Let’s be civil. The Flathead Beacon encourages vigorous discussion and lively debate, but we will delete comments that attack other readers, make accusations we can’t verify, stray too far off topic, criticize local businesses (call them if you have a problem), convict someone of a crime, use profanity or are simply judged to be in bad taste. We don’t always have someone moderating comments, so we ask for your help: If you see a comment that violates these ground rules, or you simply deem it offensive, please e-mail editor [at] flatheadbeacon.com. The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.
By Pogie on 06-13-08
A cursory examination by a fact checker would have revealed that Representative Rehberg is still distorting the record to hide the fact that he is choosing to put the interests of service men and women behind the interests of super-rich Americans.
Representative Rehberg claims that he was protecting Montana taxpayers, a fascinating claim. The total cost of the expanded educational benefits under the new G.I. Bill is $51.6 billion. Surely, Representative Rehberg doesn’t believe that Montanans pay the entire cost of federal programs, does he?
It’s possible–though I am just speculating here–that Representative Rehberg is deliberately inflating the cost to Montana taxpayers in an attempt to scuttle this bill.
Incidentally, those costs are over 10 years, hardly a huge price to pay for our service men and women.
The deeper deception in the piece, though, is the nature of the tax itself. While Rehberg claims that he is acting in the interests of Montana’s small businesses, the truth is anything but. Who does the tax impact? People who make in excess of $500,000 annually.
The average Montanan makes about $30,000 annually, but Representative Rehberg, while claiming to support average Montanans, who volunteer to serve in the military in huge numbers, is more interested in protecting the economic security of people who make sixteen times that amount.
Rehberg is once again showing his true colors. He will claim to support every popular measure before the Congress, because rhetoric is cheap. Having the commitment to pay for programs and actually provide support for needy families, the elderly, and veterans? That’s beyond Representative Rehberg’s comprehension. That style of Republican governance has brought us inadequate benefits and reckless deficit spending, a combination only the Bush-Rehberg combo could possibly support.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Theo Simons on 06-13-08
Unemployment benefits should not be
“political” in a time of rising unemployment. The economy is losing, not creating, jobs. Unemployment benefits will help stimulate the economy according to most economists.
This is a moral issue, helping vets and helping the unemployed, it is not a political issue.
That Representative Rehberg doesn’t know the difference is the real tragedy.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Bill on 06-13-08
You guys wear your political biases on your sleeves as badges of (dis)honor. It’s shameful.
Advancing G.I. benefits is not as simple as it seems on the surface.
In the 70’s The G.I. Bill gave me $190 a month. Enough to help but was certainly not full freight. Some troopers felt it was enough, some thought maybe a career in the military was a better option.
Increasing the benefits is nice and necessary but be careful. Raise them too little, the incentive to join the military is compromised. Raise the benefits too much and re-enlistments are compromised as “getting out” is too attractive compared to re-enlisting.
There has to be the perfect balance. The military needs quality career leaders to stay in.
Finding the right fine line is the job of ALL of the lawmakers, not a game played by partisan politicians and their cheering and booing sections.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By USMarine1171 on 06-13-08
Pogie hit the nail on the head. The only thing this Representative is doing is protecting his super rich friends who make over $500,000 per year. The tax to cover the New GI Bill would cost his super rich friends $2,500 a year.
So how the hell is $2,500 a year going to “hurt” small business owners? What a crock!!! I doubt the typical mom and pop store makes more than $500,000 a year!!!
Keep pandering to the rich you piece of slime. I will be letting all of my fmaily and friends know your TRUE priorities….and it’s not the veterans.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Roark on 06-16-08
Pelosi is the most disgraceful House Speaker in the history of the United States of America.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
By Pravda on 06-17-08
after VP Clinton takes over for the missing Pres. Obama and is jailed for her part, Pelosi will will be sworn in.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
In order to post comments you must register once with the Beacon and be logged in. Log in below or register now.
