Senate Republicans Block Benefits to Homeless Women Veterans

[JakeStarkey]

Anybody voting against help for homeless vets are morally worthy of being impeached, sent home, and tried for malfeasance of office, and jailed for a long, long time.

 

[theHawk]

Funny how during the Reagan Star Wars years we were told that borrowing money for the military was always good borrowing. But now special funding for military people with special needs is bad because we have to borrow the money.

And it couldn't be that when reservists were called away from their jobs, that the loss of income prevented them from keeping up their housing payments making them homeless, it must be that the military are a bunch of drug addicts.

So you have proof that the majority of these homeless were reservists that lost their income, knowing of course that they would lose that income if and when they are called up.

So you have proof that they were drug addicts?

Actually yes, if you bothered to look at your own links you'd see that the posterchild for this was featured in Huffo. She was a soldier who couldn't hack it, of course she claims that she was raped but didn't go to the cops and has zero proof. She was booted out for being a lunatic, and yes, she even confesses that she got addicted to drugs.

 

[Sallow]

Had you not heard it is Obamas wars now. Why should the right support vets?

 

[theHawk]

I wonder if you libs would approve of cutting welfare and unemployment to fund these homeless vets?

Shouldn't we take care of our vets first and foremost?

Typical CON$ervative pitting one needy group against another.

Why not have those who benefit most, from Americans risking their LIVES to protect the wealthy's right to private ownership, contribute a little extra?

Oh that's Right, The wealthy risking money to "create jobs" overseas is a greater risk and sacrifice than an American risking their lives to defend this great country.

You are inferring that "the rich" don't contribute more than everyone else. The further up the income bracket you go, the higher the taxes are. Unless you can prove otherwise, you are full of shit.

 

[Sallow]

Why does the right hate our troops?

 

[Sallow]

I wonder if you libs would approve of cutting welfare and unemployment to fund these homeless vets?

Shouldn't we take care of our vets first and foremost?

Typical CON$ervative pitting one needy group against another.

Why not have those who benefit most, from Americans risking their LIVES to protect the wealthy's right to private ownership, contribute a little extra?

Oh that's Right, The wealthy risking money to "create jobs" overseas is a greater risk and sacrifice than an American risking their lives to defend this great country.

You are inferring that "the rich" don't contribute more than everyone else. The further up the income bracket you go, the higher the taxes are. Unless you can prove otherwise, you are full of shit.

Percentage wise?

Most of the wealthy are wealthy because they got some fat government contract somewhere along the line.

As in..they take in much more taxes..then they give back. They also use more tax payer funded infrastructure then they pay for..

So in terms of society?

They are big fat leeches.

 

[theHawk]

Anybody voting against help for homeless vets are morally worthy of being impeached, sent home, and tried for malfeasance of office, and jailed for a long, long time.

How about providing proof that they voted "against help for homeless vets"?

This bill was about increasing spending in an already existing program. The program has not been cut, nor was there ever a vote to cut the current program to my knowledge.

 

[Sallow]

Anybody voting against help for homeless vets are morally worthy of being impeached, sent home, and tried for malfeasance of office, and jailed for a long, long time.

 

[Moonglow]

I wonder if you libs would approve of cutting welfare and unemployment to fund these homeless vets?

Shouldn't we take care of our vets first and foremost?

these programs have already been reduced, the heat assistance for the poor has been cut by 50%.
What else do you not know?

 

[theHawk]

Typical CON$ervative pitting one needy group against another.

Why not have those who benefit most, from Americans risking their LIVES to protect the wealthy's right to private ownership, contribute a little extra?

Oh that's Right, The wealthy risking money to "create jobs" overseas is a greater risk and sacrifice than an American risking their lives to defend this great country.

You are inferring that "the rich" don't contribute more than everyone else. The further up the income bracket you go, the higher the taxes are. Unless you can prove otherwise, you are full of shit.

Percentage wise?

Most of the wealthy are wealthy because they got some fat government contract somewhere along the line.

As in..they take in much more taxes..then they give back. They also use more tax payer funded infrastructure then they pay for..

So in terms of society?

They are big fat leeches.

I see, so using tax dollars to give to people who don't work at all is A-OK in your book.
But if the government pays people to do work that the government needs done for itself, well that's what you call "leeching".

Gotta love liberal logic.

 

[theHawk]

Why does the right hate our troops?

What proof do you have that "the right" hates our troops?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anybody voting against help for homeless vets are morally worthy of being impeached, sent home, and tried for malfeasance of office, and jailed for a long, long time.

How about providing proof that they voted "against help for homeless vets"?

This bill was about increasing spending in an already existing program. The program has not been cut, nor was there ever a vote to cut the current program to my knowledge.

Proof? Your point is hot air without it.

