M1A1 was first fielded in 1981. 27 years later it is still the king of the battlefield. No one is coming close, except crafty shit heads that you can never stop (which is another train of thought).

The question you have to ask yourself is what is the marginal utility of all this? Does it really make our soldiers more effective? Has it really made us more fearsome and intimidating to the world?

You think Al'Qeada has ever really gave a fuck about how bad ass our helicopters are? We didn't gain Anbar until we actually started talking to the local people and getting them involved. I could have done that with a pair of dockers and a fishing pole.

My position is simply, we're 20 years beyond the rest of the world in regards to military technology. It doesn't do us any good to be 40 if we're still losing wars and spending billions of dollars that could be spent on other things that have a higher marginal utility for American prosperity and security.

[Khariz]

Fair enough, Daniel.

But my question, what happens when we put the military on pause and someone else clandestinely gains 5 years of technology on us. What if by the time we realize it, it's too late? I don't want to take that chance.

The odds of it happening that way? Astronomically low. But again...Don't really wanna risk it. I say instead of paying our contractors up front to come up with something new, we let them foot the R&D bill, and when they come up with someone we want, we buy it.

Let's let capitalism come up with the next big thing...of course...what happens when we don't buy it and they sell it to someone else...hmm.

[Daniel]

I'm not saying we stop. I'm saying we need to get out of the Cold war mentality of build everything we can, as fast as we can because if we don't the ruskies are going to take over.

That means re thinking what we do and how we do it.

[Khariz]

I'm not saying we stop. I'm saying we need to get out of the Cold war mentality of build everything we can, as fast as we can because if we don't the ruskies are going to take over.

That means re thinking what we do and how we do it.

Okay, cool. You think that's what Ashliana means too?

[Daniel]

Okay, cool. You think that's what Ashliana means too?

To be honest? I doubt she has the depth and insight that I do into the subject. So, probably not. However, I wasn't arguing against her because it doesn't matter if she has the specifics right. She has the gist right and that's what will get us to the point of thinking critically. Besides, it's not like she is going to be the one doling out the red ink anyway.

I was arguing against CRB because his position doesn't allow for another discussion to be had.

[Apathy]

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/images/stories/chartspage/totaloutlaysfy2008.gif


The 3% for veterans in that pie makes me completely sick to my stomach.

btw, what is the difference between social security and income security?

[Daniel]

The 3% for veterans in that pie makes me completely sick to my stomach.

btw, what is the difference between social security and income security?

Welfare\Unemployment\Disability vs Social Security after age 65.

P.s. FFS everyone knows that all our troubled veterans are a figment of the liberal media.

[TheRunt]

A bit late but according to Obama "only" 220 million of his earmarks have been approved by congress.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/us/politics/14campaign.html
One of which was turned down was....1 Mil for the hospital his wife is vice president of.

[TheRunt]

Obama is jumping on the earmarks are bad bandwagon now also. Along with Clinton.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/13/earmark.vote/

[crb]

The 3% for veterans in that pie makes me completely sick to my stomach.

btw, what is the difference between social security and income security?
Why would that make you sick?

3% of 3 trillion is a big fucking chunk of change. 25 million veterans in the US. That'll include career military and people who just did 1 tour (obviously, benefits being different between them). Assuming every veteran in the military accessed the benefits equally every year that'd give each one $3600 a year in benefits... but they don't. People who have service related injuries and people who put in enough time get the healthcare for life and get the pensions and whatnot, John McCain for instance. Others who did 1 tour have things like the GI Bill, which is a one time thing when they're younger. And, of course, being a veteran doesn't disqualify you from other federal programs, SS & Medicare, so the actual government spending on veterans is higher, that 3% is just for additional spending above for the average citizen.

I just don't see how a percentage of our budget can be so offensive. I can understand being offended at bureaucratic red tape at Veteran's hospitals, I can understand wanting to flesh out and modernize the GI Bill, but these things involve legislative reforms, not just budget increases.

[Daniel]

it's offensive because it's not enough. The GI bill covered less than 1/5 of my college expenses. A 100% disabled veteran makes prob less then 40 grand a year. You think that's good enough? That doesn't even say anything about the lack of services available.

