born okay the 1st time, tulsa (11/19/2009 3:01:35 PM)

While I have no problem with providing care to veterans, in fact, I am all for it; I do take extreme offense that they rejected his ammendment. For decades, the Senate has been running wild with taxpayer money, creating legislation with no way to fund it. I also hold objection to excluding older veterans from this bill. All veterans need help, not just recent ones.I do completely agree with the UN being a corrupt, wasteful organization. Cudos to Coburn for attempting to create some fiscal responsibility. Maybe now his actions are a little more clear. Instead of blindly bashing his resistance to the bill, it can be seen WHY he was holding it up.

WhoseLeft, Tulsa (11/19/2009 3:04:59 PM)

Our senator has been grandstanding with another of his "look at me" activities, blocking assistance that we owe to veterans. Give me a break, taking money from our UN dues, again? That was Coburn's solution for this non-problem?

Tom, confess to this C Street silliness. You represent Oklahoma, not that cult.

007, London (11/19/2009 3:07:34 PM)

"Democrats warned that taking money away from U.N. peace-keeping efforts would increase the chances of war in a number of areas of the world and, in the end, cost the U.S. more."



Where? I'm all ears.

Loki, Broken Arrow (11/19/2009 3:13:21 PM)

The federal budget is a target rich environment for offsets. As a casual observation, the National Defense Authorization Act for 2010 contained $39 BILLION dollars in earmarks.

These earmarks are "unlegislated" money placed in the bill by individual members which does not go through the "normal" validation by committees.

You may rest assured these earmarks are the ONLY bipartisan activity that will occur in the 111th Congress.

Even an armadillo has enough imagination to find offsets in that environment.

Loki, Broken Arrow (11/19/2009 3:24:53 PM)

One last try to make this understood. Many of you are trying to make Sen. Coburn a "hero" for his stand on this issue.

It breaks out like this: $3.7 billion for the cripples and $39 billion in earmarks. Sen. Coburn went after the cripples.

This same Senator voted for two unfunded war supplemental funding bills, since the Bush administration refused to put war costs into the defense budget.

So Budget Hawk Tom had no problem paying for the wars to create cripples, but he's a hero for refusing to help pay for the cripples when they come home.

UUUUH RAAAH. Country first.

I'm Reliable, (11/19/2009 3:25:27 PM)

Senator Coburn is flat wrong!!
He's just another hardhearted Republican who only cares about the rich and wealthy people and you "Newsmax" are too! You care about only rich and wealthy people and how to get more wealth you are unconcerned about the poor and needy of society, but people like you will receive their just due rewards in the end.................................

Ron Ballew, Lawton (11/19/2009 3:28:30 PM)

The government has access to unlimited funds because it can tax the people any amount it chooses, and it can print as much money as it needs.

No one worried about the budget when they spent $1.4 Trillion on the unfunded bank bailout, so why worry about a paltry unfunded $3.77 Billion for the veterans?

Ron Ballew, Lawton (11/19/2009 3:29:57 PM)

Don't forget the unfunded $10 Trillion that the FED pumped into the economy during the bank bailout.

goatman, (11/19/2009 3:33:38 PM)

Loki,

I fully agree w/ everything you said. Very good explanation.

true2form, Grand Lake (11/19/2009 3:35:54 PM)

Dr. No gets a NO!!!

Just a country boy, North Okmulgee County (11/19/2009 3:36:05 PM)

Wish the government would pump some money into my pocket. Seems everytime I look they always got there hand in there but they taken out.

James Young, Tulsa, Austin, Temecula (11/19/2009 3:37:17 PM)

{[Coburn] said his amendment would take a percentage of the money now going to the United Nations, which he described as a wasteful, corrupt organization.}

Is this the same UN that GWB referenced when he said upholding the UN’s resolution 1441 was our highest national priority?

Calgonbath, (11/19/2009 3:39:32 PM)

Once again Coburn has managed to make a fool of himself and make Oklahomans look like a bunch of Neanderthals. What a jerk.

goatman, (11/19/2009 3:39:46 PM)

Newsmax,
If they would just stop Bush's usless war and bring our boys home we would have money enough to pay for the veterans w/ plenty left over.

Loki, Broken Arrow (11/19/2009 3:41:01 PM)

Country Boy. President Bush made sure Wall Street got a TARP. The rest of us will have to live under a tarp.

Faith, (11/19/2009 3:48:00 PM)

His Amendment would have watered the bill down.
We won't forget the unfunded wars and the unfunded prescription Drug Bill in 2004 for Medicare he voted on either.

Loki, Broken Arrow (11/19/2009 3:54:22 PM)

Newsmax. The Bush administration negotiated a Status of Forces (SOFA) with Iraq which set the withdrawal schedule of U.S. forces.

To the extent you obviously are interested in truth, I suggest you google (verb) SOFA and Iraq. You should be able to read the entire document.

Woofenburger, Hominy (11/19/2009 3:54:53 PM)

Nicely put Loki. Thanks for the explanation.

true2form, Grand Lake (11/19/2009 3:58:10 PM)

Newsmax:
Yes, we do. I was unaware that you could hoist yourself to such a lofty perch without opposable thumbs!

Ignatz, A nice place where Democrats hold every office in the County. (11/19/2009 4:00:00 PM)

I guess if every project had to be "paid for" or "pay for itself" we wouldn't have any highways, bridges, or airports, now would we?

Skeptic, Tulsa (11/19/2009 4:15:33 PM)

Excellent posts Loki.

Newsmax, where was your patriotic concern when the previous administration took us to two wars while cutting taxes yet borrowing from China? In your book, I guess unfunded spending is OK as long as it's done for killing. Nothing more.

Phil Tower, (11/19/2009 4:17:46 PM)

I'm a disabled veteran from the Vietnam war and I was somewhat concerned about the supposed ineligibility of older vets for these new benefits.
Anyone addressing that angle in this discussion?....
Because I just don't know...

Ron Ballew, Lawton (11/19/2009 4:22:43 PM)

The Household budget and the Federal Budget are different horses. The Federal Budget can print its own money, but the household budget cannot.

Loki, Broken Arrow (11/19/2009 4:25:36 PM)

Newsmax. Thanks for the question. I "portray" myself as I am. If this was an act, don't you think I could come up with something better than this?

WRT spending. It's a huge concern. Starting in January, (say around the 20th) I saw three priorities:

1. Stop the bleeding (i.e. pull financial system back from the abyss.)

2. Stabilize economy. Credit was frozen. Create spender of last resort (U.S. government).

3. Begin controlling the deficit.

Those priorities were short term, medium term, and long term.

This worldwide "Swine" flu created by Wall Street swine affected every region of the globe. 100 percent of those economies WE damaged have used "stimulus" spending to dig themselves out of the hole.

So the spending (however unpleasant) makes sense. In the end, John Maynard Keynes was right.

Collateralized Mortgage Obligations (CMOs), Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) and Credit Default Swaps (CDS) are the tools Wall Street hammered us with. An UNREGULATED FREE MARKET which amounted to a casino. If the banks "hit", they get the profit. If the banks "lose", the taxpayers were forced to bail them out.

Now for the worst news. There is a thing called Collateralized Loan Obligations (CLOs). These are business loans sliced and diced like the mortgages were. These have not hit the fan yet. So hold on to your gag reflex, this bumpy flight ain't over yet.

Sorry if that's too long. But I'm still hacked off about what they did to us.

Makeda, Tulsa (11/19/2009 4:28:10 PM)

He's useless. What a waste of time, this could have been done and over with...I hope he is ready to retire...or move.