‘The Defining Story of This Band’
Glacier’s Quick Road to the Top
Giving Comfort When There is No Cure
Schweitzer Rejects NMAR’s Request for Special Session
Political, Agriculture Leaders React to Buffett’s BNSF Purchase
Comments on: Speaker Pelosi Plays Political Games with Our Troops
Let’s be civil. The Flathead Beacon encourages vigorous discussion and lively debate, but we will delete comments that attack other readers, make accusations we can’t verify, stray too far off topic, criticize local businesses (call them if you have a problem), convict someone of a crime, use profanity or are simply judged to be in bad taste. We don’t always have someone moderating comments, so we ask for your help: If you see a comment that violates these ground rules, or you simply deem it offensive, please e-mail editor [at] flatheadbeacon.com. The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.
By Pogie on 06-13-08
A cursory examination by a fact checker would have revealed that Representative Rehberg is still distorting the record to hide the fact that he is choosing to put the interests of service men and women behind the interests of super-rich Americans.
Representative Rehberg claims that he was protecting Montana taxpayers, a fascinating claim. The total cost of the expanded educational benefits under the new G.I. Bill is $51.6 billion. Surely, Representative Rehberg doesn’t believe that Montanans pay the entire cost of federal programs, does he?
It’s possible–though I am just speculating here–that Representative Rehberg is deliberately inflating the cost to Montana taxpayers in an attempt to scuttle this bill.
Incidentally, those costs are over 10 years, hardly a huge price to pay for our service men and women.
The deeper deception in the piece, though, is the nature of the tax itself. While Rehberg claims that he is acting in the interests of Montana’s small businesses, the truth is anything but. Who does the tax impact? People who make in excess of $500,000 annually.
The average Montanan makes about $30,000 annually, but Representative Rehberg, while claiming to support average Montanans, who volunteer to serve in the military in huge numbers, is more interested in protecting the economic security of people who make sixteen times that amount.
Rehberg is once again showing his true colors. He will claim to support every popular measure before the Congress, because rhetoric is cheap. Having the commitment to pay for programs and actually provide support for needy families, the elderly, and veterans? That’s beyond Representative Rehberg’s comprehension. That style of Republican governance has brought us inadequate benefits and reckless deficit spending, a combination only the Bush-Rehberg combo could possibly support.
By Theo Simons on 06-13-08
Unemployment benefits should not be
“political” in a time of rising unemployment. The economy is losing, not creating, jobs. Unemployment benefits will help stimulate the economy according to most economists.
This is a moral issue, helping vets and helping the unemployed, it is not a political issue.
That Representative Rehberg doesn’t know the difference is the real tragedy.
By Bill on 06-13-08
You guys wear your political biases on your sleeves as badges of (dis)honor. It’s shameful.
Advancing G.I. benefits is not as simple as it seems on the surface.
In the 70’s The G.I. Bill gave me $190 a month. Enough to help but was certainly not full freight. Some troopers felt it was enough, some thought maybe a career in the military was a better option.
Increasing the benefits is nice and necessary but be careful. Raise them too little, the incentive to join the military is compromised. Raise the benefits too much and re-enlistments are compromised as “getting out” is too attractive compared to re-enlisting.
There has to be the perfect balance. The military needs quality career leaders to stay in.
Finding the right fine line is the job of ALL of the lawmakers, not a game played by partisan politicians and their cheering and booing sections.
By USMarine1171 on 06-13-08
Pogie hit the nail on the head. The only thing this Representative is doing is protecting his super rich friends who make over $500,000 per year. The tax to cover the New GI Bill would cost his super rich friends $2,500 a year.
So how the hell is $2,500 a year going to “hurt” small business owners? What a crock!!! I doubt the typical mom and pop store makes more than $500,000 a year!!!
Keep pandering to the rich you piece of slime. I will be letting all of my fmaily and friends know your TRUE priorities….and it’s not the veterans.
By Roark on 06-16-08
Pelosi is the most disgraceful House Speaker in the history of the United States of America.
By Pravda on 06-17-08
after VP Clinton takes over for the missing Pres. Obama and is jailed for her part, Pelosi will will be sworn in.