Armed Force lose tuition assistance

[BruceVC]

I just watched a poignant news story in the UK about a 23 year soldier in Afghanistan who was killed but has been awarded the Victoria Cross.

 

http://news.sky.com/story/1065461/victoria-cross-award-for-l-cpl-james-ashworth

 

I know thousands of soldiers have been killed but something touched me about this particular sacrifice he made trying to help his comrades. I guess part of it is the fact that the War in Afghanistan is ending and every death just seems futile. I also admire the type of person who at the age of 23  is really prepared to end his life to help his fellow soldiers. This is real heroism so I am sad but have huge admiration for what he did.

[Tsuga C]

I'd guess you're just being about as mature as a highschool girl.

Ooohhhhhhh, Justin Bieber, you make me so moist! 

[Guard Dog]

 

Illegals do not get tuition assistance. In California they can get in-state rates. That is it as far as I know.

 

And this IS all on Obama. He (or his admin more accurately) decides what programs get cut/defunded. Obama proposed and insisted on (then blamed on Republicans) these cuts. But think of this they are spending over $3.9 Trillion this year and the cuts are $85 Billion. Last year they spent $3.7 Trillion. So you see, the total amout of the cuts is LESS THAN THE INCREASE from this year to last. And since Obama is in charge of actually spending the money he can pick what gets cut. The US Government will spend more money on 2013 even with the cuts than in 2012 and they could afford tuition assistance in 2012.

 

He is screwing the military simply to score poitical points against the other side. That is all this is. Of course he can still go play golf with Tiger Woods and Michelle Obama will still have her lavish multi-million dollar birthday party featuring Beyonce and Adele and a dress that will cost more tha I earn in two years all provided at tax payer expense And we, especially the military, can eat cake if we don't like it.

 

This is very disgusting to me because I have my degree because of my military benefits. Between the classes I took while in and the GI Bill. But nothing this small, petty, despicable little man does suprises me any more.

 

Did I just hear a drone propellor pass over?

Source? Can you provide the actual legislation which enacts this?

 

And I'm quite certain anyone can come up with a list of extravagant, expensive indulgences taken by any president.

 

Since ad hominems and strawmen are the rule here, if (I won't accept the word of an angry... I'm guessing conservative, sans evidence,) Obama did cut financial aid for veterans, he'd still be a world better than what GOP God-King Ronald Reagan did to veterans. And the mentally ill.

 

Besides, it's thanks to Bush's P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act that the president has the ostensible power to drone as he pleases.

US Constitution Articles I, II, & IV, The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, CBIC Act of 1974. The President submits a budget. Congress approves (or not) and raises the revenue, the President spends the money as approved. As the Commander in Chief of the armed forces he has complete control over what they get, what their operational tempo (rate of deployment) will be and if they get their funding cut it's only because he asked for it/allowed it to happen. If you cut their budget but do not reduce their operational tempo he is forcing them to make cuts themselves. And the softest things like benefits and tuition assitance are the first to go. Believe me, he knows this and is fine with it so long as he can blame the pain on his political opposition.

 

And no argument here on Bush or the Patriot Act. In fact Obama has taken it one step further, two weeks ago his own justice department stated it would be perfectly legal for him to kill American citizens on American soil by drone strike if he deemed them to be terrorists.

[Calax]

 

 

Illegals do not get tuition assistance. In California they can get in-state rates. That is it as far as I know.

 

And this IS all on Obama. He (or his admin more accurately) decides what programs get cut/defunded. Obama proposed and insisted on (then blamed on Republicans) these cuts. But think of this they are spending over $3.9 Trillion this year and the cuts are $85 Billion. Last year they spent $3.7 Trillion. So you see, the total amout of the cuts is LESS THAN THE INCREASE from this year to last. And since Obama is in charge of actually spending the money he can pick what gets cut. The US Government will spend more money on 2013 even with the cuts than in 2012 and they could afford tuition assistance in 2012.

 

He is screwing the military simply to score poitical points against the other side. That is all this is. Of course he can still go play golf with Tiger Woods and Michelle Obama will still have her lavish multi-million dollar birthday party featuring Beyonce and Adele and a dress that will cost more tha I earn in two years all provided at tax payer expense And we, especially the military, can eat cake if we don't like it.

