Obama cuts tuition assistance for troops but gives it to illegal aliens

[AgeofKnowledge]

It’s an Obama world.

Due to the sequester (proposed by the White House) the Obama administration will cancel tuition reimbursement for soldiers and Marines. But illegal aliens will still get it.

Army, Marine Corps Cancel Their Tuition Assistance Programs …But Illegal Aliens to Receive Financial Aid | The Gateway Pundit

The U.S. Army and Marine Corps have pulled the plug on their tuition assistance programs one week after across-the-board federal spending cuts known as sequestration went into effect.


Soldiers and Marines will be able to finish up courses they’ve already started, but they won’t be able to enroll in new courses, the Defense Department announced.


Illegal aliens will still, of course, have access.

 

[zeroturbulence]

Well, Obama's got to look out for his relatives I guess.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

It's not funny. Men and women that are ready to die for me can't have a college education but people breaking into the country and leeching off social services that I have to pay for, taking work that only Americans are supposed to have access to (or authorized foreign workers) under the table or with false papers, skipping out on taxes but making money of the earned income credit (sometimes for 2nd cousins in Mexico they put down as their kids), etc... etc... etc... are good to go.

Thanks Obama. Thanks for NOTHING!

Well, Obama's got to look out for his relatives I guess.

 

[pickles]

My son has this quarter, then one more for his degree.
So, this means he is out of ?
Even though this was the promise made to him for enlisting to a longer commitment, and risking his life repeatedly .

I guess obama forgot what a promise means and is.
Saddly I do wonder what the legacy of Obama will be?
Maby it will be forgotten.


God bless
pickles

 

[jimmydiggs]

We're going broke. Gotta cut everything, or we'll just slam this bus into a concrete wall. I'd rather slam the brakes and jostle some people around than smash into a wall and kill everyone.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I agree that austerity is part of the many economic changes which need to be made for the U.S. to be successful again and turn the NEGATIVE outlook into a POSITIVE outlook.

But Obama's spending priorities are completely out of line. He places illegal aliens over active veterans.

We're going broke. Gotta cut everything, or we'll just slam this bus into a concrete wall. I'd rather slam the brakes and jostle some people around than smash into a wall and kill everyone.

 

[Ritter]

This is completely political like almost everything else he does.

Those in the military are more likely to vote for a Republican than an illegal immigrant granted amnesty and given a college education.

Welcome to Chicago. I'll be here all night.

 

[dashadow]

Ah! What would a day be like without food for the hateful and the conspirators? Attack posts are never as honest or accurate as they might appear, from the left or right.

 

[Ritter]

There is a big difference between being a concerned citizen and being a bigot with an agenda.

 

[jimmydiggs]

I agree that austerity is part of the many economic changes which need to be made for the U.S. to be successful again and turn the NEGATIVE outlook into a POSITIVE outlook.

But Obama's spending priorities are completely out of line. He places illegal aliens over active veterans.

It all has to get cut. The military is going to have to be part of those cuts.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

How about welfare. Did you know that welfare spending increased form $561 billion in 2008 to over $1.03 trillion today and is projected to rise 90% over the next decade IF amnesty/path to citizenship is not part of it (in which case it could double) revealed in the report on welfare prepared by the scholarly nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Understand that welfare spending does NOT include entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, the two major Veteran's programs, corporate welfare, etc... That $1.03 trillion and rapidly rising annual cost is pure social welfare spending.

Now SIPRI reports that U.S. military spending is about $711 billion a year right now. It was $621 billion in 2008. Obama has increased military spending above Bush's. No peace dividend.

We need to reduce U.S. military spending to about half what it is right now. I agree with you on that. However, if you removed ALL military expenditures from the budget, we'd still be mounting enormous deficits anyways because of welfare spending, 23 million government employees (we need to reduce their numbers in half), etc...

Here, educate yourself: The Number One Reason Americans Vote For The Democratic Party ~ Help Fix America First

It all has to get cut. The military is going to have to be part of those cuts.

 

[Ritter]

A lot of our military is useless bureaucracy as it is. We are also feeding a lot of prisoners that would've been shot dead in any other war. I'm fine with cuts to the military.