 

[Trajan]

Newsflash: Senate Republicans Block Benefits to Homeless Women Veterans : Ms Magazine Blog

Senate conservatives blocked the Homeless Women Veterans and Homeless Veterans with Children Act on Tuesday, following an objection from Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK, left), who spoke out in opposition to the bill. The $3.4 billion bill, introduced by Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), would have provided special benefits to homeless women veterans (as well as to homeless male veterans with dependent children). The defeat comes at a time when homelessness among women veterans has dramatically increased. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the number of homeless women veterans has nearly doubled over the past ten years. The trend is even more apparent among homeless veterans under 45; one in ten is a woman. What’s more, the increase in the number of homeless women veterans has coincided with a drop in homelessness among their male counterparts, according to Peter Dougherty, director of homeless veterans programs at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

YouTube - ‪Republican Senators Blocks Homeless Veterans Bill‬‏

homelessness for everyone is increasing, there's a recession, whoops, poor economy on, have you heard?

some Q's- there is no prgm. in being that deals with veteran outreach? why do we need an act? why don't they find the correct prgm in being and vote to increase its funding IF its warranted? do we know its warranted?

just another 3.5 Billion, on top of say the 4.5 Billion for Michelles pet project ..pretty soon we are talking real money.

and this all feeds the pathology and why dealing with democrats ends the way its ends up now. heres how it works- create a grp. cry , call everyone a greedy grinch if they don't approve, have a vote spend= more money......thats why they will never cut anything, they don't think there is anything ever that CAN be cut or not funded. Cowboy poetry anyone?

 

[theHawk]

Anybody voting against help for homeless vets are morally worthy of being impeached, sent home, and tried for malfeasance of office, and jailed for a long, long time.

How about providing proof that they voted "against help for homeless vets"?

This bill was about increasing spending in an already existing program. The program has not been cut, nor was there ever a vote to cut the current program to my knowledge.

Proof? Your point is hot air without it.

??

Maybe you should read the links provided in the OP. The vote was against a bill to increase spending for this particular program. There was never a vote to cut funding.

Carry on, dipshit.

 

[St.Blues]

Welfare;

For those that need it or for those who need the Votes?

I would bet most homeless people don't vote.

 

[Trajan]

from the link;

Women returning from war have unique risk factors for homelessness, such as trauma from sexual assault while in the military and lower earning potential than men. According to the Vietnam Veterans of America:

uh huh....shameless.

 

[peach174]

This is exactly what needs to be stopped.
We already have many programs in the VA that helps homeless veterans. It includes women already.
Sen. Patty Murry should have done her homework before she added a duplicate program.


This is why government is costing us too much money, programs on top of programs.
It was the right thing that they did. If government had done this to begin with we would not have the mess that we are in right now.
You libs need to wake up and do some of your own homework about these duplicate (more and more money) kind of bills.
She is pulling at the heartstrings of you libs and coning you into accepting more and more government.
She how it is written - we have to have more for them because they have children and are on the streets - key trigger word (trauma). When there are many programs already for them.
check out the VA Homeless benefits there are plenty of programs to help them.
Homeless Veterans Home

 

[Trajan]

This is exactly what needs to be stopped.
We already have many programs in the VA that helps homeless veterans. It includes women already.
Sen. Patty Murry should have done her homework before she added a duplicate program.


This is why government is costing us too much money, programs on top of programs.
It was the right thing that they did. If government had done this to begin with we would not have the mess that we are in right now.
You libs need to wake up and do some of your own homework about these duplicate (more and more money) kind of bills.
She is pulling at the heartstrings of you libs and coning you into accepting more and more government.
She how it is written - we have to have more for them because they have children and are on the streets. When there are many programs already for them.
check out the VA Homeless benefits there are plenty of programs to help them.
Homeless Veterans Home

thank you...

and 3 billion is a LOT of money, we are throwing terms like Trillions around that just makes a billion seems like a pittance.

 

[peach174]

This is exactly what needs to be stopped.
We already have many programs in the VA that helps homeless veterans. It includes women already.
Sen. Patty Murry should have done her homework before she added a duplicate program.


This is why government is costing us too much money, programs on top of programs.
It was the right thing that they did. If government had done this to begin with we would not have the mess that we are in right now.
You libs need to wake up and do some of your own homework about these duplicate (more and more money) kind of bills.
She is pulling at the heartstrings of you libs and coning you into accepting more and more government.
She how it is written - we have to have more for them because they have children and are on the streets. When there are many programs already for them.
check out the VA Homeless benefits there are plenty of programs to help them.
Homeless Veterans Home

thank you...

and 3 billion is a LOT of money, we are throwing terms like Trillions around that just makes a billion seems like a pittance.

A pittance here a pittance there has added up to 1.5 Trillion that we don't have.

 

[edthecynic]

How about providing proof that they voted "against help for homeless vets"?

This bill was about increasing spending in an already existing program. The program has not been cut, nor was there ever a vote to cut the current program to my knowledge.

Proof? Your point is hot air without it.

??

Maybe you should read the links provided in the OP. The vote was against a bill to increase spending for this particular program. There was never a vote to cut funding.

Carry on, dipshit.

Read the title
It says the GOP BLOCK benefits to homeless vets, it doesn't say "cut."