 

This is very disgusting to me because I have my degree because of my military benefits. Between the classes I took while in and the GI Bill. But nothing this small, petty, despicable little man does suprises me any more.

 

Did I just hear a drone propellor pass over?

Source? Can you provide the actual legislation which enacts this?

 

And I'm quite certain anyone can come up with a list of extravagant, expensive indulgences taken by any president.

 

Since ad hominems and strawmen are the rule here, if (I won't accept the word of an angry... I'm guessing conservative, sans evidence,) Obama did cut financial aid for veterans, he'd still be a world better than what GOP God-King Ronald Reagan did to veterans. And the mentally ill.

 

Besides, it's thanks to Bush's P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act that the president has the ostensible power to drone as he pleases.

US Constitution Articles I, II, & IV, The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, CBIC Act of 1974. The President submits a budget. Congress approves (or not) and raises the revenue, the President spends the money as approved. As the Commander in Chief of the armed forces he has complete control over what they get, what their operational tempo (rate of deployment) will be and if they get their funding cut it's only because he asked for it/allowed it to happen. If you cut their budget but do not reduce their operational tempo he is forcing them to make cuts themselves. And the softest things like benefits and tuition assitance are the first to go. Believe me, he knows this and is fine with it so long as he can blame the pain on his political opposition.

 

And no argument here on Bush or the Patriot Act. In fact Obama has taken it one step further, two weeks ago his own justice department stated it would be perfectly legal for him to kill American citizens on American soil by drone strike if he deemed them to be terrorists.

Uhhhh...

 

[Guard Dog]

Yeah that's nice Calax I saw that too. Of course we can all just forget that a week earlier he asserted the exact opposite of that and only issued that memo after a public outcry, their own lapdog media turning against them (some of them at least), and a very public filibuster by a very couragous man who overyone then insulted because he took a moral stand.

[NOK222]

A lot of people are/were taking Rand Paul's side. Liberals, Libertarians and Conservatrons. 

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/17/sen-rand-paul-introduces-fetal-personhood-bill-to-outlaw-abortion/? Then he had pull this ****. For such a Libertarian hero, he sure does seem like another religious nutjob. 

[Calax]

Yeah that's nice Calax I saw that too. Of course we can all just forget that a week earlier he asserted the exact opposite of that and only issued that memo after a public outcry, their own lapdog media turning against them (some of them at least), and a very public filibuster by a very couragous man who overyone then insulted because he took a moral stand.

See... here's the thing. 

 

He didn't.

 

 

If you actually read what he says, he's saying that in the extreme circumstances relating to, you know, an invasion by a hostile nation.

 

As in "We will use drone strikes and weapons to kill our enemies as they're trying to cross the Sierra Nevada Mountains with their tanks and machine guns". They're very specific in citing the use of law enforcement officials within the bounds of United States territory. However, Rand Paul and his supporters, decided to look at it more as a "Well you didn't explicitly say you couldn't so you can and will!". Well his supporters and Obama's opponents did, while Rand Paul drew more attention to it and wanted the clarification before embarking on a crusade of "We're all gonna get put in the concentration camps by the liberal drone strike sky gods who want to steal our guns so we can't shoot back!"

 

Also an extreme circumstance like *dun dun dunnnnnn* a civil war. I don't think you can try the millions that'd be on the opposing side.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Calax

[NOK222]

They need to make that clearer in law though, not with the ambiguity that it has now. 

[Calax]

True, but then drone striking has only really been a "thing" for the past few years, when Congress has suffered more gridlock than the New York tunnels during a cave in. My point was that GD, Rand Pauls constituents, and the Anti-Obama crew took something that was ambiguous, and made it into something that was specific.

 

If you look at the language (pardoning the stuff about drone strikes having not happened on US soil) he's talking about ANY use of military force within the borders of the States. Be it Drones, Air Force, Marines, National Guard or the magical kitty cat they keep locked up at the center of the pentagon (oh it's there!). Basically the point about drone strikes that everyone was bringing up, that the President could carry out drone strikes on US citizens, is entirely true in a very... different way of looking at it. It's true in the same way he can order the US military to roll down the interstates to attack an enemy on the streets, or to have jets screaming between buildings while fighting an enemy that's on US soil.