But this move by our President has nothing to do with principled leadership. If that were the case we would be seeing a lot more layoffs in the Washington DC area.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I have ALL the numbers Ritter. All of them. I know the government bureaucracy inside and out and where every statistic is located within.

Total employment by industry (including federal, state, and local government employment) can be found at:

Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail [In thousands]

As of October 2012, the federal government employs about 2,807,000 people. State governments employ about 5,242,000 people. Local governments employ about 14,344,000 people.

So the total is 22,393,000 government employees.

I agree with you that pruning federal employment to about 1.8 million is desirable. State and local should be halved; however. There is a LOT of redundancy, fat, and waste in there. Public employee unions should either be decertified across the board or their ability to buy politicians through campaign contributions made illegal as there is a clear and present conflict of interest between public unions and the people's elected representatives.

A lot of our military is useless bureaucracy as it is. We are also feeding a lot of prisoners that would've been shot dead in any other war. I'm fine with cuts to the military.

But this move by our President has nothing to do with principled leadership. If that were the case we would be seeing a lot more layoffs in the Washington DC area.

 

[jimmydiggs]

How about welfare.

I said, cut it all.

Did you know that welfare spending increased form $561 billion in 2008 to over $1.03 trillion today and is projected to rise 90% over the next decade IF amnesty/path to citizenship is not part of it (in which case it could double) revealed in the report on welfare prepared by the scholarly nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Understand that welfare spending does NOT include entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, the two major Veteran's programs, corporate welfare, etc... That $1.03 trillion and rapidly rising annual cost is pure social welfare spending.

Now SIPRI reports that U.S. military spending is about $711 billion a year right now. It was $621 billion in 2008. Obama has increased military spending above Bush's. No peace dividend.

We need to reduce U.S. military spending to about half what it is right now. I agree with you on that. However, if you removed ALL military expenditures from the budget, we'd still be mounting enormous deficits anyways because of welfare spending, 23 million government employees (we need to reduce their numbers in half), etc...

Here, educate yourself: The Number One Reason Americans Vote For The Democratic Party ~ Help Fix America First

I will edumacate myself, but you' have to start reading my posts...

"It all has to get cut. The military is going to have to be part of those cuts."

By the way, I think you should be careful about aiming your political guns at me. I'm probably one of the more conservative members on this forum. I just don't drink the neo-con kool-aid.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Oh I'm not aiming my guns at you. I'm just sharing information.

Below are an example of the people we both have to look out for.

 

[Ritter]

I said, cut it all.


I will edumacate myself, but you' have to start reading my posts...

"It all has to get cut. The military is going to have to be part of those cuts."

By the way, I think you should be careful about aiming your political guns at me. I'm probably one of the more conservative members on this forum. I just don't drink the neo-con kool-aid.

I don't see him pointing any guns at you, man. Though I will point mine at the use of the word neo-con. I'm still not quite sure what it means as everyone and his brother has a different definition.

 

[jimmydiggs]

I don't see him pointing any guns at you, man. Though I will point mine at the use of the word neo-con. I'm still not quite sure what it means as everyone and his brother has a different definition.

I'm not a big fan of imperial ventures.

 

[Ritter]

Imperial ventures...that would make for an interesting thread. Thank you for clarifying where you stand on the definition.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Neoconservatism is a branch of American conservatism that includes endorsement of political individualism, free markets and the assertive promotion of democracy, and American national interest in international affairs including by military means.

There are many forms of political conservatism but neoconservatism came to the forefront of American politics when it wrenched the GOP away from the paleoconservatives under Ronald Reagan to win the Cold War with the Soviet Union.

Unfortunately, the GOP did not abandon neoconservatism afterwards and continues to dominate the GOP today.

 

[jimmydiggs]

Imperial ventures...that would make for an interesting thread. Thank you for clarifying where you stand on the definition.

It's only one facet. Neo-conservatism is kind of a shifting matter.

They're not quite fiscal conservatives, though they lean that direction... not quite social conservatives, though they lean that direction... etc..


"The neoconservative movement, as it rose in the 1970s, articulated a different vision from the Old Right. While they were not opposed to the New Deal, they thought the Great Society and the New Left went too far. Neoconservatives embraced an interventionist foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East. They espoused especially strong support for Israel and still believe the United States should help ensure the security of the Jewish state."

Neoconservatism and paleoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am more paleo, but not totally.