Obama vows to shield veterans from budget axe

Folks I'm sorry that I didn't see this thread when it first was posted- I want to remind all of you that this forum is not a political platform. The President may be a politician and the head of a political party, but he is also the Commander in Chief. If you have to post on this subject- please do so with respect for the President and for other posters. We are surrounded every day with slinging around political insults- they don't have any place here on the US Service Academy Forums. So please try and keep this in mind while posting.

Thanks for posting that, bruno. The OP was about a plan announced to save veterans benefits from the budget axe. The debate about whether this plan would or would not be implemented is fair game, in my judgment, and a proper subject on this "military news" forum. It got a bit off-course when folks started to assert blame for the budget mess, however. Your reminder to "keep things clean" is a very good one.

I continue to believe that the President's call to protect VA benefits will succeed and that it doesn't matter what the motives are underlying that initiative. What matters is that an initiative was made, and now at least one branch of government is obliged to back that up in the budget negotiations going forward (one of my earlier posts was aimed at explaining why Congress would be hard-pressed to challenge it).

I also think it is perfectly appropriate for posters to challenge my prediction of success as simply an "empty promise" and that my assumptions are, therefore, essentially unreliable information (as long as the challenges are made in the respectful manner that you suggest, and without turning this into a "blame game" for the budget woes we are currently facing).

I think sprog and Pima have done a very nice job in getting things back on track with their posts about the issue of VA benefits.
 
Bruno, are you suggesting that we all take the President's claim at face value then? Are we to ignore that his is a political figure and trying to be reelected? You cannot ignore political motives in the hope that we can all join hands and dance around the Commander in Chief cheering. Would be nice if we could.

The future officers posting to these forums will take an oath to the Constitution of the United States, the President Barack Obama.
 
Bruno, are you suggesting that we all take the President's claim at face value then? Are we to ignore that his is a political figure and trying to be reelected? You cannot ignore political motives in the hope that we can all join hands and dance around the Commander in Chief cheering. Would be nice if we could.

The future officers posting to these forums will take an oath to the Constitution of the United States, the President Barack Obama.

My thinking, and I do hate to speak for others, is that he simply wanted to remind us of the forum rules.

"The purpose of this site is not to discuss politics. Political discussions should be limited in context and scope, and our nation's elected officials respected at all times."

I don't think that it's wrong to discuss the political motivations behind the veterans' benefits issues, as that is fairly limited in scope and related to the military. It just can't devolve into a right versus left pissing match and be protected by the forum rules. In general, my view is that it can't be seen as disprespectful to the President to challenge his positions on issues of national importance. The opposite is true (it's patriotic to take an interest in issues and to question our elected officials). I don't see Bruno's post as encouraging the cheering of the President's policy stances; however, I do think Bruno was just gently reminding us not to let partisan rhetoric get too much into the mix (which is a forum rule violation).
 
Last edited:
Well said, sprog.:smile: Because your thoughts are highly respected here on SAF, I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts about whether vets will be able to avoid the budget axe. Thoughts?
 
Well said, sprog.:smile: Because your thoughts are highly respected here on SAF, I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts about whether vets will be able to avoid the budget axe. Thoughts?

Veterans, as a group, are a constituency that no one wants to seem against. They are in a better position than most to avoid significant cuts. Who knows what will happen?
 
Veterans, as a group, are a constituency that no one wants to seem against. They are in a better position than most to avoid significant cuts. Who knows what will happen?

Quite true. Same could be said about AARP and active-duty Defense. Tough choices ahead, indeed!
 
Bruno, are you suggesting that we all take the President's claim at face value then? Are we to ignore that his is a political figure and trying to be reelected? You cannot ignore political motives in the hope that we can all join hands and dance around the Commander in Chief cheering. Would be nice if we could.

The future officers posting to these forums will take an oath to the Constitution of the United States, the President Barack Obama.
No I don't think that you need to take what is being said as gospel- but I think that you can discuss this in more or less reasonable terms. The intent is to remind the posters that there are rules and a spirit that needs to be followed when we jump into threads that are predominantly about politics. This is neither a Tea Party convention nor a Move-on.org convention- it's a forum for those interested in the military as an education and profession and we need to act accordingly. It's not that difficult to do so though.
For example- as Sprog has done- you might point out that veterans have a pretty strong lobby and so the pressure to avoid cutting veterans benefits will be pretty strong. You might also discuss the counterbalancing political pressures to cut expenditures from both parties, while one party is generally trying to shield large social programs and the other generally is trying to shield defense programs. It's going to be an interesting balancing act regardless of what side of th equation you are looking at this from.