 

The reason that everyone is flipping out over it being drones, rather than realizing that, technically, that same "loophole" applies to every other weapon he is in control of, is because of the fact that people assume that Drones are going to be an automated army that has no oversight, unlike an F-22/F-35/F/A-18. There are still pilots for each of these aircraft, there are still ground crews for each of these aircraft, there are still airbases for these aircraft. The only difference is that, rather than having a guy stuck in a tiny seat at 30k feet above sea level trying not to get to bored as he flies across the ocean, the guy is in a bigger room on the ground and can stretch his legs during the 14 hour flight or whatever.

 

Basically the point I'm trying to make, is that the only reason/time that Drones (and by extension any military force) would start raining rockets down on the US is if the US was being openly attacked by somebody in that location.

[Guard Dog]

To put it all on the table Calax, when Holder was testifying before the Senate Armed Services Comittee he was a lot more glib about using drones against Americans engaged in "terrorist activity" (his exact words) on US soil. Couple that with the DHS memo of 2009 http://www.infowars.com/homeland-security-report-lists-liberty-lovers-as-terrorists/ and you've got a very disturbing combination of facts.

 

Now want complete and total candor from you on this one. Suppose all the facts are reversed here, suppose it was George W Bush in office with a friendly Senate and his AG makes that comment and his DHS lists college campus activists, liberals and 99% protestors as likely terrorists. Would you have a problem with that?

[Calax]

To put it all on the table Calax, when Holder was testifying before the Senate Armed Services Comittee he was a lot more glib about using drones against Americans engaged in "terrorist activity" (his exact words) on US soil. Couple that with the DHS memo of 2009 http://www.infowars.com/homeland-security-report-lists-liberty-lovers-as-terrorists/ and you've got a very disturbing combination of facts.

 

Now want complete and total candor from you on this one. Suppose all the facts are reversed here, suppose it was George W Bush in office with a friendly Senate and his AG makes that comment and his DHS lists college campus activists, liberals and 99% protestors as likely terrorists. Would you have a problem with that?

Did you read the study? The DHS one... because while the article you linked is quite "OH NOES THEY ARE PIGEONHOLING US AS TERRORISTZ!" the actual study has

 

 

Extreme Right-Wing: groups that believe that one’s personal and/or national “way of life” is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent (for some the threat is from a specific ethnic, racial, or religious group), and believe in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism. Groups may also be fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.

 

 

Extreme Left-Wing: groups that want to bring about change through violent revolution rather than through established political processes. This category also includes secular left-wing groups that rely heavily on terrorism to overthrow the capitalist system and either establish “a dictatorship of the proletariat” (Marxist-Leninists) or, much more rarely, a decentralized, non-hierarchical political 

system (anarchists).

 

Religious: groups that seek to smite the purported enemies of God and other evildoers, impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists), forcibly insert religion into the political sphere (e.g., those who seek to politicize religion, such as Christian Reconstructionists and Islamists), and/or bring about Armageddon (apocalyptic millenarian cults; 2010: 17). For example, 

Jewish Direct Action, Mormon extremist, Jamaat-al-Fuqra, and Covenant, Sword and the Arm of the Lord (CSA) are included in this category.

 

Ethno-Nationalist/Separatist: regionally concentrated groups with a history of organized political autonomy with their own state, traditional ruler, or regional government, who are committed to gaining or regaining political independence through any means and who have supported political movements for autonomy at some time since 1945.

 

Single Issue: groups or individuals that obsessively focus on very specific or narrowly-defined causes (e.g., anti-abortion, anti-Catholic, anti-nuclear, anti-Castro). This category includes groups from all sides of the political spectrum.

Which seems quite a good list given that you're dealing with the idea of domestic terrorism. And while you may not like it, generally those who start pushing out the more extreme rhetoric, are also gonna be the ones who show up and blow up federal buildings (Tim McVeigh anyone?)

 

To your second paragraph? Yeah. But like I'm trying to say, THE STUDY DOESN'T SAY WHAT THE ARTICLE SAYS IT DOES. The article removes enough context to make it sound that much more dire and diversive. It'd be like the flip side article saying "The study lists students as possible threats!" when the study itself says "Student organizations that hold para-military assemblies and are hostile towards any authority figure". Kind of a difference there.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Calax

[Rostere]

I just watched a poignant news story in the UK about a 23 year soldier in Afghanistan who was killed but has been awarded the Victoria Cross.