Perhaps the only thing I could say I despise McCain for is his stance against expanding the gi bill because it would cause less people to enlist. FFS

[crb]

it's offensive because it's not enough. The GI bill covered less than 1/5 of my college expenses. A 100% disabled veteran makes prob less then 40 grand a year. You think that's good enough? That doesn't even say anything about the lack of services available.

Perhaps the only thing I could say I despise McCain for is his stance against expanding the gi bill because it would cause less people to enlist. FFS
Weren't you the one who went to an expensive private school, and then said if you couldn't afford it you wouldn't have gone to any school at all?

Maybe, you know, a public state college or community college would be more realistic.

And I believe John McCain's complaint against the most recent try to change the GI Bill is that it rewarded people who served longer the same as those who served shorter, and he wanted a scale of benefits to encourage people to reenlist and serve longer.

[Daniel]

Weren't you the one who went to an expensive private school, and then said if you couldn't afford it you wouldn't have gone to any school at all?

Maybe, you know, a public state college or community college would be more realistic.

And I believe John McCain's complaint against the most recent try to change the GI Bill is that it rewarded people who served longer the same as those who served shorter, and he wanted a scale of benefits to encourage people to reenlist and serve longer.

No. I'm the guy who went to a community college to get a two year degree, while active duty. I then transferred to a expensive private university on scholarship.

I could have gone to a state school but I wouldn't gotten what I wanted and the gi bill still wouldn't have been enough.

The new bill now provides for full tuition and board which was the original intent. Although your excuse is just as fucked up but that wasn't mccain. Mccain opposed it because he thought providing education would discourage soldiers from staying in the military. Which, frankly is retarded, elitist and incredibly out of touch.

No thoughts on disability or access?

[crb]

No. I'm the guy who went to a community college to get a two year degree, while active duty. I then transferred to a expensive private university on scholarship.

I could have gone to a state school but I wouldn't gotten what I wanted and the gi bill still wouldn't have been enough.

The new bill now provides for full tuition and board which was the original intent. Although your excuse is just as fucked up but that wasn't mccain. Mccain opposed it because he thought providing education would discourage soldiers from staying in the military. Which, frankly is retarded, elitist and incredibly out of touch.

No thoughts on disability or access?
I'm going to have to ask you for a source. I've been a McCain fan for 8 years see, I voted for him way back in 2000, I've been following his career that long. I can't remember him ever saying what you allude to him saying. he wants to change the GI bill, make it better, increase benefits, he merely wants to have a scale where benefits grow with time served.

As for disability, I don't know much about the pay levels, but if your $40k a year is accurate, I'd say that is fine, lots of people would like to make $40k a year and if you're a dual earner household that is $80k a year. Plus that is merely a payment, in addition to the $40k you get medical benefits, which alone have to be worth alot. Not to say our veteran medical care is perfect, it isn't, but I'd rather fix the medical care than pay more in disability benefits to make up for poor medical care.

[Daniel]

I'm going to have to ask you for a source. I've been a McCain fan for 8 years see, I voted for him way back in 2000, I've been following his career that long. I can't remember him ever saying what you allude to him saying. he wants to change the GI bill, make it better, increase benefits, he merely wants to have a scale where benefits grow with time served.

As for disability, I don't know much about the pay levels, but if your $40k a year is accurate, I'd say that is fine, lots of people would like to make $40k a year and if you're a dual earner household that is $80k a year. Plus that is merely a payment, in addition to the $40k you get medical benefits, which alone have to be worth alot. Not to say our veteran medical care is perfect, it isn't, but I'd rather fix the medical care than pay more in disability benefits to make up for poor medical care.

I can't post links. It's not hard. Go to google. Type in McCain gi bill and read the results. Furthermore, the gi bill is skewed so that you have to serve three years active duty to get the full benefit. If you don't think that's sufficient in a time of war then you're just a tool.

And if you really think 40k is sufficient for someone who is totally and completely disabled as a direct result of their military service then I'm going to strongly question your claims to putting country first. I guess it's fine to spend trillions on fighting wars but not ok to spend more on the people who actually bear that burden.

[Stanley Burrell]

Welfare\Unemployment\Disability vs Social Security after age 65.

P.s. FFS everyone knows that all our troubled veterans are a figment of the liberal media.

Speaking in a purely fascist overtone: If we were to send our elders on a nice little trip to the sun once their workplace efficiencies expired, it would be at a significantly later age than what we used to determine as senile.

I don't know if that's good or bad.