A reasonable person can reasonably discuss political dynamics without resorting to name calling, mud splashing etc... as well as proselytizing for one political party or another. It's ok to have a viewpoint and put it forward- you are supposed to. But you need to listen and debate other dissenting viewpoints without demonizing the people holding them. That's what I'm trying to remind the posters on this thread and is what the spirit and rules of the forum requires.
 
Last edited:
Ok, as someone who has worked with the Obama Office of Communications and DHS office of public affairs, there is an underlying concern for how things "look" instead of informing the public. This reason alone makes me less inclined to trust much of what comes out of their PA machine.

Has nothing to do with MoveOn or Tea Party or anything else...everything to do with the experience I've had with them.
 
I realize I'm taking this to the "extreme" but I think one of the things that isn't being said here is that there are a LARGE number of serving military members commenting in the forums.

And politics is a "heated/passionate" topic. While I love a great debate and participate in them all the time, I will NOT cross certain lines. And unfortunately in the day of "instant messages" and "stored information" anything put here may someday be available to others.

That all being said, I would remind folks of the UCMJ, Punitive Articles; specifically Article 88:

ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.


This would apply to cadets, midshipmen, and officers. Article 134 would probably have the same impact for an enlisted member.

I have no idea if this can apply to a member receiving retired pay; that's for a legal mind more knowledgeable than mine.

But...agree with Bruno and Sprog on this topic.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
Good question, does not apply to retired officers, i asked our legal staff ay headquarters prior to separating. And of course, it does not apply to separated officers.
 
I think we're getting a bit off topic here. If it were off-limits (which I do not believe it is) to discuss whether Veterans are likely or unlikely to have their benefits cut when the budget axe swings, then this forum has lost its utility. It is no different than discussing, say, the likelihood of whether ROTC scholarships will be cut this year or not.
 
I think we're getting a bit off topic here. If it were off-limits (which I do not believe it is) to discuss whether Veterans are likely or unlikely to have their benefits cut when the budget axe swings, then this forum has lost its utility. It is no different than discussing, say, the likelihood of whether ROTC scholarships will be cut this year or not.

Patent I don’t think that’s what being said. The difference being… this

It’s going to be difficult for the President to hold to those words considering the pressure he’s going to get from his own party to save more social programs especially if the cut recommendation comes from the DoD

Or this

The President is a bleeping idiot and should have never been in office because he just lied to us again on not cutting military benefits.

I think former is what the mods are saying ok the latter is not and we should show our future service men and woman there is a line in the sand and don’t cross it. Sorry LITS I couldn’t help myself! :yllol:

Oh and by the way the above was an example not my opinion.:biggrin:
 
After laughing a bit- yes that's really all I'm trying to say. Thanks:wink:

Patent I don’t think that’s what being said. The difference being… this

It’s going to be difficult for the President to hold to those words considering the pressure he’s going to get from his own party to save more social programs especially if the cut recommendation comes from the DoD

Or this

The President is a bleeping idiot and should have never been in office because he just lied to us again on not cutting military benefits.

I think former is what the mods are saying ok the latter is not and we should show our future service men and woman there is a line in the sand and don’t cross it. Sorry LITS I couldn’t help myself! :yllol:

Oh and by the way the above was an example not my opinion.:biggrin:
 
One of the reasons Article 88 is rarely and hard to prosecute is this:

"If not personally contemptuous, adverse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article."
 
One of the reasons Article 88 is rarely and hard to prosecute is this:

"If not personally contemptuous, adverse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article."

Good find, jadler03. :thumb: All the more reason for posters on SAF not to be "personally contemptuous"!!
 
Good find, jadler03. :thumb: All the more reason for posters on SAF not to be "personally contemptuous"!!

And that's the part that the forums have no use for!!!

Great calls folks!!!

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
Back
Top