 

http://news.sky.com/story/1065461/victoria-cross-award-for-l-cpl-james-ashworth

 

I know thousands of soldiers have been killed but something touched me about this particular sacrifice he made trying to help his comrades. I guess part of it is the fact that the War in Afghanistan is ending and every death just seems futile. I also admire the type of person who at the age of 23  is really prepared to end his life to help his fellow soldiers. This is real heroism so I am sad but have huge admiration for what he did.

 

The worst thing is that the futility of throwing lives away is also retroactive, i.e. in hindsight all the people who have died there effectively threw their lives away.

 

It's a human tragedy that people might go into war with the most selfless of intents and make the ultimate sacrifice for their country, and yet the war taken as a whole is just a meaningless act of random aggression. In the end, the heroes will be forgotten and all that remains will at best be the memory of a pointless conflict. One can only hope that society back home will at least treat the veterans with respect.

 

There are a lot of anti-war people who really try to portray the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of some sort of sinister affair where the US got advantages (oil, geopolitics, et.c.) by using military might, which could not be further from the actual reality. If you look at the situation now, you've got an Iraq which is BFF with Iran and an Afghanistan which is polarized against the US and potentially sliding back towards the Taliban. Meanwhile the conflicts have turned large parts of the Muslim world against the US and parts of the West increasing the risk for terrorist activities. I can totally visualize China and Russia sitting on the couch gloating as the public humiliation of the US in the Middle East continues, like if they're watching some awful episode of "Big Brother" or "Survivor".

 

People have a tendency to believe that large and powerful nations are surely being governed/controlled by intelligent people whose plans might not immidiately be obvious to the common citizen, in the same way that people believe in gods or conspiracy theories. Really, the only thing I sense behind the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is misdirected, irresponsible bellicosity. "I hate Hindus and Muslims ever since 2001 when they put down the Twin Towers I've been beating them up" - could as well have been a quote by George W. Bush back in the days as far as his policies are concerned. And as always, the blood of heroes is cheap and plentiful when we wish it wasn't, and rare when you really need it.

[BruceVC]

 

I just watched a poignant news story in the UK about a 23 year soldier in Afghanistan who was killed but has been awarded the Victoria Cross.

 

http://news.sky.com/story/1065461/victoria-cross-award-for-l-cpl-james-ashworth

 

I know thousands of soldiers have been killed but something touched me about this particular sacrifice he made trying to help his comrades. I guess part of it is the fact that the War in Afghanistan is ending and every death just seems futile. I also admire the type of person who at the age of 23  is really prepared to end his life to help his fellow soldiers. This is real heroism so I am sad but have huge admiration for what he did.

 

The worst thing is that the futility of throwing lives away is also retroactive, i.e. in hindsight all the people who have died there effectively threw their lives away.

 

It's a human tragedy that people might go into war with the most selfless of intents and make the ultimate sacrifice for their country, and yet the war taken as a whole is just a meaningless act of random aggression. In the end, the heroes will be forgotten and all that remains will at best be the memory of a pointless conflict. One can only hope that society back home will at least treat the veterans with respect.

 

There are a lot of anti-war people who really try to portray the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of some sort of sinister affair where the US got advantages (oil, geopolitics, et.c.) by using military might, which could not be further from the actual reality. If you look at the situation now, you've got an Iraq which is BFF with Iran and an Afghanistan which is polarized against the US and potentially sliding back towards the Taliban. Meanwhile the conflicts have turned large parts of the Muslim world against the US and parts of the West increasing the risk for terrorist activities. I can totally visualize China and Russia sitting on the couch gloating as the public humiliation of the US in the Middle East continues, like if they're watching some awful episode of "Big Brother" or "Survivor".

 

People have a tendency to believe that large and powerful nations are surely being governed/controlled by intelligent people whose plans might not immidiately be obvious to the common citizen, in the same way that people believe in gods or conspiracy theories. Really, the only thing I sense behind the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is misdirected, irresponsible bellicosity. "I hate Hindus and Muslims ever since 2001 when they put down the Twin Towers I've been beating them up" - could as well have been a quote by George W. Bush back in the days as far as his policies are concerned. And as always, the blood of heroes is cheap and plentiful when we wish it wasn't, and rare when you really need it.

