By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Okalhoma Senator Tom Coburn (Republican) blocking aid to veterans

http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=11481148

Sen. Coburn said Senate Bill 1963 would cost taxpayers $3.7 billion over the next five years, but many veterans said the senator is putting politics over their health.

Disabled veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are giving Senator Tom Coburn an earful after he blocked legislation that would give new healthcare services to veterans.

Sen. Coburn released a statement stating, "If Senators would pay for this program and make a few changes it could pass the senate today."

 

Save money somewhere else senator.



Thanks to Blacksaber for the sig!

Around the Network

No surprise really, this isn't the first time aid or benefits have been denied or taken away from American veterans. For the most part it's always politics ahead of the people.



Maybe we could funnel that $3.7b away from welfare and give it to the vets?



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

mrstickball said:
Maybe we could funnel that $3.7b away from welfare and give it to the vets?

Better yet, why couldn't this join the 3 or 4 actually helpful things in the stimulus bill. It seems stuff that would actually help real people was not included in that waste of time and money.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Or maybe we could stop funneling hundreds of billions of dollars into failed wars.



Around the Network
dystopia said:
Or maybe we could stop funneling hundreds of billions of dollars into failed wars.

Iraq isn't quite failed, but I agree with your overall point. It'd be best if we tried to cut as much funding to useless things as possible.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Less wars = a smaller medical bill for soldiers. I agree with the assertion.



mrstickball said:
dystopia said:
Or maybe we could stop funneling hundreds of billions of dollars into failed wars.

Iraq isn't quite failed, but I agree with your overall point. It'd be best if we tried to cut as much funding to useless things as possible.

I wouldn't be so sure, we pay a lot of bribes to keep it half-way peaceful in the major areas there and when that money dries up it will be a different story. And Afghanistan.. that's never going to turn out good, we're just dumping money into the wars to try to cover our asses for not moving to a more stable and renewable energy source 4 decades ago.



Where on earth do people get the idea that either of the wars are about oil?

I honestly don't get it.

As for the bill, I don't know it but I don't think any bill should automatically get a free-pass just because it has to do with vets. It has to be a good bill in the first place as well.



I don't get why someone would invade Afghanistan for oil. That would be like attacking Egypt for snow.

Furthermore, I'd love for someone to show me a graph showing how much of our current oil supply is from Iraq.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.