 

You make some good points and I don't believe in conspiracy theories , I do see the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq as not benefiting the USA and the West that much for the reasons you mentioned. But I will say this

• The invasion of Afghanistan was necessary. AL-Qeada was behind 9/11 and the Taliban were given the chance to hand Bin Laden over. Of course the long term planning once the Taliban were defeated wasn't done so now we have to question the future of Afghanistan once the Western coalition leaves. But I don't see the lives lost as wasted
• Iraq is a different story. We now know that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qeada and that there was misinformation given to Western leaders. I can see no benefit or good reason for the West or the region for the invasion
• These wars lead to a complete change to how the West now intervenes in military conflict. Western countries now wait for the UN security council to support military action. This is a good thing as it means there won't be unilateral decisions from the West.
• Obama came to power as a result of these wars. He has been a good force in changing how people see the USA. The USA is now much less likely to just attack any country that threatens it without good evidence. So I see this as a beneficial political change

[Enoch]

This has gotten pretty far afield, but I've actually looked into the original subject a little bit for work.

 

Sequestration (primer) was designed to shield military personnel and veterans from its cuts.  The law was written so that it didn't apply to the appropriations accounts that fund those activities.  However, Tuition Assistance (or, in budgetary talk, "voluntary educational assistance") isn't funded by a personnel ("MilPers") appropriation.  Instead, it is funded out of "Operations and Maintenance" (O&M).  I don't know the justification for this funding structure (possibly because the military departments have the discretion to limit access to it, as opposed to non-discretionary benefits like salary or retirement?), but it puts TA in the same category as base maintenance, equipment upkeep, and general "overhead" type costs.  And O&M (along with civilian personnel) is taking the brunt of the sequestration hits in DOD.  Plus, the sequestration order from the Office of Management and Budget that implements the law gives agencies very little discretion to pick and choose which programs get reduced -- the cuts generally have to fall on each program, project, and activity in relatively equal fashion. 

 

So, it's something that was probably not expected by the people who drafted the law, as TA being funded out of O&M is one of those small exceptions that is easy to miss.  And it does suck for those folks who are affected.  But as the victims of sequestration go, they're pretty far down the list.  Civilian DOD employees, for example, are facing one-day-per-week furloughs that amount to a 20% cut in their paychecks for six months, and a lot of contractor staff are being outright laid off. 

[Calax]

Enoch, can I just say that it's weird not seeing a muppet on a sax as "you" anymore.

[Gfted1]

Enoch, can I just say that it's weird not seeing a muppet on a sax as "you" anymore.

Yeah, I identify long time posters by their avatars too. When he and Gorgon changed its like they disappeared from existance.

[Enoch]

Enoch, can I just say that it's weird not seeing a muppet on a sax as "you" anymore.

 

That was 2 avatars ago!  I was Lancelot Link for a rather long time in between Zoot and Sun Ra. 

[Nepenthe]

 

Enoch, can I just say that it's weird not seeing a muppet on a sax as "you" anymore.

Yeah, I identify long time posters by their avatars too. When he and Gorgon changed its like they disappeared from existance.

Ditto, I think I had the Hot Fuzz avatar for years myself, I think I even missed some of my own posts back when I changed...

[Walsingham]

My one is pretty much perfect for me, I feel.

 

For one minute I thought this thread was about the UK. That would have had massive social implications. In fact, now I think about it, it still might.

 

Basically  a big portion of private "public" schools rely on the Armed Forces sending their brats through to make up the numbers. No tuition and boarding allowances, no brats, no brats no cash. Schools shut down. Whole sector of society begins melting away like an embarrassing stain on a tie.

 

Probably bothers no-one. But being public school myself it's like being last of the bloody mohicans.

[Enoch]

FWIW, the continuing resolution that passed earlier this week did move some money around in DOD such that Tuition Assistance is now exempted from the sequestration cuts. 

 

The department is also got some more flexibility to transfer funds around, and they've announced that they'll be using it to reduce number of sequester days for DOD civilians from 22 to 14.  (They haven't said where the money is coming from yet.) 

[ShadySands]

...and tuition assistance is back

[Amentep]

...and tuition assistance is back

However, it should be pointed out, that from what I've been told, while the tuition assistance is "back on" it'll probably take a semester before students can actually start getting money again.